Since wind and solar energy have been used to generate electricity, they have been criticized with the same criticism: the wind does not always blow and the sun does not always shine. And although it is an incontestable truth, MIT believes that with better planning, the variability of renewables can be an advantage.
The problem of variable renewable energies. Wind and solar convert the unlimited energy of the wind and sun into clean, sustainable electricity. But not even the countries that have installed the most wind turbines and photovoltaic panels can operate solely with them.
The problem with variable energies is, precisely, their intermittency. If the wind doesn’t blow, there is no wind, and if the sun doesn’t shine, there is no solar (if not, tell Germany). The electrical grid needs stability to cope with demand in real time, something that renewables cannot solve without a large investment in storage systems, such as batteries.
The low-cost alternative proposed by MIT. A new study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology suggests the opposite: if we carefully plan where to build wind and solar energy facilities, we can turn the variability of renewables into an advantage, reducing investment in batteries and significantly lowering system costs.
More granular planning (on a scale of kilometers, instead of tens of kilometers) would allow the different sources to be better complemented, research says. When solar production fell in one geographic location, there would be a strong wind resource in another nearby location to ensure a better balance between electricity supply and demand.
It’s a question of scale. The researchers analyzed three regions of the United States where renewable energy is especially important: California, Texas and New England. Instead of conventional maps, they used meteorological data at the level of a few kilometers; a much finer scale than usual, 30 kilometers or more.
By simulating optimal complementarity of wind and solar energy based on this data, the researchers were able to significantly reduce system costs. For example, in New England the windiest points were not enough; It was agreed to prioritize areas with night wind to compensate for the lack of sun. While in Texas, combining the morning strength of the west wind with the afternoon coastal breeze helped balance the offering.
In search of complementarity. Prioritizing only the points that receive the most wind or sunlight leads to oversupply in places with the most developed renewables: wind and solar energy that cannot be used due to the lack of storage options and that ends up being wasted.
Instead of giving up that energy for lost, this optimization technique seeks the greatest temporal complementarity between both technologies. For example, locate wind farms where the wind blows at night and solar panels in areas that extend generation into the evening.
The advantages of this method By choosing locations that offset each other’s wind and solar production gaps, fewer storage facilities will be needed to cover peak demand.
Better siting renewables would reduce dependence on natural gas to balance the grid, and cut investment in batteries, which increase the price of renewables. And for this only one thing is needed, according to MIT: planning the installation of renewables with higher resolution climate data and models that maximize their complementarity instead of their production hours.
Image | Kervin Edward Lara (Pexels)
In techopiniones | Wind energy was the darling of renewables: in the US, solar has eaten up all the ground in record time