North Carolina Energy Company Finds Solar Power Actually Increases Pollution

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
Duke’s problem shows what happens when basic science collides with operational reality. Solar energy is intermittent. Until a reasonable storage technology is available, natural gas plants must operate when solar is brought on and off the grid. Put simply, the gas plant is generating power when the sun isn’t shining. Duke’s applications reportedly show that, due to the see-saw effect of deploying solar, emissions of the pollutant nitrogen oxide have increased, even though the level is lower than emissions from purely coal-based energy.

North State Journal also reported on Duke’s concerns about the potential reversal of reductions in another pollutant, carbon dioxide, if North Carolina continues to impose its renewables mandate on utilities. Such a reversal is possible if regulations force Duke to reduce nuclear plant output because it must accept solar electricity instead. It turns out that when zero-emission nuclear plants are dialed back to make room for solar, greenhouse gas-emitting plants must be employed to give nuclear plants time to ramp back up when the sun goes down. That’s not exactly the results environmentalists were expecting from the push to adopt solar power.

In the science field, we adjust our views and practices as new evidence and data come to light. That’s where we find ourselves today. Duke’s real-world experience is pointing us to simple but effective steps to ensure we’re producing affordable, low greenhouse gas-emitting electricity.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/0...nds-solar-power-actually-increases-pollution/
 

Bonehead

Well-Known Member
Duke’s problem shows what happens when basic science collides with operational reality. Solar energy is intermittent. Until a reasonable storage technology is available, natural gas plants must operate when solar is brought on and off the grid. Put simply, the gas plant is generating power when the sun isn’t shining. Duke’s applications reportedly show that, due to the see-saw effect of deploying solar, emissions of the pollutant nitrogen oxide have increased, even though the level is lower than emissions from purely coal-based energy.

North State Journal also reported on Duke’s concerns about the potential reversal of reductions in another pollutant, carbon dioxide, if North Carolina continues to impose its renewables mandate on utilities. Such a reversal is possible if regulations force Duke to reduce nuclear plant output because it must accept solar electricity instead. It turns out that when zero-emission nuclear plants are dialed back to make room for solar, greenhouse gas-emitting plants must be employed to give nuclear plants time to ramp back up when the sun goes down. That’s not exactly the results environmentalists were expecting from the push to adopt solar power.

In the science field, we adjust our views and practices as new evidence and data come to light. That’s where we find ourselves today. Duke’s real-world experience is pointing us to simple but effective steps to ensure we’re producing affordable, low greenhouse gas-emitting electricity.

https://thefederalist.com/2019/10/0...nds-solar-power-actually-increases-pollution/

Changing the power output of a Reactor is a recipe for disaster. These plants run best and most efficiently at 100 %. Changing power constantly causes thermal and pressure transients through numerous primary and secondary components that will lead to failure. Our local plants run for two years straight at 100% then shut down to refuel the Reactor barring mid cycle component failures.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
But that's the thing, storage does exist.

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-pow...ls-fossil-fuel-backup-plants-south-australia/

No hating on nukes, I think they have a place, but solar/wind with storage seems pretty simple.

Prior to the installation of the Tesla Powerpack farm, the local providers of FCAS turned the South Australian energy grid into a booming business. The providers, which utilize fossil fuel-powered plants, kept the price of FCAS in the state extremely high, rising nearly 100-fold to the market cap of $14,000/MWh. At one point, the cost of South Australia’s FCAS rose to around $6 million a day, and considering the strain on the region’s energy grid; the state ended up paying more than $100 million in 2016 and 2017.
 

glhs837

Power with Control
Oh, I know h
But we'll never have more than a fairly small total amount of each. Storage or no storage.

Oh, I know that these together cannot fill the need, but I was soley adressing this bit.

Duke’s problem shows what happens when basic science collides with operational reality. Solar energy is intermittent. Until a reasonable storage technology is available, natural gas plants must operate when solar is brought on and off the grid.

The storage is less expensive to build, and has far faster response to changes than gas plants ever dream of. The storage allows your solar delivery to the grid to be even. Part to the grid, part to the storage, and feed the storage back to the grid when the cells are not producing. Extra storage capacity allows the solar to act as a buffer like it is in Hornsdale.
 

Gilligan

#*! boat!
PREMO Member
Oh, I know h


Oh, I know that these together cannot fill the need, but I was soley adressing this bit.



The storage is less expensive to build, and has far faster response to changes than gas plants ever dream of. The storage allows your solar delivery to the grid to be even. Part to the grid, part to the storage, and feed the storage back to the grid when the cells are not producing. Extra storage capacity allows the solar to act as a buffer like it is in Hornsdale.

In additon to "battery style" storage, they are experimenting with hydrogen too. "Over there"..where we support over 6000 offshore wind turbines.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
In additon to "battery style" storage, they are experimenting with hydrogen too. "Over there"..where we support over 6000 offshore wind turbines.

You can do that with nuclear, too. In fact, it's a very efficient use of fuel, since power plant demand fluctuates - you can store power in hydrogen.
 
Top