This [US electrical grid] is one massive system, and the sources that feed it electricity have become increasingly diversified. And while the shortage of natural gas was a big reason for the power outages in Texas, it was certainly not a shortage of gas that caused the blackouts in California last summer during a heatwave. Grid reliability has come to the fore because the decarbonization of electricity generation is not all fun, games, and zero-emission power.
The U.S. grid, as it is now, cannot support the massive shift to low-carbon power generation, Westhaven Power says. Operators need better control of regional grids to be able to anticipate dangerous situations like the ones in Texas and California, but obtaining it would become trickier with more intermittent wind and solar feeding the grid, the utility explains.
"What events in Texas and California demonstrate is the shortcomings of having highly-centralised power systems and the true value of resilience and flexibility in our energy grids, a value that is going to become even more vital as we continue to transition to renewable energy," says Dr. Toby Gill, the chief executive of UK-based climate tech startup Intelligent Power Generation....
Resiliency is back in vogue.
"Reliability and resilience – even in the face of extreme events – is achieved through diversity, redundancy, and modularization. Co-locating energy supply with demand through microgrids and other DERs [distributed energy resources] is an important step in preventing widespread crises like this in the future," according to Mark Feasel, Smart Grid president, Schneider Electric North America.
"In both cases [Texas and California], the strain could have been reduced with distributed resources, such as batteries and solar, as well as demand response tools, like smart thermostats with utility control," says K.C. Boyce, vice president of human insights firm Escalent's energy division. "However, Texas has limited distributed resources and demand response, and while California has lots of distributed resources, it doesn't have a good way of coordinating those resources, nor does it really have demand response tools to call on."...
"The Developed World Isn't Ready For A Major Cut In Energy Use Per Capita" - Angela Saxon
ReplyDeleteMaybe not have Art degree climate nut jobs administer the system....
ReplyDeleteLet's face it, being anti-nuke is a fetish we need to abandon if we take excessive CO2 production seriously.
ReplyDeleteHeck, even Green Peace changed their stance on nuclear power, didn't they?
Thank God humanity is divided into nations so that different approaches can be tried... (Thinking of the French and the Chinese).
Get over it, even our bodies are slightly radioactive from NATURALLY produced sources.
Why go nuclear when there's plenty of fossil fuel left to burn?
ReplyDeleteWe won't be ready for decades.
Why go nuclear when there is small scale. Nuclear have massive energy losses just its distribution. And of course it’s monopoly system.
ReplyDeleteI'd love for all citizens to have small scale power generation (and grow their own food, etc.) but you are opposed to land redistribution so I guess we can't have that.
ReplyDeleteCould have community gardens, and community power generation.
ReplyDeleteYes, but certain activities such as aluminum production, hydrogen production, water desalination, etc. probably don't scale down very well.
ReplyDeleteNot that families should not be able to meet their BASIC (lighting, heat, communications, medical devices, etc.) power needs locally if not at their homes.
“ but you are opposed to land redistribution”
ReplyDeleteWell you have to answer who shall get the best land and who shall get the worst. You haven’t done that.
And small scale works no matter what.
That’ll free up a lot of energy for industry.
You haven’t done that. s400
ReplyDeleteYes, I have.
Ok then. Who will get the best land, who will get the worst?
ReplyDeleteThe land to be redistributed would be divided into lots of as equal a value as possible by experts and then the lots distributed by chance to landless citizens. People could later swap their lots between each other but could not sell them.
ReplyDeleteAs for who get's the "best" and "worst" lots, such as they are, that would depend on luck.
Oh, experts and luck. Who will appoint those experts?
ReplyDeleteAnd since when is a system for the people which outcomes will be depending on luck a fair system?
Experts, luck, and citizens can trade their lots among themselves endlessly but not sell them. Not to mention Biblical precedence (eg. Book of Joshua) which should count alot for a substantial percentage of the population thus giving a substantial political advantage.
ReplyDeleteAnd what are your alternatives to end homelessness and rent-slavery and, at least, reduce wage and debt slavery?
Who would trade their good lot for a worse? Nobody.
ReplyDeleteWhat you suggest is another extreme injustice system. Nothing else.
Tastes and needs vary, don't you know?
ReplyDeleteAnd what's your alternative?