←back to thread

160 points riordan | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
bryanlarsen ◴[] No.45955571[source]
Baseload generation is useless in 2025. It's in the name; it's called "base load", not "base generation".

Base generation was a cost optimization. Planners noticed that load never dropped below a specific level, and that cheapest power was from a plant designed to run 100% of the time rather than one designed to turn on and off frequently. So they could reduce cost by building a mix of base and peaker generation plants.

In 2025, that's no longer the case. The cheapest power is solar & wind, which produces power intermittently. And the next cheapest power is dispatchable.

To take advantage of this cheap intermittent power, we need a way to provide power when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. Which is provided by storage and/or peaker plants.

That's what we need. If added non-dispatchable power to that mix than we're displacing cheap solar/wind with more expensive mix, and still not eliminating the need for further storage/peaker plants.

If non-dispatchable power is significantly cheaper than storage and/or peaker power than it's useful in a modern grid. That's not the case in 2025. The next cheapest power is natural gas, and it's dispatchable. If you restrict to clean options, storage & geographical diversity is cheaper than other options. Batteries for short term storage and pumped hydro for long term storage.

replies(9): >>45956657 #>>45957289 #>>45957855 #>>45958287 #>>45958715 #>>45959254 #>>45959492 #>>45960012 #>>45961419 #
robocat ◴[] No.45960012[source]
> pumped hydro for long term storage.

You are using long-term in an extremely vague way.

Pumped hydro is not a solution for seasonal storage or yearly storage. Seasonal variation can be a problem in higher latitudes.

For example we have a serious problem in New Zealand where our existing "green" hydro lakes are sometimes low and our economy is affected: creating national power crises during dry years. We use coal-burning Huntley and peakers to somewhat cover occasional low hydro generation.

Unfortunately our existing generators also have regulatory capture, and they prevent generating competition (e.g. new solar farms) through rather dirty tactics (according to the insider I spoke with).

Apparently much of our hydro generation is equivalent to “run-of-river” which requires the river to flow. Although the lakes themselves are large, they don't have enough capacity to cover a dry year.

NZ had planned a pumped hydro, but it was expensive: planned cost of 16 billion compared against total NZ export income of ~100 billion. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/503816/govt-confirms-it-... So completely uneconomic risk (plus other problems like NIMBY).

replies(3): >>45960244 #>>45960866 #>>45962491 #
1. bryanlarsen ◴[] No.45960244[source]
Long term storage is definitely the weak point of moving to 100% carbon free electricity. Unfortunately geothermal does not cover this need. If we want to cover a dankelflaute with geothermal, we basically need enough geothermal to cover ~100% of our power needs. Pumped hydro is the best answer we have at the moment, even if it isn't a great answer.

What will likely happen is that people will decide that "99% is good enough", and use fossil generators to cover dankelflautes,

replies(5): >>45960638 #>>45960684 #>>45961493 #>>45961574 #>>45963188 #
2. dalyons ◴[] No.45960638[source]
Which is honestly fine, we would be in such an amazing place if we got to 99%
3. robocat ◴[] No.45961493[source]
I would guess dankelflaute is mostly irrelevant in New Zealand because our hydro lakes (assuming rivers are flowing) can smooth out generation shortfalls shorter than say a month (kinda equivalent to pumped hydro or batteries). A 3 day dankelflaute as given in the Wikipedia example would likely not matter in New Zealand. Plus our weather is variable, and generation is spread out.

  New Zealand's hydro storage is less than a sixth of the country's total yearly electricity use. Hydro generation typically accounts for over 50% of our annual electricity generation, making us reliant on river flows. The maximum storage (full lakes) is around 5 TWh.
The lakes can't smooth out over long periods.

About 20% of New Zealand electricity comes from geothermal. I would guess political and environmental issues would dominate costs for increasing geothermal generation (plus I would assume we've taken all the low hanging fruit).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunkelflaute

4. pfdietz ◴[] No.45961574[source]
> Unfortunately geothermal does not cover this need.

Artificial geothermal could though.

https://www.orcasciences.com/articles/standard-thermal

The size is orders of magnitude smaller than the depth of natural geothermal wells, and the temperature much higher. Even so, they are aiming for heat loss of < 1%/month, entirely adequate for seasonal energy storage.

5. ZeroGravitas ◴[] No.45963188[source]
Powering an extended, worst-case-scenario month-long dunkelflaute entirely with gas rather than a realistic mix of options would only take 5% of Germany's current gas usage (coincidentally roughly equivalent to Germany's domestic gas production).

It's wild how much attention that gets compared to the 50% being used to heat buildings.

That is a problem for which we already have great solutions. We have German made heat pumps, that could be German fitted and run off German generated electricity, or worst case EU electricity imports.

Solve 10% of that problem and you have freed up enough gas and money to cancel out an apocalyptic scale dunkelflaute or three every year.