Thread
About time I discussed why intermittent renewable energy sources (wind and solar) are a huge problem for the well-being of society. I believe this is one of the greatest struggles of our time. A thread:
It cannot be refuted that electricity has been instrumental in the progress of humankind since the industrial revolution. Countless metrics are available demonstrating this fact. One quick check is to ask one’s self how you would feel about using zero electricity for a full week.
The difficulty of this task cannot be understated; it is nigh on impossible in today’s modern society to function without electricity. To restrict one’s consumption would mean renouncing all devices of an electrical nature. All consumer and producer goods rely on electricity.
The manifestation of the importance of a secure, stable and reliable electrical grid is echoed in the central tenet of any power system operator: ensure the continuity of supply. Historically the grid was founded on fossil fuel generation, that includes coal, natural gas and oil.
These naturally occurring commodities were harnessed to release their energy resulting in the improvement of human well-being beyond measure. Human prosperity and energy consumption are inextricably linked.
In the majority of cases the modern grid was founded on AC power. Traditionally, what this means is there are many power plants that burn fossil fuels to release their energy to rotate large generators to produce electricity.
Many generators connect to the grid and they all rotate in step (aside from small deviations under normal conditions and during a disturbance), otherwise known as synchronism.
For the grid to be stable the supply of electricity produced by the generators must be balanced against the electrical demands of the consumers. This is done second by second to main a continuous supply of electricity.
With fossil fuel plants, if there was an increase in demand then more power would be required from the generators. Because these fuels could be stored easily there remained large capabilities to increase output or connect idle stations to the grid.
This is the first stumbling block of renewable energy sources (RES). They are fundamentally intermittent, hence their output either exceeds or lags the electrical demand. This is a huge problem if your job is to exactly balance supply and demand.
In terms of battery storage, there are no viable solutions for long-term battery storage. Economically it is a terrible idea.
The next major problem with RES is stability and a concept known as inertia. Ever drove your car before and taken your foot off the gas? Of course you know the car keeps travelling, it wants to remain at constant speed. This is inertia, the opposition to change of motion.
This applies to power grids because, as mentioned, there are many generators rotating in sync each with inertia. Fossil fuel plants naturally possess inertia due to their construction. Wind/solar due to their design have very little inertia.
It is in the nature of power systems to sustain disturbances, be it a lightning strike or a tree falling on a overhead line conductor. As a result generators can become disconnected from grid, leaving an imbalance between supply and demand. Without action the system is unstable.
Inertia acts as a crumple zone for power grids. The rotating generators essentially slow down the decline in the system, giving more time to the system operators to employ reserve power. RES offer inferior responses to impacts on the grid due to low levels of inertia.
With more RES and less inertia there is less time for grid operators to act and hence an increased probability of blackouts.
Now I will discuss the most troublesome response by power companies that is deemed necessary in order to accommodate large quantities of wind and solar power on the network, known as Demand Response.
The well-known phrase “keep the lights on” is firmly implanted in every power engineers mind since the formation of the industry. This ideology manifested itself to ensure that the generation of electricity was continuously altered to meet the changing demands of the consumers.
Now in the current environment system operators are progressively flirting with the concept of varying the consumers demand to meet the intermittent supply of power. This demand has been deemed “flexible”, in that the supply may be curtailed for managing the power network.
Flexible demand entails the target industry or commercial application reducing their output significantly such that their electrical demand decreases. This phenomenon has existed for a number of years, however is now required at the residential level on a huge scale.
The concept of flexible demand from a social-economic perspective is highly controversial and potentially damaging to society. Off the back of the industrial revolution society was developed to heights not previously seen, where individuals were provided with abundant energy.
All the modern-day comforts and tools were derived from a plentiful supply of energy. Renewables offer a restriction on the use of energy and hence promote a standard of living that is regressive and detrimental to the well-being of individuals.
Developments in technology will allow this flexible demand to be automatically and continuously controlled on a national scale. Economically what this implies is that grid operators will incentivise the reduction in output sustained by the flexible demand with suitable payments.
This becomes an operating cost of the power company that did not exist previously. How will they recoup these funds? It is not unlikely that government subsidies will come into play. RES are termed low cost sources of electricity but will come from tax payers or the money tree.
With modern day automation and controller technology, increased visibility and control will be obtained of the country’s electrical demands. This type of control in the hands of a private enterprise is bad enough for society. What kind of control will an authoritarian state have?
From the grid operators perspective, it is analogous to a central bank defaulting on its obligations. Similarly, the narrative is repackaged in a manner such that it does not appear to the ill-informed individual as an action contrary to the promise of the organisation.
It is described as an “innovation” and a new “exciting tool” to achieve carbon neutrality. What it boils down to, is the network operator has been given a license to curtail the individuals use of electricity simply to keep the system afloat.
This is completely contrary to the function of said organisations. “Keep the lights on” has been replaced with “Keep as few lights on as possible”.
The sole principle of maintaining a continuous and stable supply of electrical power is completely undermined by non-synchronous renewable generation. From a security of supply perspective, wind and solar offer nothing to the grid.
The term being coined in government as a“green industrial revolution” is a complete fallacy. To associate a movement that promotes the destabilising of the electrical network with a period of time that lifted millions (perhaps billions) of people to a higher standard of living
is insane. An increase in the per capita energy consumption lifted the citizens of nations from a sub-standard of living to lives of abundance and comfort. Grid operators worldwide are advocating for the destruction of their own industry in the name of political conformity.
The path ahead will likely prove disastrous when faced with the astronomical challenge that has been laid out.
Thank for for attending this TED talk.
Mentions
See All
Willy Woo @woonomic
·
Jul 26, 2022
Really nice write up.