Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4485
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Apr 15, 2018 8:46 am

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 15, 2018 5:08 am
Either you dont bother to read the links, or you have trouble comprehending what is printed.
Funny enough, I skipped the 720 page report and focused on the passage you quoted, erroneously believing it would contain the information to support your assertions.

Hillhater wrote:
Apr 15, 2018 5:08 am
AEMO said unforeseen separation and complete loss of the Heywood Interconnector has occurred six times in the past 17 years.
But in every other instance, the system stayed alive.

"The key differentiator between the 28 September 2016 event and the other three events is that there was significantly lower inertia in SA in the most recent event, due to a lower number of on-line synchronous generators," the report said.
Well, at the highest level, the systems to maintain grid stability clearly aren't fit for purpose if they do not work with the generators (RE) now connected. Maybe some kind of hydro or battery storage might be useful to provide this function instead of spinning inertia? Oh, wait, that's exactly what is currently being done...

Also, your assertion that a comparable situation has occurred in the past (in the good ol' pre-RE days) without causing a blackout appears false. The summary from Wikipedia of the event describes it was not just the Heywood interconnector that was lost and that it was, in fact, the last in a long line of dominoes to fall before the lights went out:
The wind damaged a total of 23 pylons on electricity transmission lines, including damage on three of the four interconnectors connecting the Adelaide area to the north and west of the state.

The preliminary report from the Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) identified that problems started 90 seconds before the eventual failure. The first line to trip was a 66 kV line near Adelaide, and it was automatically reset. The first major fault was 47 seconds later when two phases of the 275 kV line between Brinkworth and Templers grounded. The Davenport–Belalie line tripped with one phase to ground, was automatically reset, but tripped again nine seconds later, so was isolated for manual inspection, with the fault estimated to be 42 km (26 mi) from Davenport. One second later (7 seconds before the state went dark), the Hallett Wind Farm reduced output by 123 MW. Four seconds later, a third 275 kV transmission line showed a fault, the Davenport–Mount Lock is on the other side of the same towers as Davenport–Belalie, and the fault was estimated to be 1 km (0.6 mi) further on. The damaged power lines caused 5–6 voltage glitches which stressed the ride-through capability of most of the wind farm capacity, causing nine of them to shut down:[10] Finally, all within one second, the Hornsdale Wind Farm reduced output by 86 MW, Snowtown Wind Farm reduced output by 106 MW, the Heywood interconnector flow increased to over 850 MW and both of its circuits tripped out due to the overload. Supply was then lost to the entire South Australian region of the National Electricity Market, as the Torrens Island Power Station, Ladbroke Grove Power Station, Murraylink interconnector and all remaining wind farms tripped.[11]
Quite the perfect storm. And, as they said, a once-in-50-years event.

So, does this mean wind turbines are inherently unsuitable? Nope. It seems a simple change in software settings is all that would have been required to avoid the blackout:
AEMO identified software settings in the wind farms that prevented repeated restarts once voltage or frequency events occurred too often. The group of wind turbines that could accept 9 ride-throughs in 120 seconds stayed on line through much of the event before the system went black. The rather larger group of turbines that could not accept this many repeated ride-throughs dropped out, instigating the overload and shutdown of the interconnector, and hence the electricity supply. AEMO has suggested better fault ride-through capability for the wind farms. The high wind speed caused 20 MW of wind power to disconnect to prevent overspeed.[10]
Note, 20MW of wind generators were forced to disconnect due to high wind. Before that point, they were generating HALF of the entire state's electricity. Quite at odds with your earlier assertion that the blackout was caused by the wind-turbines shutting down due to over-speed en-masse.

Note, again, the wind conditions were exceptional: a once-in-50-years storm that was sufficient to bring down transmission pylons. Yet the vast majority of the wind turbines continued to function properly (and it seems, rather well).

So, what about restarting the system? Thankfully there was a plan:
AEMO had contracts with two "System Restart Ancillary Services" (SRAS) providers to help bring the network back up
Well, there was a diesel plant, that proved useless:
The Mintaro Emergency Diesel Generator had suffered storm damage, including a cloud-to-ground lightning strike in very close proximity, but would not have been useful anyway due to its location in the network and downed transmission lines.


Then there were the gas-turbine plants on Torrens Island that didn't work either:
The Quarantine Power Station was unable to start the larger Unit #5 required to provide enough power to restart any of the Torrens Island Power Station units, so Torrens Island needed power from the Victorian interconnector to be restarted.
Great, a large power station that requires another power station to start it, but that itself didn't have enough power to start.

How much auxillary power does it take to start a PV panel or a wind turbine? I don't know exactly but I bet it's either zero or very small (onsite commercial diesel generator small).

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8666
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 » Apr 15, 2018 5:07 pm

Keep typing.
Eventually you will have convinced yourself that the high % of wind generation was not a major factor in the blackout.
...dispite the Official grid operator formally investigating and reporting that it was.
Sure, they can (and have !) modify software, install batteries, etc etc to try to avoid that situation next time, but until it happens we wont know if it is enough.
In reality, even that heavily RE committed State government decided , ( in a real vote of confidence in RE.), to urgently buy 350+ MW of diesel powered generators as emergency back up...just in case !...
.....and are lobbying for another HV interconnector so they can "export" more of the "surplus" RE power they generate. :roll: :roll:
Unsurprising then, that Government just got voted out in the state election.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4485
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Apr 15, 2018 5:31 pm

Well if that's the case why don't you quote the passge from an official report to the effect of "the inherent unreliability of wind turbines was a major contributor", or "if SA had had 100% coal generation a blackout would not have occured"?

Because it seems pretty clear to me the root cause was wind blowing over HV pylons resulting in a fault condition the system was not designed to cope with. It was certainly not caused by generator choice and no generator type would have mitigated it.

Your obvious bias against RE, political agenda and lack of technical objectivity is concerning.

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8666
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 » Apr 15, 2018 6:32 pm

Its pretty obvious that had SA sufficient reliable continuous generation capacity itself, none of this would have occurred.
Its also obvious (to most of us and the experts ). that if they had retained sufficient synchronous generators, that would also have prevented the blackout. But the SA generation system is the result of Political ideology forcing "Green" agenda's to preference RE above any technical or operational consideration, and hence eliminate coal from the supply mix.
At the risk of repeating myself...
The two key points that you fail to assimulate....
....As the number of faults on the transmission network grew, nine wind farms in the mid-north of SA exhibited a sustained reduction in power as a protection feature activated.
........
When the protection feature kicked in, the output of those wind farms fell by 456 megawatts over a period of less than seven seconds.

.......
When the wind farms unexpectedly reduced their output, the Heywood Interconnector from Victoria tried to make up the shortfall.

About 700 milliseconds after the last wind farm powered down, the flow in the interconnector reached such a level that it activated a special protection scheme that tripped it offline.

The sudden loss of power flows across the interconnector sent the frequency in the SA grid plummeting....
And..
....The key differentiator between the 28 September 2016 event and the other three events is that there was significantly lower inertia in SA in the most recent event, due to a lower number of on-line synchronous generators," the report said.
"This resulted in a substantially faster rate of change of frequency compared to the other events, exceeding the ability of the under-frequency load-shedding scheme to arrest the frequency fall before it dropped below 47Hz."

Synchronous generators include coal, gas and hydro.
The state's last coal generator, at Port Augusta, closed last year.....
.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1708
Joined: Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Apr 15, 2018 8:50 pm

The funny thing about South Australias huge once in a 50 year storm is that almost no homes were hurt, sure a few really old farm sheds with no trees around them lost their roofs but aside from that it was just trees falling over and the downed power-lines. The only reason why a bunch of power lines fell over being the ONLY REAL DAMAGE is due to the fact that South Australia has been pouring all its money into wind-farms and not enough in just POLES and WIRES maintenance.

This is the classic cancer effect of wind-turbines, the SA government probably stupidly thought there would be some kind of free money saving rainbow at the end of all their wind-farm builds so they could go back to maintaining the electricity lines but there wasn't so when a storm that didn't really do anything but blow over a few trees came along it took down a lot of their power-lines mostly because of their budget for keeping their power-lines in good condition was lost on wind-farms.

The force of the winds that hit South Australia were tiny compared to what Queensland frequently gets during its cyclone season the winds are TWICE as strong last longer and happen every year, but the power RARELY goes out, the reason to that is they keep their power-lines in good working order and don't waste the money on wind-farms.
This was frequently pointed out by the eastern side of Australia, they couldn't believe such crappy winds could bring down power-lines, and they're totally right.

The big storm that made South Australia ENTIRE state go into blackout was special because it was the ENTIRE state, but South Australia is famous for CONSTATNLY sneaking in mini-blackouts in selected areas, they often do one suburb and then move it to another suburb the next week so they can minimize the annoyance, the reason why they do this is due to the fact they can't predict the wind properly and the dont want to minimize gas turbine usage and not provide ample power plus a bunch of other unpredictable things managing electricty so the easist/cheapest/fastest thing to do is just drop a suburbs power for a little while. They call them rolling-blackouts.
Coal electricity generation is of course not compatible with intermittent wind energy that is why SA don't have any coal anymore as they shut them all down and instead import coal-electricity from Victoria via the inter-state grid.

The reason why so many people in SA have generators is because of all the constant mini-blackouts and nothing to do with the well-reported "State-Wide" blackout that hit so many news headlines.

The reason why I copied this video to my Youtube account is that its a rare article that's worthy of the word "critical" of renewables, so its special, even though the article more specifically attacks gas/policy and just about everything else other than renewables, its still special to come from the ABC. Video shown probably came out as the last story on a Friday night, so they know it has little impact over all.
I could only imagine the effect would be if all of ABCs energy was aimed at directly attacking renewables, Australian folks would have an aneurysm in confusion.
https://youtu.be/me2OcNX185Q


I don't know why Punxor has dug up this old argument all of a sudden. I am guessing he talked to someone in Australia that doesn't think for themselves and is someone that is loaded with more ABC garbage then the North Korean media loads their people with garbage information.
Its the exact same effect on people whether you're from North Korea or not and that is if you don't think for your self or have access to a large amount of critical media then your being manipulated.
The only time the media will get better is when its all on the internet only and everyone has equal access to information, instead of these high-stage platforms where money is forced from taxpayers and funneled into specific corrupted platforms.

The core of North Koreas control on its people is with bad information via its media and the brain washing effects its a crime against humanity and this is the same thing that happens in Australia ultimately as there is little critical thinking free media available.
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

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4485
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Apr 16, 2018 4:33 am

OK, I concede, you two are correct. The only way to prevent storms bringing down power lines and causing a blackout is to burn coal. Driving a generator with a propeller instead of a steam turbine clearly just doesn't work and it never will.

I imagine the wildfire currently ripping through Sydney is also somehow the fault of RE and the "green agenda".

Hillhater
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 8666
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 » Apr 16, 2018 5:27 am

Punx0r wrote:
Apr 16, 2018 4:33 am
I imagine the wildfire currently ripping through Sydney is also somehow the fault of RE and the "green agenda".
Well.......!!
That particular fire seems to have been started deliberately...
...But the severity of many of our latest fires has been blamed on the "green'" policy of local councils , not allowing "controlled burns" to remove combustible leaf and branch matter on the ground in the wooded areas.
This has resulted in 10-15 years of fuel build up under already flammable dry bush and forrest making any fire much worse to control.
So yes, there is a "green agenda" factor involved.!
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 740
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Apr 17, 2018 5:56 am

The ground (and panels) is white again. Terrible weather this year.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4485
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Apr 17, 2018 7:35 am

20°C (70°F) and sunshine here and everything is growing. February is usually about the time it stops going down to freezing at night. We're much further North than New York as well (similar latitude to Quebec and Moscow), thanks solely to the Gulf Stream. If Artic warming continues there is a real danger it will shut down or divert south and turn the UK into a cold, snowy shithole.
Last edited by Punx0r on Apr 17, 2018 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
jimw1960
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 746
Joined: Jul 23, 2008 4:44 pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Apr 17, 2018 9:29 am

Check out this video about a floating offshore wind turbine project in Scottland. The turbines are 6 MW each and huge! Supposedly has been consistently producing at over 60% of rated capacity. Some serious heavy lift operations going on in the video. Not sure how the cost compares to a coal or gas plant, but fun to watch such a feat of human engineering.

https://www.ecowatch.com/floating-wind- ... 73353.html

User avatar
TheBeastie
1 MW
1 MW
Posts: 1708
Joined: Jul 28, 2012 12:31 am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Apr 18, 2018 12:38 am

When talking to some people who say things like "Hydro is the renewables solution for Australia" I instantly know I am wasting my time because we all know South Australia would love to have hydro but they dont have the water etc, they would be building hydro if they could, even tiny crappy sized ones. Renewables is so dependent on location, location, location.

But I am now starting to see Wind is similar to hydro in some ways, as Germany has built a huge about of wind-farms but because they are inland country they don't get nearly as much wind as England does as far as I have noticed.

Italy is in the same boat which is unusal because you would think they would get good wind being almost a perfect land shape for sea wind but their use of there almost 10GW installation of wind-farms is barely utilized, its generation stats are so bad its almost like Italy has secretly given up on their huge wind installation and elect to only use it on a modest level, maybe they just wear out too fast, or maybe its just not much wind as we would think.
2018-04-18 (5).png
2018-04-18 (5).png (50.99 KiB) Viewed 77 times
Italy is a good country to study on how good wind-energy is because 1) its a large installation, 2) has no nuclear, 3) has hydro, its big but its not monstrous in size, (Hydro allows you to cheat on total co2 emissions, its cheating compared to how SA has to deal with things).
Italy is still on the border of France, so Italy can just import a certain amount of electricity when needed along with Hydro. Its the lack of access to Nuclear power and Hydropower which is really just cheating that makes South Australia so vulnerable to wind energy they can hide behind fossil fuels but then its easy to see they barely reduce co2 emissions at all compared to France.

When looking at the post above on the floating wind-farm where its capacity is 30MW for the construction alone of $263 million I still think about how its location is important, coal or nuclear don't care where you put them.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -operating

While capacity factor wasn't mentioned at all in the Bloomberg article that other news article twists things again claiming 60% capacity factor for a month.. If its not done in a >annual< sense then its being deliberately misleading as any Coal or Nuclear plant can deliberately set up for the winter or summer month and be able to run at full capacity for a full month with zero down time if it wanted to and claim 100% capacity. And coal/nuclear can on top pick that high capacity month which wind/solar never can.

And really South Australia is the same in the capacity factor mess, the only times I have ever seen impressive generation above 50% for a 24 hour period is when destructive level winds are lashing the whole southern Australian states.
I can't stress it enough, when I see snapped tree branches piled up on the ground of my local park that's the day I see great generation stats on South Australia's wind farms. And all up I have realized thats a pretty crappy requirement for needing good power, that is seeing phsyical destruction of trees in the local area.

For me now, the biggest eye-opener on wind-generation is not just how low the generation is, even if it averages out to 25% or 23% for Germany, the other big eye-opener of wind is how often you don't get the wind when you need it or even in a consistent manner as shown on this chart of Australias last 24 hour generation from all its wind-farms, its just all over the place. Murphy's law is especially strong in wind generation, you don't get the power when you want. But its all counted as useful MWh's in annual statistics and attributes to the "capacity factor" even if the number is already bad, there are just so many hidden costs to comprehend.
2018-04-18 (2).png
All of Australias windfarms in capacity factor last 24 hours.
And the complexities obscure the whole point of wind and that is to cut co2 levels which is it barely does.
While on Electricity map South Australia or Germany are typically emitting around 8 to 13 times more co2 than France. If you went pure nuclear at 12grams of co2 equivalent per KWh produced according to the IPCC measurements that means that South Australia at 362g / 12g = 30 times more co2 produced than if France went pure nuclear dropped their tiny amount of gas/coal usage altogether.
2018-04-18 (4).png
CO2 emissions while typing this post. France vs SA is 41g vs 556g per KWh, typical sight.
2018-04-18 (4).png (87.83 KiB) Viewed 81 times
If we're in a car sales yard and comparing efficiency/emissions on two cars and one car was emitting 10 times more co2 than the other car it would simply be considered a bad joke, but that is where we are with wind-renewables.
Its a testament to the fact that such a small state in Australia has thrown everything it can at wind and done such a crap job of actually lowing co2 emissions compared to France who when started building nuclear reactors a long time ago were not even thinking about co2 emissions, but France have completely kicked SA arse to the point where I think SAs efforts are pointless.
The low levels of co2 emitted by France for their entire country is proof of how well nuclear works vs single Australian state that only needs on average 2000MW shows that wind without cheats used by other countries like Hydro/nuclear backup shows its a far worse technology than is conceivable by almost anyone, including me.

When I look at electricity map you can see all the poorest countries in Europe do use nuclear. Hungary, Slovakia, Czech Republic
, Ukraine, Romania, Belarus, Bulgaria.
*Edit Add to my post, even if its just for personal notes.*
You can even see BRAND NEW nuclear power-stations being built in the poorest countries in Europe like Belarus.
https://goo.gl/maps/PASTPrdVEQw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belarusia ... l_features
I guess Lithuania wouldn't be too happy to have a new nuclear power-station only 45km away from their capital city, but at least they could buy power from them at a good rate I would assume.
2018-04-18 (8).jpg
2018-04-18 (8).jpg (184.84 KiB) Viewed 53 times
*Add* here is the basic numbers been floating in my head..
Renewable energy subsidies in Australia are about $2.8billion a year http://www.afr.com/news/politics/renewa ... 313-guwo3t
The money going into the current Australian renewable subsidies rules are set to go to 2030 so thats $33.6billion dollars.
Some articles claim $3billion a year if you include local state addon subsidies, so could argue we got a budget of $36billion for this stuff.

So for $10billion according to that Wikipedia page you get a 2.4GW/2400MW nuclear reactor like in Belarus. Comparatively all the power that was generated from South Australia's windfarms for the WHOLE of 2017 was 4,343 GWh or just under 500MW average.
So 4,343 GWh/8760_hours_annual = 0.495GW or just 495MW average power from wind-farms, and as usual, the wind-power came when it wasn't wanted, its just crap. SA 2017 Generation numbers here https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/Files/E ... t-2017.pdf
If we could build x2.8 Belarus power stations for the $2.8billion a year over ten years $28billion dollars than ideally we could have 2.8x 2400MW = 6720MW or 6.72GW nuclear power-station roughly.
If we could get 6000MW average power out of it that is 12 times more power that what we are getting from renewables roughly, and getting the power when we want and massively cutting co2 emissions.

The thing is I am pretty sure if Australian voters knew just how crap wind energy is in actual co2 reduction vs nuclear and faced with the fact that Nuclear isn't expensive compared to wind BECAUSE SOUTH AUSTRALIA HAVE THE MOST EXPENSIVE ELECTRICITY IN THE >WORLD<, I am willing to bet that most Australians would either support nuclear or more likely not give a stuff about co2 emissions all because they never really cared about it anyway other than using it as a political whacking stick for their favorite political team, because people are selfish insane idiots.
1501829123113 (2).png
All states that have the largest wind-installations have the most expensive electricity in the world.
1501829123113 (2).png (15.59 KiB) Viewed 109 times
I am fine with coal or standard regular HELE coal which filters out everything but pure co2 and does it 25% more efficiently than a standard coal power-station, but I am also happy to go nuclear so all the politics and corruption over renewable energy subsidy money is completely destroyed, its all just evil cancer. So much money is being spent on wind-renewables stuff that doesn't even effectively reduce co2.
My calculations suggest if the money that goes into renewables in Australia annually over a 10-15 year period instead was just saved/spent on nuclear you could have a nuclear reactor producing about 15 times more electricity than what renewables does and have the electricity when you actually want it. And have a truly massive co2 reduction like France.

The other main thing that holds back nuclear in Australia is you can't undo the bad information done by established mainstream media (or at least its near impossible) that has told them the radiation from Fukushima is directly to blame on countless deaths/cancer when the official statistics show Zero people died or received cancer from the radiation leaked from Fukushima.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_n ... a_disaster
I just can't believe how little people know about this stuff, like the fact that the only really well-confirmed cancer-causing radiation released from a nuclear power-station explosion/meltdown is only active in the first few days of the meltdown because its the highest energy emitting radiation, and because its high energy emitting it dies away/runs out of energy very quickly.

Australia is one of the most geological stable countries in the world, especially in the area between SA and Victoria.
And Yes we all know Fukushima has a big cleanup bill but thats what you get when you run a 1960s era reactor in a tsunami and earthquake zone. I have no doubt Japanese engineers knew the risks from the beginning and decided it was worth the risk in the long run anyway as insane as that may sound.

All up its the bad information thats the biggest cancer effect on this problem, and I blame traditional media as the chief cause. The faster mainstream-media is moved onto the "internet only" so that even pro-renewables sites like "electricitymap.org" have even-access to peoples TV-screens/eyes as ABC-news does, then the world/Australia will be much a better place, moving on to better things and not being stuck in corrupted cancerous situations like this.

I was really happy to see that the new finalized 5G mobile standard can use the currently used digital TV spectrum so that there is a future plan cemented in to wipe away traditional media bad cancer on the world, and that already in the USA a lot of TV spectrum has already been sold to mobile carriers for 5G usage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_ ... ve_auction

There has been a lot of speculation in Australia that all the TV stations want to sell their TV spectrum for a billion $ each and just become streaming only content providers, this is what I want to see, as this forces people to engage in the internet only as habit and thus more possible to engage in real information on the world even if its just electricitymap.org

I know I may be straying from the problem here on energy but not really, bad information is the core cancer to the energy problem, politicians don't decide energy policy, ultimately its the voters that decide but they decide with crap cancerous information.
Last edited by TheBeastie on Apr 18, 2018 9:14 am, edited 5 times in total.
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

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 740
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Apr 18, 2018 5:42 am

TheBeastie wrote:
Apr 18, 2018 12:38 am
When looking at the post above on the floating wind-farm where its capacity is 30MW for the construction alone of $263 million I still think about how its location is important, coal or nuclear don't care where you put them.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... -operating
$8/W.
$16/W after capacity factor.
And the moving parts and blades will need rebuilding every 10 years via giant fossil fueled lift barges.

Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 398
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Apr 18, 2018 7:15 am

TheBeastie wrote:
Apr 18, 2018 12:38 am
I am fine with coal or standard regular HELE coal which filters out everything but pure co2 and does it 25% more efficiently than a standard coal power-station, but I am also happy to go nuclear so all the politics and corruption over renewable energy subsidy money is completely destroyed, its all just evil cancer. So much money is being spent on wind-renewables stuff that doesn't even effectively reduce co2.
My calculations suggest if the money that goes into renewables in Australia annually over a 10-15 year period instead was just saved/spent on nuclear you could have a nuclear reactor producing about 15 times more electricity than what renewables does and have the electricity when you actually want it. And have a truly massive co2 reduction like France.
...
You have no idea about the true cost of nuclear power plants.

Those costs can not be found on your electrical bill but are payed with tax payers money.

Germanies industry is quite competitive on the world market, that's why we have huge exports. I assume we are quite competitive in energy technolgy and building powerplants, too. We are a country that soon will be able to have a better estimate of the real cost of a "nuclear cycle" from R&D up to building, using and rebuilding the stuff. Some waste managment now and some waste management in the future.

And (knocking 3 times on wood) we are lucky enough that hopefully none of our old and more and more unrelieable reactors will have a major incident.

I guess the final number for the true cost of electricity produced by nukes in Germany will be somewhere between 20-50€ct/kWh. If a bad accident happens it can easily climb to 1€/kWh and higher. This is with old and cheap nukes that had and have huge riscs for failure and are not secure against terrorist attacs or major blackouts. Russia is preparing for cyber war and the electricty net and power plants will most likely be priority targets.

Australia going to build nukes is perfectly fine for me. You will find a place somewhere in Aborigine land to bury your waste, that's a significant advantage. Another significant advante of a nuke failure is, that it will not (physically) affect your huge country with mostly very low population desity.
So in my opinion, just go for it, but don't whine for the price you have to pay.

You like the French power generation, It was built with HUGE government subsidues primaerly because France wanted to build their nuclear weapons and they didn't have coal. It was a project of national pride (both type of nukes) and therefor cost didn't matter.

Cost does matter now. Electricity prices are low in France because of subsidies (doesn't help the competivness of the industry so much), but the state owned operator EDF has huge dept problems (31 Billion euros) and there is next to NO money available to rebuild the reactors.
German Operator had put away 23(?) billion Euro and still this is not even close to enough and now it will be payed by the tax payers. It will cost many billions Euro more. And we are not even talking about storage.

So for France we are talking about 100+ billion Euros.

So France has no Option than to run most of their reactors "forever". Those old reactors will age more and more and they get more and more unreliable. We are now in a 10 year economy boom and they have no money to modernize their aging and cracking reactors, what will the do in economic downtime? They will run their reactors till the next large accident.
Sadly it's mostly west wind in our region.

You believe that France is the country with the ideal electricity mix. They are low on CO2 emissions but that's just a byproduct and has never the main intention (this was to build nuclear warheads)
France electricity grid highly depends on foreign countries to stabilize it (Germany can live without France, France can't live without Germany for grid Stabilisation), their nuclear fleet is ageing and there is no money for modernisation or rebuilding them.

It's a catastrophe that's just waiting to happen.

And it's what you are promoting for your country.

Good luck, but maybe you just think it's worth the risc and it will not be you but your childen that have to pay the bill. And this is the one point we do agree: Yes, it is insane.

"... I have no doubt Japanese engineers knew the risks from the beginning and decided it was worth the risk in the long run anyway as insane as that may sound..."

sendler2112
10 kW
10 kW
Posts: 740
Joined: Dec 07, 2012 6:14 am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Apr 18, 2018 8:03 am

Cephalotus wrote:
Apr 18, 2018 7:15 am
France electricity grid highly depends on foreign countries to stabilize it (Germany can live without France, France can't live without Germany for grid Stabilisation)
???

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4485
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Apr 18, 2018 9:57 am

TheBeastie wrote:
Apr 18, 2018 12:38 am
So for $10billion according to that Wikipedia page you get a 2.4GW/2400MW nuclear reactor like in Belarus...If we could build x2.8 Belarus power stations for the $2.8billion a year over ten years $28billion dollars than ideally we could have 2.8x 2400MW = 6720MW or 6.72GW nuclear power-station roughly.
If we could get 6000MW average power out of it that is 12 times more power that what we are getting from renewables roughly, and getting the power when we want and massively cutting co2 emissions.
A sound cost-analysis, except for just a couple of tiny details:

It doesn't include:

Insurance
Fuel
Maintenance
Repairs
Waste disposal
Decommissioning

You like car analogies. It's like you've taken the sticker price of a new car and assumed that's all you will ever have to pay to run it until it needs scrapping :lol:

Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 398
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Apr 18, 2018 2:30 pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Apr 18, 2018 8:03 am
Cephalotus wrote:
Apr 18, 2018 7:15 am
France electricity grid highly depends on foreign countries to stabilize it (Germany can live without France, France can't live without Germany for grid Stabilisation)
???
While France is a net exporter of electricity whe looking for the entire year it is not able to produce its peak demand during very cold winter days: because of cheap electricity many buildings are heated with electric heaters and therefor electricity demand in France can exceed 100GW during those times.

https://energytransition.org/2017/01/fr ... er-demand/

It also happend that they needed imports during very hot summers. Often some nukes are in maintainace mode during summer and when it is hot and dry for sveral weeks remaining nukes need to throttle down because they lack enough cold river water for cooling. Soe years ago electricity prices on the spot market got very expensive, but last years summers have been not so dry/hot and Germany now has 40GW of solar power.

Cephalotus
1 kW
1 kW
Posts: 398
Joined: Jun 18, 2012 12:27 pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Cephalotus » Apr 18, 2018 2:31 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Apr 18, 2018 9:57 am

You like car analogies. It's like you've taken the sticker price of a new car and assumed that's all you will ever have to pay to run it until it needs scrapping :lol:
And because the car has a "capacity factor" of just 1% (using an average of 2kW from its 200kW engine) the "true cost" of his car is 100 times the sticker price ;-)

User avatar
Chalo
100 GW
100 GW
Posts: 6646
Joined: Apr 29, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Chalo » Apr 18, 2018 2:53 pm

Punx0r wrote:
Apr 18, 2018 9:57 am
A sound cost-analysis, except for just a couple of tiny details:

It doesn't include:

Insurance
Fuel
Maintenance
Repairs
Waste disposal
Decommissioning
Don't forget externalities!

Accidents
Persistent radioisotope contamination
Cancer
Facilities security
Lost property value
Etc.

How profitable was Fukushima power station in the final analysis? Oh wait-- we won't have a final analysis for hundreds of years. And of course the plant's operating authorities will never be on the hook for the real costs of their folly.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

Punx0r
10 GW
10 GW
Posts: 4485
Joined: May 03, 2012 8:16 am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Apr 19, 2018 3:23 am

Very true. The security for a nuclear plant and the fuel & waste supply chain must be a nightmare if you need to prevent a terrorist attack or theft.
Cephalotus wrote:
Apr 18, 2018 2:30 pm
It also happend that they needed imports during very hot summers. Often some nukes are in maintainace mode during summer and when it is hot and dry for sveral weeks remaining nukes need to throttle down because they lack enough cold river water for cooling. Soe years ago electricity prices on the spot market got very expensive, but last years summers have been not so dry/hot and Germany now has 40GW of solar power.
That's interesting. If you believe many posts in this thread, only RE is at the mercy of the weather and high spot prices only occur in south Australia due to all their foolish wind and PV generators!

Post Reply