The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks
1–10 of 82 posts
Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks
#2> With no more carbon-free energy coming from Indian Point [nuclear plant], we see that natural gas and dual-fuel generation has filled the void and caused our grid to become more reliant on fossil fuels than it was two years ago. For all of the tough talk from New York’s politicians about tackling climate change, this is not the trajectory we should expect.
This is the talking point that needs to make the rounds in the media. Shutting down nuclear plants is beyond idiotic. Environmental groups need to do a 180 on nuclear, and politicians supporting this need to lose all "green" support.
Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks
#3I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone.
- NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean")
- none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output
- all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up nat gas peaker plants
No surprises here. We need batteries, more reliable clean base generation if we want to use less dirty peak generation.
Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks
#4The post is at least up front that it's got an agenda that it's setting out to prove.
A more standard measure of progress would be carbon intensity (carbon emitted per kWh generated) I have a hunch that it doesn't support this argument as the decision to bucket everything into "clean" or "dirty" is otherwise bizarre.
It's also misses things like greater electrification which might be graded poorly on this, e.g. every car running on gas powered electricity is an improvement but will show up here as a bad thing.
Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks
#5I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone. - NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean") - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output - all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up…
Is there a battery technology on the market that can be used at scale or do we need to wait for this to be invented?
Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks
#6I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone. - NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean") - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output - all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up…
Is there a battery technology on the market that can be used at scale or do we need to wait for this to be invented?
What invention are you suggesting? Magic? Entropy reversal? Suggesting that climate policy should be influenced by fiction is dangerous.
Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks
#7The post is at least up front that it's got an agenda that it's setting out to prove. A more standard measure of progress would be carbon intensity (carbon emitted per kWh generated) I have a hunch that it doesn't support this argument as the decision to bucket everything into "clean" or "dirty" is otherwise bizarre. It's also misses things like greater electrification which might be graded poorly on this, e.g. every…
>carbon emitted per kWh generated
Is it? If an energy source requires natural gas or coal to deal with peaks of increasingly hot days, this doesn't tell the whole story.
If we increase solar or wind to be a primary source, then we need to take into account the carbon cost of storage. Since this doesn't exist, it is an unknown.
Finally, the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. Carbon emitted per kWh generated assumes it will be operating at 100% over its lifetime. So we will need an over capacity of wind and solar generators. The actual carbon emitted per kWh will be much higher.
Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks
#8The post is at least up front that it's got an agenda that it's setting out to prove. A more standard measure of progress would be carbon intensity (carbon emitted per kWh generated) I have a hunch that it doesn't support this argument as the decision to bucket everything into "clean" or "dirty" is otherwise bizarre. It's also misses things like greater electrification which might be graded poorly on this, e.g. every…
>carbon emitted per kWh generated Is it? If an energy source requires natural gas or coal to deal with peaks of increasingly hot days, this doesn't tell the whole story. If we increase solar or wind to be a primary source, then we need to take into account the carbon cost of storage. Since this doesn't exist, it is an unknown. Finally, the sun doesn't always shine and the wind doesn't always blow. Carbon emitted per…
We will eventually get to a state where solar and wind is all we have/need. The requirement will be gridscale energy storage that contains enough storage for days of operation.
Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks
#9I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone. - NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean") - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output - all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up…
Is there a battery technology on the market that can be used at scale or do we need to wait for this to be invented?
The fella who invented lithium ion batteries invented:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass_battery
https://spectrum.ieee.org/john-goodenough-glass-battery-news...
Quebec hydro is actually developing it to go to grid scale. They have much better performance and none of the problems. In fact the early evidence is that the batteries somehow get better over time.
Re: The data behind New York's increasingly dirty electricity peaks
#10I appreciate the analysis, though I am not sure that any of the results should surprise anyone. - NY is moving away from nuclear (counted under "clean") - none of the "clean" sources can easily scale on demand. Sun, wind, hydro and nuclear have either fixed or random output - all peaker plants and less-desirable and so less-fully-maximized sources fall under the dirty category. Sun not providing enough juice? Ramp up…
Is there a battery technology on the market that can be used at scale or do we need to wait for this to be invented?
I believe "pumped water" is the currently available battery technology that has the capacities required, but I'm under the impression that it can't scale further (new dams / loss of green space)