Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8679
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Dec 20, 2017 12:42 am

billvon wrote:
Dec 19, 2017 11:36 pm
sendler2112 wrote:
Dec 19, 2017 9:52 pm
How long does it take to make 30 TWh of storage?
8.4 years with 50 factories similar to Nevada's.
...Or, 4.2 years with 100 similar factories ! :roll:
....assuming they are not all dedicated to EV battery production, which is the main driver of battery production plant proposals so far .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Dec 20, 2017 5:34 am

So we obviously need to quit wasting time and money on new football stadiums and theme parks and cruise ships and start building GigaFactories by the dozens.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 909
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Dec 20, 2017 5:07 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Dec 20, 2017 5:34 am
So we obviously need to quit wasting time and money on new football stadiums and theme parks and cruise ships and start building GigaFactories by the dozens.
Why? We have 141 refineries in the US and 1500 coal mines - and we still manage to build all those stadiums and theme parks. Surely we can manage to add a few dozen battery factories.
--bill von

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 909
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Dec 20, 2017 5:09 pm

Hillhater wrote:
Dec 20, 2017 12:42 am
...Or, 4.2 years with 100 similar factories ! :roll:
....assuming they are not all dedicated to EV battery production, which is the main driver of battery production plant proposals so far .
Many of them WILL be dedicated to EV battery production. Which is almost as good; EV's are mobile batteries that can charge at selectable times, and thus serve as a sink for all that "unreliable" wind and solar power.
--bill von

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1710
Joined: Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Dec 21, 2017 8:21 am

Was a pretty big storm in Victoria the other night.
Widespread blackouts across Victoria have progressively been fixed after thunderstorms lashed the state.
More than 100,000 properties were without power at one point on Tuesday night when wild wind gusts reaching up to 117km/h felled trees and powerlines.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/la ... fd889ab31b

And because South Australia's huge use of renewable energy via wind farms they constantly pull 750MW of power from Victoria's coal power-stations via the interstate electricity grid so they can pretend they are on just renewables combined with Gas, diesel but no coal.
So when the power-lines went down in Victoria it tripped the Loy Yang Victorian coal power-station to go offline and so South Australia had to rely on its Tesla battery before switching on more Gas and Diesel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loy_Yang_Power_Station
South Australia’s Musk battery responds to power failure
The world’s largest lithium-ion battery, built by tech billionaire Elon Musk, responded quickly last week when the coal-fired Loy Yang power plant tripped and went offline.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/busines ... 3cf4b186e6
The SA mob say this is an achievement, but to me, all it really proves is that they are hopelessly addicted to Victorian coal and are hypocrites.

Anyone who follows the news knows Tesla continues to use cobalt in all its cells.
Press announcements by Elon Musk even when asked directly claim his batteries will continue to use cobalt for grid storage via NMC and NCA as well as in their vehicles. A quick google search of Tesla NCA NMC brings endless articles on this fact.
Typically, lithium-ion NCA batteries use a combination of 80% nickel, 15% cobalt and 5% aluminum.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk said on the company’s earnings call that Tesla will be using a high energy lithium-ion NCA battery for its new grid battery.

http://fortune.com/2015/05/18/tesla-gri ... chemistry/
https://arstechnica.com/cars/2017/11/te ... predicted/

The reports used to be that about 60,000 children on the Congo are digging up cobalt so everyone can feel good about buying an electric vehicle and making the world a better place.
Looking at some of the newer videos from the BBC and Skynews on African kids mining cobalt https://youtu.be/JcJ8me22NVs it does look a lot better than it used to be, I reckon I can only see about 100 kids there digging away in that cobalt mine and only a few being threatened with being beaten for not working hard enough, maybe its the cameras being there but still quite an improvement.



Still the problem is just like videos of windfarms chopping down eagles and being the largest cause of 10km2 radioactive sludge lakes https://youtu.be/w87LBiXwwdE etc, the public tends to blame the eagle and if anything.
It's believed the Tesla Semi truck requires a battery about 23tons in weight so that's a lot of cobalt mined by African kids to make people believe they are helping the world.
https://qz.com/1131928/elon-musks-tesla ... d-to-know/

The whole thing reminds me of Ozzie Zehner's point that peoples mind frame is like the AI from Hal9000 in the movie 2001 a space odyssey movie https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=16m7s where the computer decides to kill the humans on the spaceship to achieve the goal of the mission because they were merely getting in the way.
It's the same with people. People believe they have a good sense of their ethical bearings but when it comes to renewable energy they may as well be the head commander at a Nazi death camp.
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=16m7s

No one seems to blink an eyelid at the real world statistics on solar generation and size that prove you need a solar farm that's about 600km2 to replace a single power-station. Even if that solar farm is going to kill tortoises in the USA desert or Koala habitat in Queensland. Or the latest idea of just covering the ocean and wiping out all sea life, and you're opening up your self to attack to point out African kids digging cobalt for batteries. If BP or ExxonMobil had kids digging for oil everyone would be out in the streets in protest.

So South Australia's big Tesla battery that could charge hopefully 100 Tesla trucks is still completely unethical. And its pretty disturbing that most of the leftist Greens are cheering its switch on, knowing that Australian taxpayers paid for and subsidized the exploitation of African children in the Conga as a great achievement.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range http://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Beware of dodgy 18650 cells! youtu.be/eOshOXcSkDA
Consider PAS as your only throttle http://goo.gl/m17J9j
CO2 is core to Photosynthesis https://youtu.be/t5mvDONB6FI
Check out the Bill Gates nuclear reactor https://goo.gl/Rtky9q
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 909
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Dec 21, 2017 11:14 am

TheBeastie wrote:
Dec 21, 2017 8:21 am
The reports used to be that about 60,000 children on the Congo are digging up cobalt so everyone can feel good about buying an electric vehicle and making the world a better place.
Yep. And the thousands of children who work the African diamond mines so that people can feel good about buying their fiancees a big "symbol of love." And the thousands of children (and adults) who die in the US every year because people want their cheap coal power.

Lots of problems out there.
The whole thing reminds me of Ozzie Zehner's point that peoples mind frame is like the AI from Hal9000 in the movie 2001 a space odyssey movie https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=16m7s where the computer decides to kill the humans on the spaceship to achieve the goal of the mission because they were merely getting in the way.
Yep. By those standards, thousands of people are getting in the way of coal nowadays. We just have to sacrifice them to get cheap power - for the good of the economy, of course. Sorry about your dead child, but he was getting in the way.
No one seems to blink an eyelid at the real world statistics on solar generation and size that prove you need a solar farm that's about 600km2 to replace a single power-station. Even if that solar farm is going to kill tortoises in the USA desert or Koala habitat in Queensland.
If that array kills a hundred tortoises, and allows a coal mine that kills thousands to shut down, we (and the tortoises) are better off.
Or the latest idea of just covering the ocean and wiping out all sea life
I don't like your idea of covering the ocean and wiping out all sea life.
So South Australia's big Tesla battery that could charge hopefully 100 Tesla trucks is still completely unethical.
It's a lot more ethical than coal, where you just toss the problems over the fence and ignore the people it kills.
--bill von

User avatar
jimw1960
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 747
Joined: Jul 23, 2008 4:44 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Dec 21, 2017 3:30 pm

Wind power generation capacity in Texas now exceeds that of coal power capacity. Several coal plants are to be closed next year.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/energy/win ... oal-texas/

Battery storage for load leveling is still the crux for a bigger portion of energy from renewables, though. My feeling is that if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission eventually grants a license to one or more of the small modular reactor (SMR) designs that they are reviewing, then SMRs, instead of battery storage, paired with wind farms can be a very effective solution.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Dec 21, 2017 3:34 pm

The Moltex Stabile Salt Reactor is the most promising design I have found.
.
https://youtu.be/-IiIdG0asbM
.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8679
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Dec 21, 2017 3:54 pm

Cobalt supply..
......The simple and inescapable reality is that even if the battery industry abandons high cobalt LCO chemistry in favor of lower cobalt NCM and NCA chemistries, global cobalt supplies cannot support total worldwide production of more than a few million short-range EVs (under 100 miles) or a couple million long-range EVs (over 200 miles) per year.
In other words, without a battery technology breakthrough or a cobalt production miracle, EVs can never account for more than a few percent of the global car build or make a relevant scale contribution to CO2 emissions reductions. So, the billions of dollars flowing into ill-conceived EV schemes with inadequate supply chains will be incinerated in the next bonfire of the vanities.......
Ref ..J Petersen ..investment analysist/researcher

If true, that represents approx 200GWh of battery storage.
Even if its out by a factor of ten , its still a serious limiting factor
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jimw1960
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 747
Joined: Jul 23, 2008 4:44 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Dec 21, 2017 4:27 pm

Hillhater wrote:
Dec 21, 2017 3:54 pm
Cobalt supply..

Ref ..J Petersen ..investment analysist/researcher

If true, that represents approx 200GWh of battery storage.
Even if its out by a factor of ten , its still a serious limiting factor

Petersen is a con artist. He suckered hundreds of people into buying stock in Axion, a maker of lead-carbon batteries, and they all lost their money. Turned out he was selling his own stock at the same time he was convincing others to buy big. Then he rustled up a bunch of investors in a company called E-Power, who tried to build an hybrid class 8 truck that ran on Axion's batteries. Those people all lost their money, too. The past two years he has been pushing this idea of cobalt shortages being the death of electric vehicles. Not sure what his angle is on this, but you can bet there is one.

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Dec 21, 2017 4:32 pm

Fixed grid storage will be something less dense. Any way you look at it the future will be much simpler as all of our various resources are utilized to depletion.
.
Thinking we are going to rely on maintaining 50 Twh of grid storage in batteries and convert all farming and mining and heavy construction machines to batteries is far beyond realistic. Better to set practical goals and focus what we have left to make the transition to a simpler way of life more gentle.

User avatar
liveforphysics
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 14610
Joined: Oct 29, 2008 1:48 am
Location: Santa Cruz, CA, USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by liveforphysics » Dec 21, 2017 4:55 pm

You can definitely make cells without any cobalt. It's just tricky to get 3.5Ah 18650s without cobalt, but getting 2.5-3Ah is possible already.

Experts also knew the internet could never happen because the world didn't have enough copper.
Each carcinogen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for cancer.

Each mutagen vapor exposure includes a dice roll for reproductive genetic defects in your children.

Each engine start sprays them into a shared atmosphere which includes beings not offered an opportunity to consent accepting these cancer experiences and defective genetics life experiences.

Every post is a free gift to the collective of minds composing the living bleeding edge of LEV development on our spaceship.

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 909
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Dec 21, 2017 5:14 pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Dec 21, 2017 4:27 pm
Petersen is a con artist. He suckered hundreds of people into buying stock in Axion, a maker of lead-carbon batteries, and they all lost their money. Turned out he was selling his own stock at the same time he was convincing others to buy big. Then he rustled up a bunch of investors in a company called E-Power, who tried to build an hybrid class 8 truck that ran on Axion's batteries. Those people all lost their money, too. The past two years he has been pushing this idea of cobalt shortages being the death of electric vehicles. Not sure what his angle is on this, but you can bet there is one.
He's probably pushing lead-carbon again; I've seen a resurgence of them at solar/storage shows.

In any case we have plenty of cobalt for applications where we need it (some types of EV batteries.) Right now the cobalt supply is constrained because, until now, it's been a byproduct of nickel and copper mining; it's effectively a "side effect" of processing those ores. Once new cobalt-specific mines open (and at least two are in the works) that will change. In addition, the ratios of metals within EV batteries will likely change - they will become more nickel heavy and will use far less cobalt.

For stationary storage there are better options anyway, like LiFePO4.
--bill von

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8679
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Dec 21, 2017 5:27 pm

liveforphysics wrote:
Dec 21, 2017 4:55 pm
You can definitely make cells without any cobalt. It's just tricky to get 3.5Ah 18650s without cobalt, but getting 2.5-3Ah is possible already.
Yes, and they are commercially available, but i think its significant that most of the major players in grid storage ....Panasonic, Samsung, LG , Tesla, ..are all running with a cobalt formula ?
I think BYD (with LifePo4) are the only major manufacturer not comitted to Cobalt.
Certainly Petersen has screwed many people....he is an investment advisor ! ..that is what they do , (sometimes accidently, sometimes deliberately )
But that doesnot mean he is always wrong or that his sources are wrong (industry experts) or the other industry professionals who have been quoted previously .....are all wrong.?
His article was not a bait to sucker anyone into a new investment, but to advise readers to be aware of the risks around investing in battery manufacturers such as Tesla based on their own sales pitch's.
Tough,... critising someone for offering informed advice that you are not committed to accept. !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8679
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Dec 21, 2017 5:39 pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Dec 21, 2017 3:30 pm
Wind power generation capacity in Texas now exceeds that of coal power capacity. Several coal plants are to be closed next year.
https://www.texasmonthly.com/energy/win ... coal-texas
But from the same linked article.... :roll:
......But capacity is one thing, electricity generation is another. In the first ten months of 2017, wind generated 17.2 percent of power in the state, and coal 31.9 percent, according to ERCOT.......
....its those tricky little details like "Installed NAMEPLATE Capacity",.... Compare to real generation capacity that always trip people up !
So they just have to double the amount of wind farms :shock: to even up the supply capacity.....or as those dumb ass types will do, shut down the coal plants so their numbers look better !
...until they realise they need 100% back up for Wind if they dont want to cause havoc.
EDIT.... Oh, and also bear in mind that Texas "Preferentially". loads wind and solar power when its available , and turns down thermal generators to match capacity.....
.. Which means that the "numbers are rigged" in favour of wind and solar to keep politics happy, such that 17.2% is the maximum that wind could supply, ...
.... Whilst coal, gas, Nuclear, could easily have provided much more power if needed ..and infact as it often did in periods when the wind was low and the sun a no-show !...
Last edited by Hillhater on Dec 21, 2017 7:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8679
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Dec 21, 2017 5:49 pm

More updates on Teslas Big Battery in Australia..
I dont know if this is still a testing program , or some demand from the grid,...but either way they are certainly going to find the life cycle limits if they continue at this rate !
Image
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 909
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Dec 21, 2017 6:09 pm

Hillhater wrote:
Dec 21, 2017 5:27 pm
Yes, and they are commercially available, but i think its significant that most of the major players in grid storage ....Panasonic, Samsung, LG , Tesla, ..are all running with a cobalt formula ?
Yep. Right now it's cheap, and the formulation is well known, so why not?
But that doesnot mean he is always wrong or that his sources are wrong (industry experts) or the other industry professionals who have been quoted previously .....are all wrong.?
And a lot of the industry (Glencore, Benchmark Mineral Intelligene) is predicting that cobalt will NOT be in such short supply that it will cripple the industry. So someone's wrong.
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Dec 22, 2017 6:10 am

Why does Tesla have almost no solar panels on the roofs at the car plant?
.
https://electrek.co/2017/12/21/tesla-fa ... inventory/
.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8679
Joined: Aug 03, 2010 10:33 pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Dec 22, 2017 8:06 am

The video is Freemont. It was the Sparks GigaFactory that Tesla anounced would be powered by rooftop solar and a windfarm,......but aparently that has been quietly dropped also.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Dec 22, 2017 8:29 am

Well the point is, If Tesla didn't even put up a decorative attempt of roof top solar between now and when they moved into Fremont a decade ago, with an ongoing 30% federal rebate, plus who knows how much more assistance from the state of Cali., what is wrong?

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Dec 22, 2017 12:13 pm

Even if this is off by a factor of 5, then what? From 2011
https://visual.ly/community/infographic ... urces-last
.
.
Image
.
.

Jil
100 mW
100 mW
Posts: 46
Joined: Sep 07, 2017 3:24 pm
Location: Bordeaux, France

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Jil » Dec 22, 2017 1:01 pm


billvon
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 909
Joined: Sep 16, 2007 9:53 pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Dec 22, 2017 1:54 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Dec 22, 2017 6:10 am
Why does Tesla have almost no solar panels on the roofs at the car plant?
I'd imagine because they are spending 100% of their time, effort and money getting the Model 3 out in quantity.
--bill von

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 746
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Dec 22, 2017 2:02 pm

Very embarrassing that Tesla still has only a small fraction of it's rooftops covered with solar for a technology that is supposed to pay for itself from a company the uses a huge amount of electricity in a sunny location that also owns a struggling company that makes solar panels.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4493
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Dec 22, 2017 2:41 pm

"Thebeastie", do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or do you just ignore when someone replies to your posts? It seems you just copy & paste a load of bumpf from some other website, because you posted this a few days ago:
Jil wrote:
Dec 18, 2017 5:01 am
TheBeastie wrote:
Dec 01, 2017 2:41 am
Topaz Solar Farm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm ) in the desert of the USA. 25km2 sized. 2016 generation: 1,265,805MWh (great year 2016, 2017 looks to be a lot lower)
Average power 144MW = (1,265,805MWhours / 8760_hours_in_a_year)
Average coal or nuclear power station: average output 3927MW = (34,402,000MWh / 8760)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluel_Nu ... ower_Plant
3927MW / 144MW = 27 times more power.

25km2 x 27 = 675km2 of land covered in solar panels to generate the same average power (if you have a super huge battery as well, that will require a lot of land and a lot of energy to dispose of once used)
Sorry to come again ;) but please stop using old data for solar energy.
The ratio easily achievable today is 1 MWp/ha for solar fixed tilt, and 0.5 MWp/ha for single-axis trackers (the technology mainly used in countries with high irradiation).
In the first case, with average irradiation you can count on 1500 MWh/MWp/year of energy produced, in the second case (trackers) 2000 MWh/MWp/year. With 99.5% availability. For nuclear and coal plants, it's more around 90%.

So it makes for fixed-tilt 150 GWh/km2/year, and for trackers 100 GWh/km2/year, for average sites (for Nevada with high irradiation it will be more).

If you compare to a nuclear or coal plant of 4000 MW with 90% availability, the equivalent production of 31,500 GWh will require between 200 and 300 km2 of land (and probably 50% less for Nevada). Not 675. By the way what surface of land does require a 4000 MW plant for coal mining ?

As you can see, your claim about land area required for PV was debunked. So, what did you post next?
TheBeastie wrote:
Dec 21, 2017 8:21 am
No one seems to blink an eyelid at the real world statistics on solar generation and size that prove you need a solar farm that's about 600km2 to replace a single power-station.

Yep, just repeated the exact same thing again. It's like anything that doesn't support your existing, denialist beliefs is simply ignored. Or are you just trolling?

Post Reply