this post was submitted on 02 Jul 2024
495 points (99.6% liked)

Technology

55750 readers
2657 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/17558715

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Hugin 21 points 5 days ago (6 children)

It's not just base load, turbines also provide grid stability. All the quick fluctuations as people turn things on and off are hard to load balance with solar, wind, or battery. A big spinning turbine has a lot of inertia. That helps keep thr grid at a constant frequency. As solar gets bigger and bigger we might need big solar powdered flywheel generators just to stabilize the grid.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 5 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

Inverters could also provide "virtual inertia" which help to stabilize the grid frequency. However most of today's inverters don't have it, or it's disabled.

This means we don't need solar powered flywheels, which are inherently inefficient, we just need software (edit: and batteries of course) more or less.

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/7/7/654

[–] Hugin 5 points 4 days ago

Partially. Inverters providing virtual inertia is good but has the problem of still being active and reactive. It helps and is cheaper and more efficient than flywheels.

Flywheels and turbines however provide a very sticky frequency. They help out a lot with stability and give inverters time to respond.

Think balancing a stick on your hand vs anchoring it in clay.

If we take enough turbines off line we are still probably going to need some mechanical power stabilization no matter how inefficient.

But yeah I think we are going to see a blend using as much electrical and as little mechanical as possible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 4 days ago (1 children)

The other side of that is matching supply to demand is basically instant. You pull power from batteries and they give you more (provided they're not at their safe limit). There's always a lag in getting turbines to spin up and down, and so there's a non-trivial mismatch time.

[–] Hugin 2 points 4 days ago

Actually no. Batteries and thier inverter adapt in the about one second to half a second range. The massive inertia of a turbine adapts in the millisecond range.

To maintain 60 hz you need to be in the very low milliseconds range. Remember at 60 hz you do a full sin wave cycle in 16ms.

Turbines act as a tremendous power smoother in the grid.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 4 days ago (3 children)

Lol,

Batteries are perfect for load balancing.

Please, know your facts

[–] [email protected] 13 points 4 days ago

The main issue with using batteries for load balancing is the massive resource investment required for them at a grid level, BUT that's more of a concern with lithium based batteries due to a number of factors. Sodium batteries use way more easily accessible and abundant materials.

NGL I'm hella fuckin hyped about sodium batteries vs lithium batteries.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 days ago

Batteries can't stabilise frequency. If the frequency changes too much, the grid will go down.

You literally need a giant spinning turbine for this.

It's pretty basic energy engineering, and is not related to load balancing.