Skip to main content
added 219 characters in body
Source Link
Spehro Pefhany
  • 407.1k
  • 22
  • 344
  • 916

In Germany this May, the price paid for renewable energy actually swung negative, as they had too much of it. In other words, they were charging producers to take the excess energy. So they dealt with the excess of energy by incentivizing the producers to not shove it onto the grid- which is easy with solar, and possible with wind power.

Different generating methods have different time constants- nuclear plants like to run flat-out and start-up and shut-down take a lot of time. Hydroelectric can be quickly altered in output by redirecting or choking the water flow. Thermal plants (I used to have one nearby) have a longer time constant so if you suddenly lose the load (wot is slowing the turbines down), the stored energy in the steam has to be vented (loudly!) to keep the generators from spooling out of control. They don't attempt to absorb the electrical energy, as far as I know, though I did a feasibility study on instrumentation for a massive energy sink that would absorb huge amounts of energy (it's fun making instruments that work with common-mode voltages of 100's of kV).

Storing energy in large amounts reasonably efficiently is a very difficult problem, with no obvious solution. Distributed batteries/inverters and the old-school method of pumping water uphill into a dam to store it, and letting it rush out through turbines and generators to recover (some of) it are a couple methods.

In Germany this May, the price paid for renewable energy actually swung negative, as they had too much of it. In other words, they were charging producers to take the excess energy. So they dealt with the excess of energy by incentivizing the producers to not shove it onto the grid- which is easy with solar, and possible with wind power.

Different generating methods have different time constants- nuclear plants like to run flat-out and start-up and shut-down take a lot of time. Hydroelectric can be quickly altered in output by redirecting or choking the water flow. Thermal plants (I used to have one nearby) have a longer time constant so if you suddenly lose the load (wot is slowing the turbines down), the stored energy in the steam has to be vented (loudly!) to keep the generators from spooling out of control. They don't attempt to absorb the electrical energy.

Storing energy in large amounts reasonably efficiently is a very difficult problem, with no obvious solution. Distributed batteries/inverters and the old-school method of pumping water uphill into a dam to store it, and letting it rush out through turbines and generators to recover (some of) it are a couple methods.

In Germany this May, the price paid for renewable energy actually swung negative, as they had too much of it. In other words, they were charging producers to take the excess energy. So they dealt with the excess of energy by incentivizing the producers to not shove it onto the grid- which is easy with solar, and possible with wind power.

Different generating methods have different time constants- nuclear plants like to run flat-out and start-up and shut-down take a lot of time. Hydroelectric can be quickly altered in output by redirecting or choking the water flow. Thermal plants (I used to have one nearby) have a longer time constant so if you suddenly lose the load (wot is slowing the turbines down), the stored energy in the steam has to be vented (loudly!) to keep the generators from spooling out of control. They don't attempt to absorb the electrical energy, as far as I know, though I did a feasibility study on instrumentation for a massive energy sink that would absorb huge amounts of energy (it's fun making instruments that work with common-mode voltages of 100's of kV).

Storing energy in large amounts reasonably efficiently is a very difficult problem, with no obvious solution. Distributed batteries/inverters and the old-school method of pumping water uphill into a dam to store it, and letting it rush out through turbines and generators to recover (some of) it are a couple methods.

added 691 characters in body
Source Link
Spehro Pefhany
  • 407.1k
  • 22
  • 344
  • 916

In Germany this May, the price paid for renewable energy actually swung negative, as they had too much of it. In other words, they were charging producers to take the excess energy. So they dealt with the excess of energy by incentivizing the producers to not shove it onto the grid- which is easy with solar, and possible with wind power.

Different generating methods have different time constants- nuclear plants like to run flat-out and start-up and shut-down take a lot of time. Hydroelectric can be quickly altered in output by redirecting or choking the water flow. Thermal plants (I used to have one nearby) have a longer time constant so if you suddenly lose the load (wot is slowing the turbines down), the stored energy in the steam has to be vented (loudly!) to keep the generators from spooling out of control. They don't attempt to absorb the electrical energy.

Storing energy in large amounts reasonably efficiently is a very difficult problem, with no obvious solution. Distributed batteries/inverters and the old-school method of pumping water uphill into a dam to store it, and letting it rush out through turbines and generators to recover (some of) it are a couple methods.

In Germany this May, the price paid for renewable energy actually swung negative, as they had too much of it. In other words, they were charging producers to take the excess energy.

Storing energy in large amounts reasonably efficiently is a very difficult problem, with no obvious solution. Distributed batteries/inverters and the old-school method of pumping water uphill into a dam to store it, and letting it rush out through turbines and generators to recover (some of) it are a couple methods.

In Germany this May, the price paid for renewable energy actually swung negative, as they had too much of it. In other words, they were charging producers to take the excess energy. So they dealt with the excess of energy by incentivizing the producers to not shove it onto the grid- which is easy with solar, and possible with wind power.

Different generating methods have different time constants- nuclear plants like to run flat-out and start-up and shut-down take a lot of time. Hydroelectric can be quickly altered in output by redirecting or choking the water flow. Thermal plants (I used to have one nearby) have a longer time constant so if you suddenly lose the load (wot is slowing the turbines down), the stored energy in the steam has to be vented (loudly!) to keep the generators from spooling out of control. They don't attempt to absorb the electrical energy.

Storing energy in large amounts reasonably efficiently is a very difficult problem, with no obvious solution. Distributed batteries/inverters and the old-school method of pumping water uphill into a dam to store it, and letting it rush out through turbines and generators to recover (some of) it are a couple methods.

Source Link
Spehro Pefhany
  • 407.1k
  • 22
  • 344
  • 916

In Germany this May, the price paid for renewable energy actually swung negative, as they had too much of it. In other words, they were charging producers to take the excess energy.

Storing energy in large amounts reasonably efficiently is a very difficult problem, with no obvious solution. Distributed batteries/inverters and the old-school method of pumping water uphill into a dam to store it, and letting it rush out through turbines and generators to recover (some of) it are a couple methods.