Talk:Variable renewable energy

Energy C‑class Top‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Climate change C‑class High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Climate change, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Climate change on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Climate changeWikipedia:WikiProject Climate changeTemplate:WikiProject Climate changeClimate change articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
If you are looking for ways to improve this article, we recommend checking out our recommended sources and our style guide

Table in Comparison Section Dubious

There is no reference provided for the information in the table and the box stating that wind energy is highly not predictable is contradicted in next section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.38.174.85 (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the meaning of the term variability in the table is unclear. For instance, tidal power follows roughly the same pattern each day. In that sense it has little variability. But if you mean the difference between maximum and minimum power produced, it has large variability. --71.38.174.85 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wind Power to some extent can be dispatched

It is possible to hold wind power production in reserve in the event of larger than expected demand or failure of another generating facility. Likewise wind energy production can be curtailed if there currently is excess generation. This is actually done at times as it can be done quicker than adjusting the output of a coal fired plant. --71.38.174.85 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible to hold hydro power in reserve behind dams, could be a easy place to load follow. How about a basic wind farm that generates all it can, all the time. Dougmcdonell (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of possible interest: "Wind power variability" section of Greenhouse Solutions with Sustainable Energy by Mark Diesendorf; Also some of the work by Mark Z. Jacobson and his colleagues from Stanford. Johnfos (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wind power can be reduced, but that usually also reduces income and prolongs return of investment, and so is only done when in excess. TGCP (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much any power source can be turned down; that doesn't make it dispatchable.GliderMaven (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, base load plants usually can't be turned down gradually - they are either full on or completely off, or have slow ramp rates. Wind parks CAN be seamlessly and quickly adjusted (by SCADA), but is so shortly used (during storm fronts, or due to economy) that it barely qualifies for inclusion here. TGCP (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The term usually used for reducing wind generation when in oversupply is curtailed. Dispatchable generally refers to it being available on demandScorenza (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article focuses on the short term. The longer term should also be explained; fx hydropower may have larger annual variability than wind power. TGCP (talk) 22:28, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The use of Future Fiction

I just removed the sentences with the hydrogen powered jet aircraft and shipping. I like the ideas but, they're fiction and not written as such. So please, include your favorite ideas, and identify them as not being done at the present. And when they build the very first one in the whole world, mention that it's an experiment. I've noticed the fiction in several articles, disappointing that the sci-fi is tolerated so well.Dougmcdonell (talk) 23:34, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I had to undo this. If you had read the papers that were referenced you had seen that this is what is written there. Then you came and wrote the complete oposite while leaving the reference in place. That is absolutely a no-go! You cannot make someone claim something who actually wrote the opposite! Please make sure you don't do this any more, because it is a severe violation of citation rules. Furthermore there are hundreds of studies that see hydrogen as a future energy carrier for storage and mobility. One of them was cited here. And it's not science fiction, it's allready reality. There are several prototyps of hydrogen storage in utilization, which have allready proved the technical feasibility of hydrogen or methane storage. Andol (talk) 00:53, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

'variable' as a term

The qualifier 'variable' does not fit very well, as any biogas plant or hydroelectric plant is variable, if it follows a daily cylce as medium load plant. Electric power is produced if prices are high and the plant ramps down if the prices are low. It is not the variability which discriminates wind and solar from hydropower and biomass, it is the dispatchability. The feature results from the storability of the primary energy: you can easily store potential energy by a dam or chemical energy in a heap of energy crops. It is not possible to store wind energy or solar energy before the conversion into electricity, therefore you have to use them when they are available. 'Variable' is any source of electricity which can ramp up and down; it is the question if you can do this according of an input variable (e.g. electricity price, or system load). Therefore, the discriminator is dispatchability or the lack of this feature. In German, we also have the adjective "dargebotsabhängig", but this is difficult to translate: "supply dependent". --Gunnar (talk) 13:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right from the perspective of explaining the way the different power sources work. Personally I feel the term weather dependent would be helpful, however as this is not commonly used term I don't think wikipedia should be the place to introduce it. Within coomon usage the two terms used are intermittent and variable with proponents of these sources generally favouring the latter and opponents the former (although this is not universally the case). I don't know how wikipedia guidelines suggest this should be resolved when both terms are (slightly) politicised.--Scorenza (talk) 16:15, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was merge. Chidgk1 (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intermittent energy source seems to be the same subject so I suggest it is merged in here. Your thoughts? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:20, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, absolutely. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:55, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Needs more reorganising and removal of duplicate info

There is massive redundancy in this article, for instance three sections on solving intermittency. While 'Compensating for variability' is structured best, it seems to be the most outdated/unsourced... Would it be a good idea to simply remove large parts of outdated and unsourced text? Pinging our pruning hero, Chidgk1. Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Shall we merge section 3-7 first before updating? I think that makes it easier, and uses our time best? About 70% is going to be binned I think. Femke Nijsse (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I read your comment now - doing that first would probably have been better than the tactical snips I have just made - I have had enough of this article - hope someone else will take over - you should go back to your Wikibreak! Chidgk1 (talk) 19:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Arms are doing much better. Have found a different position to type. Distracted from work, so I'm going to log out till tomorrow :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 19:08, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most urgent is to fix outright errors -- with an example I'm now fixing

In "Demand response," the last paragraph was:

Intermittent solar electricity generation has a direct correlation where hot sunny weather drives high cooling demands. This is an ideal relationship between intermittent energy and demand.

No it's not. See Duck curve. So I am deleting that paragraph. Oaklandguy (talk) 02:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that was an oversimplification highly dependent on geography. I have seen it mentioned in high-quality sources for certain US regions. FemkeMilene (talk) 06:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should "capacity credit" be removed or can it be explained better?

The current definition in the article is from a 2008 source and I find it hard to understand.

I was trying to think how that definition could apply to the current GB grid and what % it would result in but I just got confused.

Would it not make more sense to estimate the % of dispatchable power generation needed within GB?

Do people still use "capacity credit" nowadays and if so is there a more understandable definition perhaps with an up to date example? Chidgk1 (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]