Liste des Groupes | Revenir à e design |
Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:
>On 10/06/2025 10:04 am, john larkin wrote:>On Mon, 9 Jun 2025 16:37:28 -0700, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid>
wrote:
On 6/9/2025 1:44 PM, Liz Tuddenham wrote:Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:>
>On 2025-06-09 21:54, Don Y wrote: > OTOH, we're sticking with other>
technologies (fossil fuels -- coal -- and > nukes) despite obvious and
yet to be solved problems INHERENT in their > technology.ÃÂ Adding
"inertia" synthetically to a network is a considerably > more
realistic goal than sorting out how to deal with nuclear waste or >
the consequences of burning carbon.
>
Solar and wind can be made to impose a gigantic inertia with
appropriate electronics. You can fixate the output at 50Hz, locked no
matter what.
Only if the surplus energy is available to supply the necessary
current.
But that assumes the old usage model where the utility was the "tail"
wagged by the consumer "dog".
>
Going forward, expect to see a closer integration of load and supply
management. It's just silly to over-provision just to accommodate any
*possible* demand when technology exists to predict and manage that
demand.
Right. People shouldn't just be allowed to cook or do their laundry or
heat their houses whenever they feel like.
But they can be offered cheaper rates to do it when the grid is less
heavily loaded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot,_Flat,_and_Crowded
spelled it all out back in 2008. Back then Thomas Friedman laid a lot of
emphasis on electric cars which are parked 95% of the time and
potentially available as a gigantic grid storage battery.
Are the batteries in those cars designed to only accommodate the 5%
normal usage? How would they cope with the constant charging and
discharging needed to stabilise the grid?
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.