Wheazel wrote:I worked as process engineer in the pulp industry 10 years ago. Especially towards thermomechanical pulping.
Mechanical pulping mills can draw big power. In my area here in sweden there is a tmp paper mill drawing a steady 250-275MW 24/7.
And also an aluminum production plant pulling almost as much. And this is in a ~100k people area.
250MW is a nice sized power drop, I've personally never worked on one that big.
As solar panels and home energy storage batteries continue to lower in cost and improve in function, the whole model of a central-power-delivery system will be concluded. Modern factories will be built in locations that work to have them powered by sun/wind/geo-thermal or whatever works best for that region.
All non-sustainable practices conclude, then it becomes the humans choice to become extinct as a species or switch to sustainable practices.
Well if we take that 250MW figure and use a modern solar farm real world example like the Topaz Solar farm.. it would take exactly 50km2 sized solar farm to produce that power during the day..
Quote from Wikipedia "Site area 9.5 sq mi (25 km2)
Average generation 1,100 GWh(125 MW avg. power)
I have decided to replace all the solar farm from the Topaz Solar farm to the Desert Sunlight Solar
as its performance numbers for its size are considerably better. The solar farm is 16km2
and built into a single compressed tight spot, I think this new farm is as good as it gets.
Numbers for 2016 were excellent, this year appears to have been considerably sunnier then previous years. 1,346,282MWh / 8760_hours_in_year = 153MW average power out
(for if it had storage etc)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desert_Su ... Statistics
You said it's a 24-hour 250MW operation so we would need a battery pack to keep it going through the night time and also based on the Desert-Sunlight farm data the amount of energy received as much as halves during the winter time even in the desert.
I think x2 the solar farm to 32km2 would be about right, on average the solar farm would create 306MW, but during a winter month its more like 204MW as 77,949MWh / 744_hours_in_December2016 = 104MW average output. Thus x2 would be 208MW
The big differences between summer and winter even in the desert makes it complicated.
A Tesla Model S battery pack is pretty compact so let us take that as our expected size module..
It's 284cm long by 177cm wide for the 85 kWh battery pack. Which is 5.027m2 square meters.
To run the plant off this solar farm 24/7 we need a large battery pack..
250MW x 24 hours = 6000MWh, Then x 14 it to 84,000MWh to make it through a solid 14 days of winter due to the expected half the amount of total energy outputted as listed on the Desert-Sunlight winter months. Realistically it probably may require having an even bigger battery to make it all through winter but that was the idea of increasing the solar farm size from 16km2 to 32km2 to get the extra amount of power for 24/7 operation during winter.
You may consider 84,000MWh battery pack oversized but during the winter months the average MW output can more than half in solar farms.
The Desert-Sunlight farm created only 77,949MWh in Decemember 2016. 77,949MWh / 744_hours_in_December2016 = 104MW average output. Thus x2 32km2 size would be 208MW average output.
So we would need an extra 42MW output from the battery pack to cover the shortfall for the month for our 250MW needing mill.
42MW x 744 hours = 31,248MWh sized battery pack to get ourselves through the whole less sunny December of 2016.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Sol ... Statistics
You could argue then we only need a 32,000MWh then, but January is typically the same as December so you still need to double it to 64,000MWh. But then there is over discharge capacity. Everyone who's familiar with ebikes knows if you overdraw amps on a battery pack too small you kill its total cycle lifespan considerably.
And this is the thing that continues to surprise me with doing these calculations, as the extra dimensions of variability are too much for the average human mind and what looks possible starts to look more and more impossible or at least quite unviable. But headline numbers are great if you want to deliberately want to deceive people.
How many Tesla Model S battery packs is that? 84000MWh / 0.085MWh = 988,235 Model S Tesla battery packs.
So 988,235 x 5.027m2 = 4,967,857 meters squared battery pack that you would hopefully only have to replace every 10 years but Teslas aren't used 24/7 or used to pull their full 85kwh potential overnight. But the x 14 size to make it through winter could compensate for over cycling and make it last 10 years.
You could divide 4,967,857 by 10 to give a size where you would probably stack 10 Tesla modules on top of each other to fit in your standard warehouse building, so 496,785 square meters.
According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Motors#Batteries
Tesla sell the packs at US $400/KWh
Tesla charges US$400/kWh for the 85-kWh battery
Tesla 400 x 85kwh = $34,000
For a 1MWh battery pack, $400 x 1000 = $400,000 per 1 MWh
So we take $400,000 per 1MWh x 84,000MWh needed battery pack for $33,600,000,000
Bill Gates said in his speech if you got solar panels for free the cost of installing them ruins their viability against nuclear, maybe in his next speech he could also take a dig at batteries?
I am just doing the maths out loud here.. might of made a mistake.. Seems like a lot of work to do in solar panel size and batteries to waste just to stay on "renewables" to keep a pulp mill going or something else of industrial nature. Apparently, even industrial bakeries need huge power.
Link to a typical 1680MW coal power station as a reference.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gladstone_Power_Station
I was looking at this video/article today where the power grid almost did blow out between two major cities because Adelaide's wind farms were off due to no wind and the sudden need for all its power to come via the interstate grid nearly blew it out of action..
Research on the event by the Grattan Institute has argued that without a single nationwide climate plan, household power bills will rise unnecessarily and Australia will not hit its carbon cutting targets. "So we end up not achieving our emissions targets or, if we do, we do it at even higher costs than is necessary and in the meantime there could even be a risk of blackouts," report author Tony Wood said.
The report also cautioned the rise of intermittent wind generation poses risks in managing the stability and reliability of the power grid.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-25/s ... rm/7875970
*Add* not more than a few days after making this post South Australia goes completely in the dark due to the grid interstate connection between Victoria and SA blew so they lost all base load power as Victoria would have supplied them with coal fire powerstation base load.. And SA apparently can't utilize their 40% wind power because the wind is blowing too strongly. Always seems like renewable power looks all happy until the coal/gas/nuclear power station in the other state/country loses its connection.
Its almost like God wanted to help prove my argument on this thread/post..
http://www.theage.com.au/national/state ... rqmn2.html
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/na ... 1723440e6b
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... storm-hits
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/south ... alt-2016-9