Push for EV will depend on politics!!! That is it. Just because there might be a strong push now, doesn’t mean if policymakers overreach, there won’t be a correction.
I am always a believer that solar should be build to match the AC need on the grid, maybe use ice storage to shift against duck curve. However I don't think solar should be used to offset fossil or nuke as you said, and cost comparison wise should only be compare against the fuel or variable cost part of the fossil / nuke because you still need to keep them around "just in case".
That would be a big change, they have a LOT invested in prismatic....
The acceleration power limit issue seems to be mostly restricted to pouch-cell cars. Both Ford and Porsche do this, I assume we'll see GM do it too. The i4 will give you all the ponies, not just for 10 seconds, but it does of course have thermal constraints which Bjorn was able to expose here. Quite similar to the thermal castration mechanism we see on the Mustang GT (gas car) when it was tracked, oil temperature triggered it.
Eh, that's a more complicated discussion. The Duck Curve is a real issue, I assume you didn't install big battery packs to buffer the morning and evening ramps?
Correct, and this drives up the cost for everyone else, because somebody has to pay for those peakers...
You know what, you bring up an excellent point.... That further proves mine. If only 20% of this entire country can possibly benefit from solar panels on rooftops, after 50 years of their existence, why is the government pushing this like there is no tomorrow? It makes zero economic sense for them to be throwing so much taxpayer money down this dry hole, that so few can benefit from.
That will not work... And the forum will fail.
Of course it is complicated issue. If it was simple, we wouldn’t have all the drama in TX etc.
I bloody well hope so, because this sort of lunacy is several bridges too far.
OK, let me know if you'd like to discuss the issue then
Nope, I am not electric engineer. However, I am not arguing this is replacement to nuclear generation etc.OK, let me know if you'd like to discuss the issue then
Are you familiar with the term Capacity Value? it's a very important metric that determines the usefulness of a given generator in a system.
I understand that, but a bit of knowledge never hurt anyone
I see where you going.I understand that, but a bit of knowledge never hurt anyone
Ultra-short abbreviated version:
Solar has high capacity value during the day at low levels of penetration in a given grid, because it displaces peaking capacity, however, this produces morning/evening ramps where solar isn't yet contributing/contributing significantly or its contribution is waning.
As you add more and more solar, its capacity value begins to plummet because these ramping requirements offset that value. It can get worse still when solar capacity starts eating into baseload, which is doubly bad if that baseload is clean hydro or nuclear, both of which have lower lifecycle emissions than solar.
To bring back capacity value, you have to add storage. So, while adding say 20MW of solar into an already peaking-covered grid would have a capacity value of near zero, if you add it with say 6 hours of storage to cover those ramps, its capacity value is considerably higher, but then so is the cost.
That's why I've said that solar installation capacity should be capped at a level that just displaces peakers and can be complimented with moderate levels of storage (preferably PHES, not batteries) when paired with low emissions baseload like nuclear and hydro, that creates the "best case" scenario and should be the lowest cost.
