Electricity is an amazing form of energy. It can run motors. It can light; it can heat; it can cool. It can transmit information. It can store information. Without it there are no radios, no TV's, no computers, no cell phones, no any kind of phones. It can be moved nearly instantly from one place to another. And it can do all this while producing nearly no pollution nor CO2 as it is used.
Here's how I think of the difference between dispatchable and intermittent sources of energy. Imagine you are running a convenience store, and you have two kinds of employee. One shows up on time and works an entire shift 99% of the time. The other shows up whenever he feels like it and leaves whenever he feels like leaving. He comes and goes as he pleases. Which employee is worth more? And why would you even want the unreliable kind, since you need the reliable kind always on standby anyway?
It's an engaging analogy, but devotees of the intermittent will point out that it is possible to store energy in a way you cannot store retail clerk services. The problem is they blind themselves to how expensive grid level storage is.
I don't think you're using the word 'grid' properly here. A 'grid' consists of the power plants, plus all the transmission and distribution infrastructure needed to get the electricity those plants produce to its point of use (step-up transformers, transmission lines, sub-stations, distribution lines, and finally transformers close to the end-user). I'm confident that Germany does not have separate grids for its intermittent power vs. its dispatchable power. All their power plants are part of the same grid, regardless whether they are intermittent or dispachable.
Of course none of the above pedantry on my part contradicts the point you're trying to make: That all intermittent plants need backup of some sort, and keeping such backup available is intrinsically very expensive. And given the fact that Germany's intermittent plants have more than double the nameplate capacity of Germany's average demand strongly implies that it's cheaper to keep dispachable plants available on stand-by and feed them the expensive fuel that they need to operate than it is to store excess intermittent power when it's available.
In North America we have approximately 2 months of average use storage of natural gas. And broadly similar for coal and oil.
This should be the default assumption for any fully electrified temperate climate system, and the onus is on those that argue that we need less to prove it. This is not to say 2 months of battery - that would be Musk level of crazy (yes, he did say battery only), but some combination of types of stored energy.
Nice analogy. Climate catastrophisers will glaze over though and simply move on. But it's those who are undecided who need to here it. Another example I've used is, like comparing a tent with a house. Tents provide some basic living space but do an almost entirely different thing to houses.
Here's how I think of the difference between dispatchable and intermittent sources of energy. Imagine you are running a convenience store, and you have two kinds of employee. One shows up on time and works an entire shift 99% of the time. The other shows up whenever he feels like it and leaves whenever he feels like leaving. He comes and goes as he pleases. Which employee is worth more? And why would you even want the unreliable kind, since you need the reliable kind always on standby anyway?
Russ,
It's an engaging analogy, but devotees of the intermittent will point out that it is possible to store energy in a way you cannot store retail clerk services. The problem is they blind themselves to how expensive grid level storage is.
"To support these two grids..."
I don't think you're using the word 'grid' properly here. A 'grid' consists of the power plants, plus all the transmission and distribution infrastructure needed to get the electricity those plants produce to its point of use (step-up transformers, transmission lines, sub-stations, distribution lines, and finally transformers close to the end-user). I'm confident that Germany does not have separate grids for its intermittent power vs. its dispatchable power. All their power plants are part of the same grid, regardless whether they are intermittent or dispachable.
Of course none of the above pedantry on my part contradicts the point you're trying to make: That all intermittent plants need backup of some sort, and keeping such backup available is intrinsically very expensive. And given the fact that Germany's intermittent plants have more than double the nameplate capacity of Germany's average demand strongly implies that it's cheaper to keep dispachable plants available on stand-by and feed them the expensive fuel that they need to operate than it is to store excess intermittent power when it's available.
In North America we have approximately 2 months of average use storage of natural gas. And broadly similar for coal and oil.
This should be the default assumption for any fully electrified temperate climate system, and the onus is on those that argue that we need less to prove it. This is not to say 2 months of battery - that would be Musk level of crazy (yes, he did say battery only), but some combination of types of stored energy.
Here’s my take
Fuel is stored energy
Wind and solar are not fuel
Go figure it out from there !
That rain / cistern / water-well metaphor is excellent.
How about extending it to cistern pressure is low; so you'll need a pump anyway to get the water to the upstairs bathtub.
Sort of like battery voltage is low and dc, so you'll need an ac inverter to boost it up to 240 V.
Nice analogy. Climate catastrophisers will glaze over though and simply move on. But it's those who are undecided who need to here it. Another example I've used is, like comparing a tent with a house. Tents provide some basic living space but do an almost entirely different thing to houses.