Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
sendler2112
100 kW
Punx0r said:
Hydro power rocks! It must be developed where ever it is even marginally feasible and any ecological or social issues opposed to it's build out must be secondary. To demolish any existing and well producing still viable hydro projects is a big step in the wrong direction.
Chalo
100 TW
sendler2112 said:
You reckon?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hetch_Hetchy
I don't believe I'm alone in thinking we'd be better off with another Yosemite than with another dam.
sendler2112
100 kW
Chalo said:
Depends how realistic and pragmatic you are. And aware. I guess. It's easy from where you (all of us at current) are sitting. With any energy (food, clothing, shelter, employment) need currently met at the flip of a switch or squeeze of the pump or trip to the ATM. Without adequate energy, all of this comes crashing down.
Chalo
100 TW
Which do you think contributes more to the California economy, Yosemite National Park or Hetch Hetchy reservoir?
sendler2112
100 kW
There is no economy if there is no reliable energy. Look farther ahead to what they will need and realize it takes immense amounts of liquid fuel and concrete and time to build out big projects like hydro.
As always, people will trade off economic necessity with preservation. We are getting better at that.sendler2112 said:
Yosemite probably isn't worth sacrificing for a dam. The Rampart Gorge might be. Repowering existing dams could generate another 12 gigawatts in the US; probably worth it. A dam that destroys a river gorge and generates 8 megawatts? Probably not worth it.
Hillhater
100 TW
What do you suggest can be done ?Punx0r said:
Until a practical, reliable, economically viable, system of storing (and tranferring) huge amounts of power , ..is available, Solar or Wind are not a practical solution without equivalent back up from Thermal generation.
Few countries have the luxury of sutable geography to enable sufficient hydro (gravity or pumped) to be installed.
For those with a fobia about carbon, New technology Nuclear/Fusion is likely the most realistic bet currently.
Hillhater
100 TW
I just came across this site for the Australian King Island RE Project.
Seems it was set up as a test project to see what was needed to minimise the use of Fossil power (Diesel generation) some years ago, as a pilot exercise for other islands and isolated communities.
It has a really nice "real time" graphic interface to show what is happening..
http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au
Note ..King Island is off the S coast of Australia, between the Mainland and Tasmania
Seems it was set up as a test project to see what was needed to minimise the use of Fossil power (Diesel generation) some years ago, as a pilot exercise for other islands and isolated communities.
It has a really nice "real time" graphic interface to show what is happening..
http://www.kingislandrenewableenergy.com.au
Note ..King Island is off the S coast of Australia, between the Mainland and Tasmania
Hillhater said:
Until a practical, reliable, economically viable, system of storing (and tranferring) huge amounts of power , ..is available, Solar or Wind are not a practical solution without equivalent back up from Thermal generation.[/quote]
Well, you could power a minimal night time load with fossil and cover the extra daytime usage with solar. If you must store solar energy then molten salt is probably the cheapest (right now) for large scale. But no, 100% thermal back up of solar & wind is not required, that was addressed earlier in this thread.
Hillhater said:
See, this is the problem again, you don't believe carbon dioxide is causing climate change so you don't see a problem with coal, let alone grasp the urgency of the problem. Emission need cutting greatly and quickly, cost almost shouldn't be an issue. That's a strawman argument: you know as well as I do that fusion is always 50 years away and next gen nuclear (the inherently safe, non-proliferating, waste-free one) 10-20 years away, so your argument is actually: let's do nothing and just keep burning coal "in the meantime" (meaning: for the foreseeable future).
TheBeastie
1 MW
Punx0r said:
Hillhater said:
Only reason we have freak warm days like Penrith city record, is due to the fact they have created a record amount of new concrete housing and roads since last few summers.Punx0r said:
https://goo.gl/maps/ZucomXTxHK12
You can see the new housing and roads next to the temperature meter from space, its really the same thing all over the world, the trees keep getting chopped down.
So far every solar farm in Australia (or really the world) has been either where trees were or should be (instead of farmland)
The reason why the middle east is going so hardcore with its nuclear power plants is due to the fact that true desert locations aren't actually that good for solar farms as the sand keeps covering them, the evil reality is that solar farms like to sit over the top of vegetation and surrounding vegetation so that no dust/sand blows on top of them.
This is Australias currently operating largest solar farm the Nyngan cost is A$440 million
https://goo.gl/maps/fRTZZYqzS6w
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyngan_Solar_Plant
Just a few km away is thick trees that have been left alone for a fair while https://goo.gl/maps/Ry6hu3Kcc172
The thing you notice is that while the land looks yellow dead its actually good farmland as you can see the strip of healthy trees right along the side of the solar farm, there is no reason why the whole area couldn't be covered with trees to do co2 sequestration and be a truly natural renewable area.
This is the deceptive reality I have discovered about a lot of places that look like useless dead land and that is they could hold trees. I would rather just see trees planted everywhere feasibly possible than solar farms.
The only place I think solar panels are acceptable is on the top of existing roofs, period.
Middle East nuclear power-stations are being built, like I said they have discovered solar farms in sandy deserts to be a pain in the arse to deal with as they cover with sand quickly.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/country-profiles/countries-t-z/united-arab-emirates.aspx
They have like 12 new nuclear power-stations on the drawing board, apparently, the reason why they are doing this is that they want to preserve as much oil/gas as possible as its their most useful export.
You can see it from space https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barakah_nuclear_power_plant
https://goo.gl/maps/1nasajKCZd62
Even though the Barakah nuclear power-station isn't actually operational they have had some nearby waring countries like Yemen fire missiles at it to trying to blow it up.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-12-05/more-details-emerge-yemeni-rebel-cruise-missile-launch-abu-dhabi-nuclear-plant
jonescg
100 MW
TheBeastie said:
frock me, Penrith must be a big suburb - clearly takes up half the continent...
sendler2112
100 kW
Hillhater said:
Very interesting. Too bad the web site is so weak in documenting the installations that are there. They have chosen a very small proportion of solar PV. Must be stormy there? Nice job in reducing their diesel consumption by 45% last year. I wonder how much more oil is consumed for heat in the winter there and on TAS.
Hillhater
100 TW
Maybe you can explain to those who have tried, S Australia, Germany, Spain , etc....exactly how to make that work without 100% thermal back up....because they still need it.Punx0r said:
..i think your memory of what was addressed earlier is a little confused !
Solar/Molten salt is known to be both massively evpensive, and non effective in winter months.
TheBeastie
1 MW
Thats satellite temperature readings for a large area, I am talking about all the jumping up and down that was in the local media the other week because hit high 40s for like 30minutes in the afternoon. Looking at temps for the local city after so much new building and chopping of trees is going to make that localized spot get more warm.jonescg said:TheBeastie said:
frock me, Penrith must be a big suburb - clearly takes up half the continent...
Heatmap.JPG
https://www.9news.com.au/national/2018/01/07/11/45/sydney-s-west-sizzles-with-temperatures-soaring-to-mid-40s
sendler2112
100 kW
This is Australias currently operating largest solar farm the Nyngan cost is A$440 million
https://goo.gl/maps/fRTZZYqzS6w
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyngan_Solar_Plant
[/quote]
So $355 Million US for 102MW nameplate capacity completed in July 2015 = $3.48 USD / W installed. Too bad they didn't post any real world ac production numbers for the year. Lets give them the max benefit of the doubt and assume a 25% capacity factor. This makes the price $13.92 USD/W installed. And of course it is totally intermittent every day.
.
I wish you guys would quit posting about pricing in the $1/W range. And also completely ignoring the capacity factor when comparing to pricing of other generation methods. I have nothing against distributed roof top solar PV. I insist that it should be code all over the world that from now on,all new construction of homes and buildings and streets should allow the major roof section to be oriented to the equator. I do have a big problem with all of the intentionally misleading info being parroted in the media regarding the price. Let's keep the discussion real so we can help make wise decisions.
https://goo.gl/maps/fRTZZYqzS6w
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyngan_Solar_Plant
[/quote]
So $355 Million US for 102MW nameplate capacity completed in July 2015 = $3.48 USD / W installed. Too bad they didn't post any real world ac production numbers for the year. Lets give them the max benefit of the doubt and assume a 25% capacity factor. This makes the price $13.92 USD/W installed. And of course it is totally intermittent every day.
.
I wish you guys would quit posting about pricing in the $1/W range. And also completely ignoring the capacity factor when comparing to pricing of other generation methods. I have nothing against distributed roof top solar PV. I insist that it should be code all over the world that from now on,all new construction of homes and buildings and streets should allow the major roof section to be oriented to the equator. I do have a big problem with all of the intentionally misleading info being parroted in the media regarding the price. Let's keep the discussion real so we can help make wise decisions.
Hillhater
100 TW
You are correct that the local environment (and measurment equipment) has changed significantly,...but,..TheBeastie said:
....Actually, that supposed 47.8 C NSW "record" was just fake news, and highlights how the BOM are getting very sloppy at distorting the truth....and of course the media equally sloppy at checking facts.
There have been hotter days recorded, just down the road in Richmond, during a 1939 heatwave. The records for that period have been mysteriously "lost" by the BOM, but fortunately there are many other sources in official archives etc that still show the 49+C days.
Let me try and keep track of the claims made just today
* The increase in heatwaves is the result of concrete paving and structures, not GW (or just in Penrith, Aus?)
* Modern heatwaves are not a cause for concern as it was once even hotter somewhere nearby ~100 years ago (oh, and there's a conspiracy/cover-up)
* Any RE always requires 100% thermal backup (or just solar or wind?)
* Replacing trees with concrete or desert increase GW as the albedo is lower for trees
* PV plants are always (or nearly always) sited by clearing forest (or is it now just where forest could/should be?)
* Thermal storage doesn't work in winter in the Australian interior (because the sun doesn't shine?!)
This reads like AGW denialist rhetoric 101 and I have a strong suspicion that this isn't a technical discussion at all. It's just an opportunity to attack anything seen as green. Never mind that RE could also improve energy security and reduce global conflict.
* The increase in heatwaves is the result of concrete paving and structures, not GW (or just in Penrith, Aus?)
* Modern heatwaves are not a cause for concern as it was once even hotter somewhere nearby ~100 years ago (oh, and there's a conspiracy/cover-up)
* Any RE always requires 100% thermal backup (or just solar or wind?)
* Replacing trees with concrete or desert increase GW as the albedo is lower for trees
* PV plants are always (or nearly always) sited by clearing forest (or is it now just where forest could/should be?)
* Thermal storage doesn't work in winter in the Australian interior (because the sun doesn't shine?!)
This reads like AGW denialist rhetoric 101 and I have a strong suspicion that this isn't a technical discussion at all. It's just an opportunity to attack anything seen as green. Never mind that RE could also improve energy security and reduce global conflict.
Hillhater
100 TW
Ahh .. Good to see you are beginning to understand some of the issues.!Punx0r said:
(And i guess repeating it may help you remember ?)
The Australian BOM (Bureau Of Metrology) has been discretited several times recently for failing to represent the facts accurately, ( conveniently resulting in current temperatures appearing to be higher than previously recorded ?)
They have ommited extreme leow temp readings from some stations, revised (upwards) other recent minimum temperature readings, and as this last episode , deleted from their official records historical high temperature readings !...amoungst many other "errors" .
(Even that was incorrect)
Thermal backup?..
Since Solar and wind seem to be the only RE systems being proposed on a utility scale world wide (Hydro and GT just are not viable in most countries),..then yes, that is what i am refering to.
However, even some countries with well developed Hydro systems, (TAsmania, NZ, ) , still see the need for large % of thermal backup.
Solar thermal storage in winter ?
...check the results of current ST plants in CA , Spain, etc.
This reads like AGW denialist rhetoric 101 and I have a strong suspicion that this isn't a technical discussion at all. It's just an opportunity to attack anything seen as green. Never mind that RE could also improve energy security and reduce global conflict.
[/quote]
Yep. It's denier 101.Punx0r said:
There are four basic types of denial:
I: "The climate isn't changing, stupid!" This involves claims that the instrumental temperature record is all a big conspiracy, there's a problem with the measurements, there's a "pause" no one can explain, it was cold today so therefore there's no global warming, and it is getting colder in whatsmynameistan so how can there be global warming?
II: "So what if the climate is changing? It's all natural, stupid!" This involves claiming that CO2 (and other AGW gases) do not have much effect and it's all due to something else. Some arguments here include "it's getting warmer on Mars too" "it was just as warm umpteen million years ago, and there were no cars then!" "No one knows what CO2 will do" "the climate is just too hard to figure out."
III: "So what if we're warming the planet? It's all good, stupid!" Arguments here include "CO2 is an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer that will save the planet" "it's cold here anyway; we could use some more warm days" "we will really only harm minorities who are poor and unintelligent, and no one really cares about them. It won't affect ME."
IV: "So what if we are warming the planet and it's bad? We can't do anything to stop it, stupid!" This argument is that it's just too hard to use alternatives, or the positive feedback is now too strong to overcome.
One of the things I find funny about climate change deniers is that they will often use all these arguments more or less simultaneously, flipping back and forth between them depending on what story they see on their favorite right wing news outlet that day. It's fun to watch a denier say that the temperature isn't changing on Monday, then on Wednesday say "of course the climate is changing; it always changes - but we didn't do it."
Often deniers expand their attacks to renewable energy, because they see renewables as "part of the enemy." If fossil fuels are the good guys, then surely renewables are the bad guys. Which is odd; self-reliance, local sources of energy and economic stimulus through new technologies used to be right wing causes.
Hillhater
100 TW
If you hit the "History" tab ..and then "page back" ??... I get a drop down menu to detail the installations.sendler2112 said:
Summary..
6.0 MW of Diesel generation
2.45 MW of Wind
100 kW of Solar (with another 377kW of private distributed installations)
And a Redox battery (currently out of service)
Approx 2+ MW max demand.
sendler2112
100 kW
Hillhater said:
I saw all of the numbers. But it would be interesting to see photos and details on the actual installations including the batteries and flywheels.
.
The one telling number to keep in mind is that even with 120+ % capacity of installed wind, In a world class wind location, they have managed to reduce the diesel consumption only 45%. For electricity. I am still wondering about heating energy consumption also. Though it would be much less than what people need where I live due to being surrounded by water.
Hillhater said:
Just wanted to check that you actually believe what is in most cases, easily-disprovable crap.
Hillhater said:
Are you really so credulous?
Anyone who has ever conducted any kind of technical or scientific measurements or statistical analysis (or process control) will understand immediately that these kind of claims of "fraud" (which have seemingly been levelled at nearly every meteorological or climate science organisation) are ridiculous.
Hillhater
100 TW
Fraud ?.. I think the words i used were "sloppy" , "discretited", and "failing to represent fact accurately" ..Punx0r said:
I dont think our BOM know what statistical analysis is, .
But you seem to agree that most similar organisations have the same sloppy approach to their role ?
They record single momentary peak temperature readings from electronic thermometers as accurate data, with no attempt at averaging over a valid time period, or compensation for "noise" and log it as a permanent record.
They also change those data points at will with no archive of the original data...not exactly scientific !
But it doesnt really matter, once you know the records are now unreliable.
Hillhater said:
I certainly do not. They just get accused by various ill-informed cranks.
Hillhater said:
No, they do not base trends on single or uncorrected readings. This is why they seem (to some) to "change data points" or fudge the numbers.
Maintaining a complete archive of raw data going back decades is a nice-to-have.
Similar threads
