Comment

Comment by ufmace

AFAIK it's not at all clear that solar and wind are really cheaper when making up a substantial part of a large-scale power grid that meets our current expectations of 100% consistent and reliable power everywhere, no matter what.

The unreliability of solar and wind requires either hot (constantly running and spinning) non-renewable backups or grid-scale power storage (has never been done so ? on cost to build and upkeep) to guarantee reliable voltage and AC frequency. The cost of that should be factored into determine the true cost of these power sources.

The stability of the grid is dependent on the collective physical inertia of the many tens of thousands of huge and heavy spinning turbine-generator sets that make up the majority of the current generating capacity. Most current solar power sources rely on grid-following inverters, which are not stable without a grid stabilized by a preponderance of large spinning turbines. There has been some work on grid-forming inverters that are less impacted by this, but AFAIK there aren't currently any that can replicate the grid stability provided by that physical inertia.

I'm less certain about wind turbines, but I think they have this problem too. I don't think they're controllable enough to be mechanically synced to the grid frequency.

I'd love to be wrong about this, please prove me so if you can! But I don't often hear these points addressed, and we're not helping anything by ignoring the complexity of the real world.

parent ufmace 2 years ago

Discussion

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton