• 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Unfortunately we still need tunable baseline power in order to keep current, voltage, and frequency within the grid’s margin of error. Our options for that are: situationally available (and often environmentally problematic) hydro, fossil fuels, nuclear, and/or giant toxic/fire-prone battery banks.

    • CarbonIceDragon@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Would geothermal work? I can’t think of any particular reason that the heat of the earth should vary much with time (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong in this assumption), and energy production should be more controllable because to my understanding it generally just makes steam for a turbine like more traditional power sources.

    • oyo@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Out of those you listed, nuclear is the least flexible in terms of output regulation. PV with batteries is the most flexible.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Running frequency regulation off batteries is a silly idea, that’s more capacitor range. Also, flywheels, which is how fossil fuels do it anyway.

    • AggressivelyPassive@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      You forgot hydrogen, saltwater batteries, proper grids, biogas, etc.

      If you’d use nuclear power like that, you’d drive up the costs even more, because it’s just not very viable to compete with solar and wind during the day. Better to just invest in proper storage solutions.