zlacker

>>RobinL+(OP)
Curtailment, like negative prices, seems like something that it is hard for people to have constructive conversations about.

Probably the cheapest and best option is to build more wind and not care too much if it increases curtailment.

Yes, all the things mentioned should be looked into and done when it makes financial sense but "wasting wind" is much less a thing to worry about than "burning gas", and I'd rather waste wind than waste money.

>>ZeroGr+k8
Balancing a nationwide power grid is very complex. Some energy sources can be started and stopped instantly, but are limited - water. Others are plentiful, but unpredictable - wind. Others are predictable, but take a long time to start and stop - gas, coal(several hours), nuclear(1 day to start, fast to stop, but very expensive). A balanced grid will need all of them, will need them in quantities which can cover faults in the big producers(a nuclear reactor makes 700-800 MW). They will need them built in the right place, because while more power cables can be built, you can't transfer a lot of power on very long distances, for cost and grid stability reasons.

>>redlea+ud
Nuclear power plants can vary their output faster than most people think, see

https://www.oecd-nea.org/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-12...

   ... most of the modern light water nuclear reactors are capable (by design) 
   to operate in a load following mode, i.e. to change their power level once 
   or twice per day in the range of 100% to 50% (or even lower) of the rated   
   power, with a ramp rate of up to 5% (or even more) of rated power per minute.

One trouble is that changing the power output does put stress on components because of thermal expansion and contraction, potentially shortening their lifespan, but it something that can be designed for.

>>PaulHo+pn
Ramping it up is likely the problem, since all plants can reduce power on a dime by just varying the generator coil current I think.

You could just keep it spinning nonstop without a load I suppose, but for anything but nuclear it's not gonna be economical.

>>moffka+9v
A nuclear power plant can't just "keep spinning without a load" - all that energy has to go somewhere! If a nuclear plant is disconnected from the grid (tripped), the nuclear reaction must be stopped (eg: by inserting control rods into the core).

>>Reason+Ex
Of course it can, just short the generator coils and you have a free brake. The turbine should then still have resistance and shouldn't overspeed. Or just idk, use it to pump some water in a loop or discharge through some resistors. Getting rid of power isn't that hard if you want to do it. Simplest solution would I suppose be to just have an outside radiator that brings the steam to cooling tower levels of manageability so you can throttle the turbine with just a valve.

The thing is, they don't really want to do it if they can save fuel by shutting down.

>>moffka+XA
> "just short the generator coils and you have a free brake"

You'll soon end up with a burning/melted generator.

> "pump some water in a loop"

OK, but you're going to need huge pumps (1000+ MW!). Expensive.

> "or discharge through some resistors"

Again, you'll need extremely large resistors, and a way to dissipate an awful lot of heat. We're talking about a huge amount of energy here!