[–] crote 17 hours ago
[–] bluGill 17 hours ago
This might or might not be true. I used to live near a large plant that took HVDC from a power plant several states away and transformed it into AC. They used electronics to provide the grid frequency, not spinning metal. All the other local peak power generation was run in grid following mode.
[–] tialaramex 14 hours ago
The risk vs reward isn't great. If you made your country's 10GW grid work with only batteries for 15 minutes to show it's possible, maybe you get one half page in a "Electricity Weekly" industry newspaper. But if anything goes wrong and ordinary people notice - now you're on TV News for a week.
[–] bluGill 13 hours ago
My home battery might participate without the above but in to small to matter.
[–] viraptor 10 hours ago
Is there in theory an amount of batteries with inverters where enough energy is created to "not notice" the spinning generators going away? I.e. everyone is trying to follow the frequency that's already flowing therefore everyone sees some frequency flowing? Or would it be like talking with echo/delay where they start slowing down by always being behind until everyone stops?
[–] bob1029 16 hours ago
The RoCoF (rate of change of frequency) must be low enough that the inverters can form the grid without letting out the magical smoke. Having inertia is what slows this rate down.
But there's no reason that has to be your frequency source. Any single battery installation on its own is perfectly capable of making up some frequency, which is why home power banks with island-mode AC output are a thing - or even just a traditional UPS. Doing the same with thousands of individual battery installations across the grid? You'll need some way to get everyone to agree exactly on frequency and phase, which in practice is probably going to mean getting them to agree on time to within a few microseconds, which could be done (albeit not very sabotage-proof) using GPS.