Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
craneplaneguy   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 783
Joined: Nov 27 2015 9:15am
Location: S.E. Idaho USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by craneplaneguy » Nov 07 2018 10:12pm

I can't recall exactly, but I think the state board of water resources license/permit was 3 or 4 hundred bucks. I'm permitted for 90 GPM, and course I have to put it all back in the stream, which I do, every drop. 3" line, 147' of fall, 1/4 mile distance. This time of year I'm down to around 300 watts, meaning 300 watts going into the grid, after conversion losses. High is 875 watts for the first several months of spring/summer. I check the system most days, it's part of my dog's patrol, and don't mess with it unless I see a drop off in power, caused by loss of pressure, caused by too big of jets. They take 3 or 4 minutes to change out to smaller, then the pressure goes back up. NOTHING beats PV for simplicity and maintenance, all I do with the PV is look at it now and then to see if it has any bullet holes.

I've started running my 5 KW electric boiler, 4 or 5 hours a day, (for the radiant floor heat), plus got a few radiant panel heaters scattered around for spot heating, I'm not ever going to cold. Plus thermal solar to help out the DHW and rad floor, plus shop boiler with under ground lines to house. Sounds like overkill, and it is usually, until the winds blowing 30 mph and it's high teens.

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 413
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Nov 07 2018 10:59pm

craneplaneguy wrote:
Nov 07 2018 10:12pm
I can't recall exactly, but I think the state board of water resources license/permit was 3 or 4 hundred bucks. I'm permitted for 90 GPM, and course I have to put it all back in the stream, which I do, every drop. 3" line, 147' of fall, 1/4 mile distance. This time of year I'm down to around 300 watts, meaning 300 watts going into the grid, after conversion losses. High is 875 watts for the first several months of spring/summer. I check the system most days, it's part of my dog's patrol, and don't mess with it unless I see a drop off in power, caused by loss of pressure, caused by too big of jets. They take 3 or 4 minutes to change out to smaller, then the pressure goes back up. NOTHING beats PV for simplicity and maintenance, all I do with the PV is look at it now and then to see if it has any bullet holes.

I've started running my 5 KW electric boiler, 4 or 5 hours a day, (for the radiant floor heat), plus got a few radiant panel heaters scattered around for spot heating, I'm not ever going to cold. Plus thermal solar to help out the DHW and rad floor, plus shop boiler with under ground lines to house. Sounds like overkill, and it is usually, until the winds blowing 30 mph and it's high teens.
Very nice!

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1218
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 08 2018 9:15am

"Thus conventional “development” is best regarded as a form of legitimized plunder"
Some great stuff on Resilience.org these days.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2018 ... ink-about/

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1218
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 09 2018 12:48pm

Direct Air Capture of 1/3 of the carbon uses up 1/4 of the energy that made the CO2.
.
"On this basis, the paper says that capturing 12 billion tonnes of CO2 equivalent (GtCO2e) per year (around a third of annual global emissions) would require 156 exajoules (EJ) of energy. This is more than a quarter of total annual global energy demand for all uses, of around 550EJ."
.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/swiss-compa ... sions-2025

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5237
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Nov 12 2018 4:48am

It does hep make the argument that not emitting the CO2 in the first place is probably the easiest option.

Still, if CO2 does need removing from the atmosphere and a source of industrial CO2 is needed then it could make sense. Especially if it can operate as a scheduled or dispatchable load for those "useless" renewables that don't produce steady power 24/7.

This cost of extraction does break down in an interesting way:
•$700 per car: Annual cost to remove car CO2 emissions from the air, at current costs
That could be covered by a tax on road fuel. It would certainly go some way to paying for the externalities of use and would improve the economic argument for EVs. In fact, if carbon pricing come into force then we may see this kind of thinking applied to all sorts of everyday activities.


In other news, I happened to see that the UK's CO2 emissions are 43% below 1990 levels, despite the population and economy having grown. This is due to efficiency improvements but also in large part due to the closure of coal-fired power plants and replacement with renewables. I mention this not because it's a great example, but because it's not a good one - the UK has not done much by way of climate action, so I was surprised to see emissions have nearly halved. It shows what can be done even with modest effort and investment. Society and the economy have not collapsed as a consequence and there have been no power or heating shortages.

Rube   100 W

100 W
Posts: 251
Joined: Jun 25 2016 10:18pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Rube » Nov 13 2018 4:59am

Lots of charts and various sources in this thread so I thought this report is of interest: https://www.lazard.com/media/450773/laz ... vfinal.pdf
The premise of the link is an Illustration of how the levelised cost of energy (LCOE) derived from wind and utility-scale solar compares to the marginal cost of selected conventional generation technologies.

Here is a chart:
Levalised cost of energy comparsion - Unsubsidsed Analysis.JPG

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10049
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 13 2018 7:18am

Sadly, Lazard seem to think that a levelised comparison can be drawn between conventional, reliable, continuous, power sources,....... and unreliable , intermittent , sources, without storage or backup. :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 413
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Nov 13 2018 10:24am

Hillhater wrote:
Nov 13 2018 7:18am
Sadly, Lazard seem to think that a levelised comparison can be drawn between conventional, reliable, continuous, power sources,....... and unreliable , intermittent , sources, without storage or backup. :roll:
Gas peaking is mentioned. Are they rated to run continuously ? Comparison of apples to oranges can be appropriate when context is set to fruit.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 13 2018 11:14am

Hillhater wrote:
Nov 13 2018 7:18am
Sadly, Lazard seem to think that a levelised comparison can be drawn between conventional, reliable, continuous, power sources,....... and unreliable , intermittent , sources, without storage or backup.
To compare those, you can use LACE rather than LCOE (levelized avoided cost of energy.) By that measure, right now wind is cheaper than coal, and solar-PV is on a par with coal.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10049
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 13 2018 3:57pm

cricketo wrote:
Nov 13 2018 10:24am
Hillhater wrote:
Nov 13 2018 7:18am
Sadly, Lazard seem to think that a levelised comparison can be drawn between conventional, reliable, continuous, power sources,....... and unreliable , intermittent , sources, without storage or backup. :roll:
Gas peaking is mentioned. Are they rated to run continuously ? Comparison of apples to oranges can be appropriate when context is set to fruit.
Why would you run Gas peakers continuously ?, ..that is why its called a "Peaker"...intended for a specific purpose
,....but you can you can run them at ANY time you need power.
If you needed continuous power from a gas plant , you would build a CC plant.
But the point is, those numbers do not give the full or truthful picture.
And yes, you are correct , you cannot compare different fruits ..RE and Fossil fuel generation supply totally different products.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10049
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 13 2018 7:50pm

billvon wrote:
Nov 13 2018 11:14am
Hillhater wrote:
Nov 13 2018 7:18am
Sadly, Lazard seem to think that a levelised comparison can be drawn between conventional, reliable, continuous, power sources,....... and unreliable , intermittent , sources, without storage or backup.
To compare those, you can use LACE rather than LCOE (levelized avoided cost of energy.) By that measure, right now wind is cheaper than coal, and solar-PV is on a par with coal.
No bill,...LACE does not allow for "dispatchability" in its calculations either....only capacity .
Previously , the Lazard reports included values for LCOE with storage included... (But only a nominal 10 hrs to put it on par with solar thermal data ?) ..for Solar PV and Wind, but they dont appear in ver 12 ?

Lazard does present a rather obscure , 60 page, cost analysis for storage systems that is not easy to correlate to real applications ..
https://www.lazard.com/media/450774/laz ... vfinal.pdf
However , on page 11 they do conclude that utility scale lithium battery storage (limited capacity ?). Costs between $108-$140 /MWh .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1842
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Nov 13 2018 8:55pm

That is a new PDF document release from Lazard (well its all dated Nov 2018)

The problem with those LCOE charts is they exclude the ability of on-demand 24/7 generation of electricity.
This is now becoming the CORE rule for a power station being built in Australia
As said here for Victoria, "to release a tender for a 500-megawatt power station that could be built", the absolute core rule of the tender is 500MW of power WHEN-EVER they want it for as long as they need it, no excuses, if they can provide 500MW for a month straight then they do not care how it was generated via RE or something else, but its got to be there when requested.
https://www.matthewguy.com.au/media-rel ... -prices-2/
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/vict ... 50fgl.html

It's crazy that these LCOE charts are still even made. I really think its due to no other reason than traditional point of view that has come from conventional energy, but it simply doesn't fit with RE.
It should be abandoned or even made illegal to mention or list wind/solar RE in any other term that its "expected AVERAGE MW output", because its pretty much useless and practically irrelevant.
Coca-Cola or KFC/McDonalds is NOT allowed to claim the kilojoules/energy in their food in terms of how they WISH or HOPE it to be, that would be crazy, yet its a misleading standard numbering system for renewables that continues to be used, on top of it not being dispatchable power.

The ONLY reason to phase out such a stupid immoral term/number is to protect EVERYONE from garbage information that has little to do with what it can do. Conventional power-stations can for 24/7 do what they claim.. a 1600MW nuclear power-station can run for months straight at 1600MW power..
It would be far more practical to list each energy project were merely just "Average MW output annual". Anyone can see that number and get a rough idea of what it can do in a second.
Point is for RE Nameplate capacity shouldn't be the baseline for judging RE projects but its rare to EVER even see the "average MW power" listed for RE projects when its really quite crucial for proper evaluation.

Topaz 550MW solar power station is in fact on AVERAGE 145MW.. so if it was a product labelled 550MW in an everyday store it would be illegal, for instance, who would want to buy a Desktop-PC with 550GB storage if it only really has 145GB storage that can on average be used, that simply wouldn't be allowed.
People see renewable facebook memes that are full of very misleading claims, and governments spend billions on RE implementing what the voters want based on these misleading claims, so many Facebook/Youtube channels are being shut down for "fake news" but here we are with constant ridiculous renewables claims.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm
2018-11-14a.png
2018-11-14a.png (58.2 KiB) Viewed 935 times
^This project is a comparatively fair example.
For example, the Crescent Dunes which is a solar 125MW project with storage has a 14MW Average Output on its very best year, about 10 times off what its suggesting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_ ... gy_Project

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting to see the Lazard PDF added fuelcell in there and its pretty cheap.

If you follow the fuelcell news the constant increases in efficiency and new stuff being made is truly remarkable, everything from 4 hour flying quadcopters to fuelcell ships and truck announcements
https://twitter.com/fuelcellsworks

I don't have to look very long when I am outside to spot pure battery EV, so there is no argument that there are going to be a large amount of battery EVs over the next decade. The only thing I really wonder about now is what's next... This is what I think we should all be wondering about.

One of the things I have discovered, that just continues to surprise me, and be completely missed when talking to people, that I just can't repeat enough, is that almost all 4th gen nuclear designs are going to be coupled with mass-generation of Hydrogen by splitting water, either during off-peak or dedicated plants.
This is due to the fact with gen4 nuclear ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generatio ... of_designs ) it will generate heat for industrial use at a minimum around 650c, and merely using common inductance booster tech ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_heating ) combined with hybrid electrolysis/thermolysis/thermochemical technology, it will get water to degrees +800c causing a large % of water to instantly split into Hydrogen and Oxygen. (3rd gen nuclear peaks at around 350 degrees Celsius which is useless for anything other than steam generation for turning turbines.)
Once you get water to 3000 °C, most of the water is split into Hydrogen/Oxygen in 1 second, but requiring that level of heat is not required with hybrid thermal-electrolysis, because you break the H2O down via a multi-combination technique.

At the very high temperature of 3000 °C more than half of the water molecules are decomposed
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_spl ... ar-thermal
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMSR ... ations.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_ ... ical_cycle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_economy
There are a lot of methods or hybrid methods of very efficient mass-produced split water methods being examined https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copper%E2 ... rine_cycle

Nuclear Plant Economics & Synthetic Fuel Cogeneration
https://youtu.be/Q1Fi3BnwL94

Then the dream of everyone having co2 free Hydrogen fuel-cell flying cars with 8 hour flight times can be achieved etc https://youtu.be/AHlrLU7kTys

Despite all the speeches and diagrams by folks like Bill Gates and professional engineering in 4th gen nuclear some people still ignore the whole point of 4th gen nuclear in advances like burning the other 99% of mined uranium ( https://youtu.be/JaF-fq2Zn7I?t=821 ) for 100 fold increase in general efficiency expected and don't make the connection with hydrogen.
Or think because Hydrogen isn't as efficient as batteries it's pointless.

With 3rd gen nuclear, at best, only 1% of the mined uranium is actually used (u235), and rest is just stored. Of that 1% that's actually used, only about 5% of it is fissioned/burned, it's so inefficient you could almost think its a conspiracy, maybe that is why it was a deliberate design choice, to slow nuclear proliferation around the rest of the world.

The Bill Gates Terrapower is by far the most ambitious long-term 4th gen project, trying to burn the entire other 99% of the uranium (u238), plus the whole general reactor power-station design that needs no workers during operation for its lifetime is going to take some time to come, I think Mr Gates is being deliberately over-ambitious to possibly ensure he doesn't crush other 4th-gen competition in the short term.
But the fact is ALL 4th-gen projects are taking similar paths in massive increases in how what mix of uranium they use, and how they burn it and how little they have to do to run/monitor the whole power-station.

4th gen projects like the Terrestrial Energy's IMSR is a much more realistic design to see sometime soon, short wait time to be built 4th gen reactor. In fact, all its designs are done and they are merely awaiting nuclear regulatory approval to build a grid-connected full demonstration reactor in Canada.
https://youtu.be/OgTgV3Kq49U
http://nuclearsafety.gc.ca/eng/reactors ... dex.cfm#p2
If the public really wanted 4th gen nuclear I am sure it could be approved and built in no time at all, China is essentially/apparently building such MSRs right now but are really just for testing/military use.

For example, when the US Airforce wanted a nuclear-powered super-hot-air-jet-engine aircraft, it was pretty much built/done in a few years, even the though the whole idea was insane, this was before they needed regulatory approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_ ... Experiment
When they wanted to test the safety of molten salt in case of an accident, they just dumped the radioactive molten salt into a dirt pit with Geiger-counters around it to see if any radioactive particles attached to a gaseous form. This is the main advantage of molten salt reactors vs water based reactors we have today, as in nothing from the nuclear fuel-salt turns into radioactive gas and floats away contaminating the surrounding area, instead, it all binds to the salt and stays put.
https://youtu.be/_5iEQ6LXIWY?t=2053

The way to understand hydrogen-economy/future that is being worked on now and quasi-implemented by various governments around the world, is if we had a breakthrough for a real working version of the fusion energy promise from the Tokamak, for basically unlimited effortless energy,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokamak
it would then be a no-brainer to use it to generate Hydrogen right? Because the Tokamak is a box that is producing unlimited energy, so why not use it to generate co2 free hydrogen, even if its just for synfuels, synfuels are basically Hydrogen mixed with atmospheric co2 to create ultra-clean liquid combustible fuels that are carbon neutral.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanol_economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_fuel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_ ... en_economy

Well, thats what the plan is with gen 4 nuclear, its considered so much more efficient, that mass production of Hydrogen or Synfuels is a no-brainer and is listed with just about any 4th gen nuclear design description.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor second paragraph.
While the hydrogen economy, the thermochemical production of hydrogen to synthesize Carbon-neutral fuels, is deemed as strengthening the economic case for the two most efficient models, the high temperature reactor designs.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very-high ... re_reactor
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... or.svg.png
Image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:IMSR ... ations.png
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_ ... lt_Reactor

Image

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generatio ... advantages
There is frequently confusion between Molten-salt reactor (MSR) and Sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR).
The "Sodium" reactors have been around for a long time in experimental reactors and have clocked up some bad news/headlines over time, these are NOT the same as MSR reactors.

DOES SALT MEAN SODIUM?
Molten salt reactors are quite different from sodium fast reactors, even though many people think of sodium when they hear of salt. The sodium metals used by those reactors can release a hydrogen byproduct that is combustible in the presence of air or water. Our fluoride salts remove this fire risk, while further simplifying and increasing the safety of the plant design.
http://www.transatomicpower.com/nuclear ... -of-terms/

China apparently has a kind of Manhattan project for MSR.. because they don't have regulator processes to approve everything its possible they will be in the hoped Hydrogen fuel-cell flying cars/transport etc way before the rest of the world and be free from fossil fuels. You can see the same kind of vision in this image/article.
Image
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society ... r-warships
Last edited by TheBeastie on Nov 14 2018 4:39am, edited 26 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://goo.gl/1JNL53
Over Charging Kills ur battery bit.ly/1hzWKl4
Consider PAS as your only throttle https://goo.gl/Kg1F8F
Fuel-Cell is the ultimate battery coupled with 4th-gen Nuclear
https://goo.gl/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 13 2018 10:31pm

TheBeastie wrote:
Nov 13 2018 8:55pm
It's crazy that these LCOE charts are still even made. I really think its due to no other reason than traditional point of view that has come conventional energy, but doesn't fit with RE.
It should be abandoned or even made illegal to mention or list wind/solar RE in any other term that its "expected AVERAGE MW output", because its pretty much useless and practically irrelevant.
Trying to censor information that does not conform to your political agenda is quite popular among people who have run out of arguments and are losing rather badly. They figure that if they make the information "illegal" or something, people will remain ignorant - and ignorance works to their advantage.

Meanwhile, solar is making inroads in the third world as well as the first world. Since it is very scaleable, it makes energy available to people who would otherwise not have easy access to it.
======================================================
Kitui turns to solar, wind energy to cut costs, protect environment
Nov. 14, 2018, 12:00 am
By MUSEMBI NZENGU

The Kitui government wants residents to use renewable energy to help in environmental conservation.

Deputy Governor Wathe Nzau said on Monday that they will develop a master plan to promote clean energy sources, including solar, biomass and wind. They will also reduce its operation costs.
. . .
Executive Makau said electricity charges have become unaffordable even to the county government and the plan will provide a lasting solution to the problem.

“The use of renewable energy is feasible in Kitui county. It’s the way to go for the county to become more prosperous,” he said.

Head of the Inpower Campaign George Mwangala said his group is advocating renewable energy following the ban on charcoal production.

“Using renewable energy gives people, who previously produced charcoal, an alternative source of income,” he said.

“Renewable energy is not only affordable and sustainable, but also helps to reduce health complications like chest pain and eye problems resulting from use of charcoal.”
=======================================
Off-grid power pioneers pour into West Africa
Joe Bavier REUTERS

ABIDJAN (Reuters) - Standing by a towering equatorial forest, Jean-Noel Kouame’s new breeze-block house may be beyond the reach of Ivory Coast’s power grid, but it’s perfectly located for solar power entrepreneurs.

Buoyed by success in East Africa, off-grid solar power startups are pouring into West Africa, offering pay-as-you-go kits in a race to claim tens of millions of customers who lack reliable access to electricity.

At least 11 companies, including leading East African players such as Greenlight Planet, d.light, Off-Grid Electric (OGE), M-KOPE Solar, Fenix International and BBOXX, have moved into the region, most within the last two years.

With a potential market worth billions of dollars, major European energy companies such as French utilities EDF and Engie are taking notice too.

“It’s important to be there now, because the race has already started,” said Marianne Laigneau, senior executive vice president of EDF’s international division.
. . .
In Abidjan, Kouame doesn’t know when, or if, the national grid will reach the outer edge of the urban sprawl, but thanks to his new solar panel kit he has indoor lighting, an electric fan and a television.

But it’s the light bulb hanging outside his front door that he values the most.

“At night we were scared to go outside,” the 31-year-old taxi driver says as his pregnant wife watches a dubbed Brazilian soap opera. “Where there is light there is safety.”

Some 1.2 billion people around the world have no access to a power grid, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA). Lighting and phone charging alone costs them about $27 billion a year and some estimates put their total annual energy costs at more than $60 billion.

While governments in much of the developing world are extending access to national networks, Africa is lagging, with less than 40 percent of African households connected, IEA figures show.

But what has long been decried as a major obstacle to Africa’s development is viewed as an opportunity by entrepreneurs such as Nir Marom, co-founder of Lumos Global, the Dutch startup that built and sold Kouame his kit.

“I read an article about people paying 50 cents a day for kerosene and candles, and that just didn’t make sense,” said Marom. “I said I can give them four kilowatt hours for the price of kerosene. And that started everything.”
===============
--bill von

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5237
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Nov 14 2018 5:00pm

TheBeastie wrote:
Nov 13 2018 8:55pm

Coca-Cola or KFC/McDonalds is NOT allowed to claim the kilojoules/energy in their food in terms of how they WISH or HOPE it to be, that would be crazy
Right. So if a Fillet-o-crap burger is listed as having 300 kcal that must be available at any time and continuously? So if I want it at 3am when the restaurant is closed, I still get it? What if I buy it this month and want those 300kcal next month? I still get it, right? And, of course, I once I have consumed it, it provides me with 300kcal for the rest of my life?

TheBeastie wrote:
Nov 13 2018 8:55pm
yet its a misleading standard numbering system for renewables that continues to be used, on top of it not being dispatchable power.
You are aware that coal and nuclear are both examples of generation that is NOT DISPATCHABLE, right?
TheBeastie wrote:
Nov 13 2018 8:55pm
The ONLY reason to phase out such a stupid immoral term/number is to protect EVERYONE from garbage information that has little to do with what it can do. Conventional power-stations can for 24/7 do what they claim.. a 1600MW nuclear power-station can run for months straight at 1600MW power..
Speaking of garbage information... You know that neither coal or nuclear plants provide 100% availability, right (check the reported numbers yourself)? They require shutting down for maintenance & repairs and they also break down unexpectedly.
TheBeastie wrote:
Nov 13 2018 8:55pm
It would be far more practical to list each energy project were merely just "Average MW output annual". Anyone can see that number and get a rough idea of what it can do in a second.
Point is for RE Nameplate capacity shouldn't be the baseline for judging RE projects but its rare to EVER even see the "average MW power" listed for RE projects when its really quite crucial for proper evaluation.
Then why do you use the nameplate capacity of a nuclear or coal plant, when its average over a year is less?

Moreover, if a 300MWp PV plant averages 100MW over 24hrs, what the hell use is reporting its capacity as 100MW? It makes 300MW at midday and 0MW at midnight. In your world it makes 100MW in the dark.

Ever bought an electric motor? Noticed it has a peak power output as well as a continuous one? You realise that the advertised power of some cars is limited to short period, say 10 seconds? Call the Police!

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1218
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 14 2018 5:50pm

Lifetime average capacity factor of nuclear is over 90% for 60 years.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 14 2018 6:02pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Nov 14 2018 5:50pm
Lifetime average capacity factor of nuclear is over 90% for 60 years.
For the past 6 years or so, the availability of the nuclear power plant nearest to me has been 0%. And supposedly it was going to last until 2030.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1218
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 14 2018 6:13pm

There is always 1 outlier out of 448. I stand corrected. Global nuclear capacity factor is running at 81% for 2017.
.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/getmedia/b ... t.pdf.aspx

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 14 2018 6:39pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Nov 14 2018 6:13pm
There is always 1 outlier out of 448.
Well, and Three Mile Island. Pretty low average availability there. And Davis-Bessie, of course. Its availability is around 70% as a result of a football-sized hole in the reactor core that the operators overlooked for a few years. It took two years to fix that one. And the Crystal River nuclear plant had to shut down about 20 years early because the containment building cracked. That's a 62% availability factor for that reactor even if it operated 100% of the time before it was forced to close. More realistically it would be closer to 50%.

Fortunately for the nuclear industry, when a nuclear reactor has an accident that forces a closure, they immediately remove it from the list of operating reactors, so it isn't averaged in with the working reactors. That's why you can claim an 81% capacity factor - because those failed ones are immediately removed.

It would be interesting to see what the availability factor of solar would be if you gave them the same sort of loophole, and removed the condition of "night" from the calculations.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1218
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 14 2018 6:53pm


Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10049
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 14 2018 7:08pm

Bill, ..you argument points are getting even more rediculous !
Capacity factors are all a little pointless anyway , as most of the general public, nearly all politicians, and many so called "experts".... All still consider a GW of installed PV or wind , is exactly the same as a GW of Nuclear, Gas or Coal generation.
Much of it id simple ignorance, but a fair ammount is self induced denial of the facts.
But it doesnt really matter, we can/will carry on down this track of RE salvation untill the ugly reality emerges.
..its just a matter of who gets there first ?
Last edited by Hillhater on Nov 14 2018 7:20pm, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1218
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Nov 14 2018 7:12pm

billvon wrote:
Nov 14 2018 6:39pm
It would be interesting to see what the availability factor of solar would be if you gave them the same sort of loophole, and removed the condition of "night" from the calculations.
Might make it to 30% where I live if it more than doubled.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 14 2018 7:26pm

Hillhater wrote:
Nov 14 2018 7:08pm
Bill, ..you argument points are getting even more rediculous !
Capacity factors are all a little pointless anyway , as most of the general public, nearly all politicians, and many so called "experts".... All still consider a GW of installed PV or wind , is exactly the same as a GW of Nuclear, Gas or Coal generation.
No one I know considers them "exactly the same." Perhaps you know a different class of "experts?"
But it doesnt really matter, we can/will carry on down this track of RE salvation untill the ugly reality emerges.
Yes, we will. And the "ugly reality" may well be that coal (for example) is simply no longer viable. Sad - but progress marches on.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10049
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 14 2018 7:51pm

Punx0r wrote:
Nov 14 2018 5:00pm
... You know that neither coal or nuclear plants provide 100% availability, right (check the reported numbers yourself)? They require shutting down for maintenance & repairs and they also break down unexpectedly. ...
...and i assume you know that the same will apply to wind and solar installations .?
Punx0r wrote:
Nov 14 2018 5:00pm
....why do you use the nameplate capacity of a nuclear or coal plant, when its average over a year is less?

Moreover, if a 300MWp PV plant averages 100MW over 24hrs, what the hell use is reporting its capacity as 100MW? It makes 300MW at midday and 0MW at midnight. In your world it makes 100MW in the dark.
Well it could supply that 100MW in the dark ,...if it had enough storage included. :wink:
Actually, many thermal plants "nameplate" (registered) capacity is often less than their maximum output capacity.
As is the case with some solar plants also...as you pointed out with your motor rating analogy, the same applies to generation sets, and the "nameplate" is normally the continuous rating. ( unless you are a saleman or a politician !)
Its perfectly possible for a nuclear, gas or coal plant to output its nameplate (peak) capacity for hours, days, even weeks ...if required , and at the discretion of the operators.
As you are well aware, a solar or wind generator can only produce their nameplate (peak) capacity when the weather allows, and in the case of solar , only for a few hours at most , per day.
So a capacity factor is an average output, varyable depending on the timescale chosen...24hr , weekly, monthly, annual, full lifetime, etc
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10049
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Nov 14 2018 8:06pm

billvon wrote:
Nov 14 2018 7:26pm
Hillhater wrote:
Nov 14 2018 7:08pm
...... we can/will carry on down this track of RE salvation untill the ugly reality emerges.
Yes, we will. And the "ugly reality" may well be that coal (for example) is simply no longer viable. Sad - but progress marches on.
You are showing a lack of vision there bill, if the viability of coal is the worst reality you consider might occurr.
Coal will be available , and viable , way longer than it will be needed to keep society functioning, but Man will find better options for energy supply eventually and substitute it.
But what we should avoid are substitute energy sources that have consequences that undermine the society they are intended to support..
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2792
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Nov 14 2018 10:48pm

Hillhater wrote:
Nov 14 2018 8:06pm
You are showing a lack of vision there bill, if the viability of coal is the worst reality you consider might occurr.
?? We could all be killed by a big meteor tomorrow. That's certainly worse. But less likely.
Coal will be available , and viable , way longer than it will be needed to keep society functioning, but Man will find better options for energy supply eventually and substitute it.
Yes. Sources that make coal unviable. Just as cars made horses unviable as a means of transportation. (However, surely someone will still operate a coal fired steam train, or a coal fired power plant, for sentimental reasons.)
But what we should avoid are substitute energy sources that have consequences that undermine the society they are intended to support..
Agreed. Coal, for example, kills thousands of people a year and does untold millions in damage to roads, buildings and monuments.
--bill von

Post Reply