<
https://reneweconomy.com.au/worlds-biggest-grids-could-be-powered-by-renewables-with-little-or-no-storage-if-we-are-smart-enough/>
"One of biggest debates around the future of a major grid dominated by
renewables, particularly wind and solar, is the amount of bulk and large scale
storage that will be required to fill in the gaps of output.
The views range widely. There are the renewable detractors and baseload
boosters – be they coal or nuclear – who insist that any grid dominated by wind
and solar needs like for like back-up, a megawatt of firm power capacity for
every megawatt of variable capacity, and heaps of long duration storage.
There are those who suggest the storage needs might be less than we think.
Windlab engineer David Osmond, for instance, does weekly studies of the output
on Australia’s National Electricity Market and concludes that only around 25 GW
of five-hours storage will be needed for a grid close to 100 per cent
renewables.
A study by the Australian Council of Learned Academies commissioned by former
chief scientist Alan Finkel in 2017 came to a similar conclusion, noting that
surprisingly little bulk storage is needed up to 50 per cent wind and solar,
and little more than 100 gigawatt hours in the “very high” scenarios.
This has been borne out in reality, with South Australia reaching an average 75
per cent wind and solar over the last 12 months with comparatively little
storage, just four utility scale batteries of various sizes.
Most agree that the last five to 10 per cent of any renewable grid will be the
most challenging. The final equation will also depend on how well a grid is
connected to other state or country grids.
But what if little or no bulk storage is needed at all? The proposition was put
forward this week by Amory Lovins, an energy expert who co-founded the highly
respected Rocky Mountains Institute in the US, and who has been dubbed the
“Einstein of energy efficiency”."
Cheers,
*** Xanni ***
