Topics Covered: 00:00 - Decentralizing the Electric Grid 02:18 - The Need for Modernization 04:21 - Understanding the Grid's Operation 06:33 - The Complexity of Grid Management 08:24 - Increasing Outages and Volatility 11:43 - The Role of New Technologies 15:29 - ERCOT's Incentives and Infrastructure Challenges 17:49 - The Pros and Cons of Renewable Energy 19:25 - Energy Storage in Grid Sustainability 21:53 - Batteries Storage 25:19 - The Future of Natural Gas and Nuclear Power 30:27 - The Impact of Policy on the Grid
There is a factual error in this video from @10:45 to 11:05 where he talked about why it's very important that all the power doesn't come from wind, solar, natural gas or nuclear. He explains because the sun doesn't shine, the wind isn't always blowing and LNG can freeze in pipes. The mistake is lumping Nuclear in with the other weather dependant sources. You can have a grid run on all nuclear regardless of the weather or temperature. That is a huge difference.
Huge fan of nuclear! That said, it's probably not that cost-effective to operate a plant in a load-following capacity in a competitive market with variable load. Texas and France have both also had issues with their nuclear plants during critical periods, whether winter storms affecting safety systems or mechanical issues detected across a fleet. There are solutions to all of these issues, but it's probably just easier and more efficient to not rely 100% on any single source. Nuclear should absolutely make up a massive chunk of baseload, but it doesn't need to be all of it :)
Great presentation. I think new developments in geothermal are a game changer. Also a national super grid is a good idea. My statement on: Load Shifting A major criticisms of renewables energy is intermittency. That is for a given area and time insufficient electricity is produced. On a wider scale in some places it is a fact that available wind and sun are producing surplus energy. So for a wider area, intermittency declines. Then it becomes a trade-off between long-term storage and long-distance load shifting.
I’m from Somalia. The sun is available all day whole the year. If some of this companies are interested in, I welcome them here. You can make much money here. For 1KW it costs almost a dollar. There’s a huge demand and you can do a lean startup.
I give this video a C. It is missing two major technology. Dispatchable renewable energy. And long distance transmission lines. 1) Dispatchable renewable energy. There is the Myth of the 24/7/365 Power Plant. Nuclear, natural gas, coal power plants are not always available when you need power. They breakdown and fail. To solve this problem power companies build more power plants then they need. The same can be done with renewable power sources. Build excess wind and solar. Dispatch the solar and wind when needed. 2) Transmission lines. Adding transmission lines, can move electricity to areas suffering from low wind or cloudy skies. Studies using computer models of the US grid/solar/wind have shown that the US can go 100% renewable with the right combination of dispatchable solar, wind, storage, and transmission lines. They study actually showed the 100% would be cheaper. I actually think cutting the electric cord will happen in the future. Balancing enough dispatchable solar with enough battery storage, with electric car backup will lead to affordable reliable off grid power.
Thanks for the presentation. Intermittency shortages decrease with wide area load shifting. If enhanced geothermal development is successful this would provide baseload. I am not a fan of nuclear. However, recent reports of climate warming acceleration and damaging tipping points may force us to deploy large scale nuclear based carbon capture.
The chap has got it wrong in case of South Africa. Main issue is Generation. Grid is always day, ready & willing to transmit energy. If Generation units can’t meet demand/consumption, you still end up with an unbalanced supply-demand equation, regardless of how good your transmission grid is.
It would be great to look at the industrial base underlying the grid and various components of this problem; everything here is one layer above that, and most paths lead back to china. Can Ryan provide an update?
Good to see the topic being discussed. The public discussion/political policy is full of lofty ideas and zero engineering. The carbon-neutral bunch are mostly against nuclear and thus are supporting natural gas as the mainstay of generation. In Europe's case, shutting nuclear in favour of bringing in gas from an unfriendly regime. The politics and stupidity in play at the moment is really buggering up any discussion of carbon emissions vs energy cost vs political stability. Without the infrastructure being stable, there will be no electric car revolution. At present the grid is stabilised by gigantic, spinning weights. The shafts of turbines, the rotors of windmills or actual spinning weights in a vacuum. Without these inertial loads, the grid doesn't work. We're nowhere close to having a stable 'renewable' (read solar/wind) grid. We need the inertial systems, so pick your poison: zero carbon nuclear, or fossil fuel gas, coal.
Topics Covered:
00:00 - Decentralizing the Electric Grid
02:18 - The Need for Modernization
04:21 - Understanding the Grid's Operation
06:33 - The Complexity of Grid Management
08:24 - Increasing Outages and Volatility
11:43 - The Role of New Technologies
15:29 - ERCOT's Incentives and Infrastructure Challenges
17:49 - The Pros and Cons of Renewable Energy
19:25 - Energy Storage in Grid Sustainability
21:53 - Batteries Storage
25:19 - The Future of Natural Gas and Nuclear Power
30:27 - The Impact of Policy on the Grid
There is a factual error in this video from @10:45 to 11:05 where he talked about why it's very important that all the power doesn't come from wind, solar, natural gas or nuclear. He explains because the sun doesn't shine, the wind isn't always blowing and LNG can freeze in pipes.
The mistake is lumping Nuclear in with the other weather dependant sources. You can have a grid run on all nuclear regardless of the weather or temperature. That is a huge difference.
Huge fan of nuclear! That said, it's probably not that cost-effective to operate a plant in a load-following capacity in a competitive market with variable load. Texas and France have both also had issues with their nuclear plants during critical periods, whether winter storms affecting safety systems or mechanical issues detected across a fleet.
There are solutions to all of these issues, but it's probably just easier and more efficient to not rely 100% on any single source. Nuclear should absolutely make up a massive chunk of baseload, but it doesn't need to be all of it :)
So insanely informative. Going to listen to this 6 times over.
Great video! Would love to see more on micro-grids, hydrogen, and wave energy.
Getting Projects approved is Challenging
There's Grid Projects planned in '06 that broke Ground 9 months ago
Great presentation.
I think new developments in geothermal are a game changer.
Also a national super grid is a good idea.
My statement on:
Load Shifting
A major criticisms of renewables energy is intermittency. That is for a given area and time insufficient electricity is produced. On a wider scale in some places it is a fact that available wind and sun are producing surplus energy. So for a wider area, intermittency declines. Then it becomes a trade-off between long-term storage and long-distance load shifting.
I’m from Somalia. The sun is available all day whole the year. If some of this companies are interested in, I welcome them here. You can make much money here. For 1KW it costs almost a dollar. There’s a huge demand and you can do a lean startup.
The problem is storage
@@beforethebigbang1329 shortage of what?
Storing the energy from the sun by using batteries. Huge, expensive batteries
@@bg5760 can you explain more?
I give this video a C. It is missing two major technology. Dispatchable renewable energy. And long distance transmission lines.
1) Dispatchable renewable energy. There is the Myth of the 24/7/365 Power Plant. Nuclear, natural gas, coal power plants are not always available when you need power. They breakdown and fail. To solve this problem power companies build more power plants then they need. The same can be done with renewable power sources. Build excess wind and solar. Dispatch the solar and wind when needed.
2) Transmission lines. Adding transmission lines, can move electricity to areas suffering from low wind or cloudy skies.
Studies using computer models of the US grid/solar/wind have shown that the US can go 100% renewable with the right combination of dispatchable solar, wind, storage, and transmission lines. They study actually showed the 100% would be cheaper.
I actually think cutting the electric cord will happen in the future. Balancing enough dispatchable solar with enough battery storage, with electric car backup will lead to affordable reliable off grid power.
Wow this was very well produced! It reminded me of videos from Vox or Vice! Nice job, keep up the great work!
Thanks for the presentation. Intermittency shortages decrease with wide area load shifting. If enhanced geothermal development is successful this would provide baseload. I am not a fan of nuclear. However, recent reports of climate warming acceleration and damaging tipping points may force us to deploy large scale nuclear based carbon capture.
The chap has got it wrong in case of South Africa. Main issue is Generation. Grid is always day, ready & willing to transmit energy. If Generation units can’t meet demand/consumption, you still end up with an unbalanced supply-demand equation, regardless of how good your transmission grid is.
It would be great to look at the industrial base underlying the grid and various components of this problem; everything here is one layer above that, and most paths lead back to china. Can Ryan provide an update?
Good to see the topic being discussed. The public discussion/political policy is full of lofty ideas and zero engineering. The carbon-neutral bunch are mostly against nuclear and thus are supporting natural gas as the mainstay of generation. In Europe's case, shutting nuclear in favour of bringing in gas from an unfriendly regime. The politics and stupidity in play at the moment is really buggering up any discussion of carbon emissions vs energy cost vs political stability. Without the infrastructure being stable, there will be no electric car revolution. At present the grid is stabilised by gigantic, spinning weights. The shafts of turbines, the rotors of windmills or actual spinning weights in a vacuum. Without these inertial loads, the grid doesn't work. We're nowhere close to having a stable 'renewable' (read solar/wind) grid. We need the inertial systems, so pick your poison: zero carbon nuclear, or fossil fuel gas, coal.
USA should consider adapting the Siesta culture, and level the DUCK curve.
Thank you
It really could be just all nuclear. We just choose not too as a society.
Snot
Great video. Girl is a cutie pie.