 | British MP interviews David Strahan, author "The Last Oil Shock" | The Oil Drum: Europe | Facing the Hard Truths about Energy - the NPC report, commented |  |
72 comments on Will Nuclear Fusion Fill the Gap Left by Peak Oil?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Paul,
Load shifting can be a pretty big part of making renewables a larger part of the energy mix. This can be pretty cost effective and reduce energy prices for some of our largest loads. The very rapidly falling cost of solar and its anticipated trajectory make me think that storage is going to just fall out of the mix because the renewable sources are going to be so much cheaper than current sources. Wind also has a ways still to come down in price. Monbiot, for example, points out that going further offshore reduces costs because of the increased wind speeds there. You don't need as much equipment for the same power generated and delivered.
Utlities are already using power storage in a number of applications so there is already a "storage sector" that has developed. The US has about 24 GW of hydro capacity that can run backwards and most new thermal solar plants have thermal storage at least as an upgrade option. I look at some of the storage options at the Real Energy blog. Comments are welcome there.
Thanks, Chris, for the link to your energy blog and for the invitation to join you in these discussions; much appreciated.
As you might guess, I see tremendous opportunities to reduce peak demand and to better manage customer loads, especially as our electrical grid becomes increasingly "smarter". My hope is that we can use this same technology to "push" energy to end-users, so that the system is equally responsive to supply conditions as it is to demand (which, of course, allows us to better integrate various renewable resources such as solar and wind). I don't think we fully appreciate the range of opportunities available to us in terms of this push-pull dynamic. Intelligent controls combined with real time pricing could very well take us in directions previously unimagined.
Best regards,
Paul
Great post.
Don't forget plug-in hybrids (PHEV's) and EV's. Owners will pay for storage for their transportation needs, and buffering of wind generation intermittency would be a bonus. Plus, there's the possibility of Vehicle to Grid.
In the long run I think PHEV's will be the main answer to handling renewable intermittency.
Thanks, Nick. As you say, EV/PHEVs could help utilities dramatically expand their renewable energy portfolios, certainly well beyond what is possible today.
I have an oil-fired boiler and I really don't care when my service provider fills my tank, provided I don't run out of fuel. It could be today, tomorrow or sometime next week; it really doesn't matter, again, so long as I have sufficient heat whenever I need it. Now imagine if electrical utilities could operate the same way -- electricity delivered not strictly on the basis of customer demand, but whenever conditions were optimal and the cost of service was low.
In a sense, electric vehicles are a step in this direction. I get home at 17h30 and plug in the Chrysler. The next morning when I'm ready to head back to work, my batteries are fully recharged. It really makes no difference to me if charging began right away or at 02h00 in the morning, or if the flow of power were continuous or intermittent; I'm happy, so long as I'm fully charged when I'm ready to hit the road. Ideally, I would have the option of immediate, continuous charging if I needed a fast boost, but if the vehicle won't be used for another twelve or fourteen hours I could care less (a discounted rate for overnight/interruptible charging would offer suitable financial incentive).
So to recap, smart controls would allow utilities to provide consumers with the same level of service they enjoy now, but in a more efficient and cost-effective manner; any complexity would be hidden from the user and their patterns of usage would remain unchanged (e.g., they would still plug in their car for overnight charging but the utility would determine when and how power would be delivered over that timeframe). The second component is real-time pricing. In this case, utilities would charge consumers rates that vary day-by-day or hour-by-hour according to the true cost of supply. Providing this information to consumers (by way of a household display or internet website) would encourage a shift in discretionary demand to periods most favourable to both parties. Together, these two things would allow us to dramatically increase the amount of renewable energy we can incorporate into our power systems.
Best regards,
Paul
Absolutely.
For an innovative program for time of day pricing, see Thewattspot.com .