Here's a very quick thought from my boss that I wanted to write down. Before I share it though - some background (edit: it's a lot of background - feel free to skip to the end).
People need energy. Currently in Australia, that energy is produced mostly by fossil fuels, which when burnt, emit carbon dioxide and damage the environment. Climate change. However, renewables are becoming a larger and larger percentage of the fuel mix (Australian Energy Update 2022), which is a good thing if you are concerned about climate change.
However, most of this renewable energy (roughly 75% as of 2021) is classified as intermittent or variable, which means that the generation is not guaranteed - it will fluctuate based on weather patterns, the time of day, or other factors. However, the way in which the generation fluctuates does not perfectly match the way in which the usage fluctuates (for example - a lot of energy is still used at night, when the sun isn't shining).
Before we get into the good stuff - one more definition:
- Base load power - the minimum amount of power used by a grid. Also used to refer to the power sources which supply that minimum power (typically things like nuclear and coal, which are slow to stop and start)
Please note however, that this base load does not need to be provided by a single mix of power sources, and
Now that we've set up the background, let's define the issue:
Variable energy sources provide the risk of an undersupply of energy at certain points in time, and this could lead to blackouts
There are 3 main methods to mitigate this issue (For more, see: Variable renewable energy - Wikipedia).
1. A complement of flexible power sources such as natural gas (more)
2. Storage (either short term such as batteries, or long term such as pumped)
3. Variable usage (Industrial electricity applications running when a lot of electricity is being produced)
4. Aligning generation with natural usage (concentrated solar is an example of this)
I would love to talk at length about each of these, and their role in a future energy mix which will most likely include a lot more variable energy sources. However, my main point today was to question the necessity of avoiding blackouts. While researching this topic, most sources don't mention the possibility of a blackout as a tradeoff that could be made - it's just something to be avoided within a certain tolerance. Potentially, this comes from the poor reputation that interruptions in energy supply suffer from?
Yes - blackouts are unpopular, but according to a random thought from my boss the other day, they are much less unpopular than the media leads us to think. If you asked people if they'd like $100 a month off their electricity bill if they had to endure 5 blackouts a year, his point was that a lot of people would say yes - and after some reflection I tend to agree. Admittedly, it is annoying, but it didn't used to be so unthinkable - blackouts occurred all the time when my parents were growing up. Additionally, if people really hate the idea of a blackout - there's the possibility of installing a battery system in their home (including an electric car as storage!) (Yes, only for the wealthy - but they're also the ones with the majority of political clout.)
(Edit based on a comment from a reader: Note also here that there are people that rely on power to live, ranging from those on life support technologies to also people with some disabilities who don't directly rely on life support or (predominantly) older people who require heating)
Of course, I just made up that figure of $100, but there is a tradeoff between risk of blackout and cost of generation. Given the large marginal cost of storage - and the fact that the fact that solar and wind are being hampered in part because of this cost of storage, maybe it's time to rethink the blackout?
Comentarios