Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
As I pointed out above, the balancing is less urgent. While you're doing your war-mode build-out of renewables capacity, you need a war-mode expansion of transmission infrastructure, but the balancing is provided by the fossil plants you're displacing. You don't need any new peaking gas plants, surely?

So, when you hit your target in terms of renewables capacity, and your fossil plants are only producing say 25% of the electricity they are producing today, you switch the war-mode effort to pumped storage etc... having done the planning carefully in the meantime of course.

It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue - Queen Elizabeth II

by eurogreen on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 05:01:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
eurogreen, I agree with you when you write that:
the balancing is provided by the fossil plants you're displacing. You don't need any new peaking gas plants, surely?

But the challenge set by asdf was an end to all coal-electricity within five years. So, I took that to mean no balancing with coal either, at least for this extreme-test scenario.

Yes, you're right that it would be cheaper to have some coal for balancing, in a 10-15 year transition. And in reality, that's what's happening: fossil plants just run with lower capacity factors, and might spend much of the year in mothballs.

by LondonAnalytics (Andrew Smith) on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 06:49:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
and even if we're still using existing plants less efficiently, the real goal of moving from poison is being accomplished. Under a "war-footing" we probably could eliminate coal within 5-10 years, but that would entail the enlightenment of an ignorant population, and the immediate germination of a new class of visionary politicians.


"Life shrinks or expands in proportion to one's courage." - Anaïs Nin
by Crazy Horse on Wed Sep 12th, 2012 at 07:00:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series