probablypower

As an energy retailer, I have 10k+ timeseries.

If I made a similar statement in my industry, I would be jailed or at least heavily fined for market manipulation.

every solution engineers a greater problem. Solving horse poop with cars -> Climate change

This study doesn't correct for baseline exponential decay due to inflation, to better highlight the meaningful variations. By comparing based on 1914 dollars it also causes old variations to be relatively more extreme and newer inflationary events to look less extreme. You must compare apples to apples.

Finally the events are quite cherry-picked. It is a conclusion looking for a result, when the statistical reason for choosing those 4 events simply isn't evident when you look at the data itself. There is no mathematical rule you could apply to your dataset that would distinctly highlight those 4 periods.

First guess (may be wrong) is to manage thermal expansion/contraction constantly on a micro-scale.

60 MWh continuously means inf MW.

It is not a mistake, it is just being cheeky.

> Remind me again why we need investors to fund bad ideas?

A lot of good ideas only look bad in hindsight. It costs time and money to determine goodness, and that deserves funding.

The penultimate final frontier, adverts directly in front of your eyeballs 24/7, and tracking not just your position but your attention.

Only step beyond this is neural implants putting purchasing decisions directly into your grey matter.

There are a lot of posts here pushing batteries.

Batteries are an expensive solution that doesn't scale well at the grid level. It is useful for grid stability (fast frequency response) but simply a non-starter when you're dealing with national grids.

Batteries are an added cost to the system, without producing more electricity, and as a result prices will go up.

A far cheaper source of flexibility is Demand Side Response. Particularly data centres that are willing to be market actors. Compute can happen anywhere, so it should happen where the wind blows and the sun shines. It is cheaper to transmit bits than Megawatts.

This is an insane suggestion if you had a concept for how expensive batteries are and the scale of flexibility issues on the european grid.

It also does nothing to help transmission grid frequency stability and control.

Batteries don't provide meaningful flexibility on a continental scale. They're useful in localised frequency control or microgrid flexibility.

An exercise to the reader, calculate the space and materials required to replace the average norwegian hydro reservoir with batteries.

Nuclear tech doesn't provide required ramp rates at a useful price. I do agree however that more nuclear helps.

The problem is dispatchability/flexibility, not storage. At a more complex level the issue is grid inertia and frequency response.