Page 140 of 141

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 11 2019 10:14pm
by classicalgas
"of one of the biggest active volcanoes on the planet which has 1000 times the destructive potential ?" Define that. Is that like equating rare earth wastes to nuclear fuel rods as "dangerous", like someone did in this thread?

Even if one of Hawwii's volcanoes blew as fully as St Helens did, you'd have a lot of deaths, and square miles of roasted rain forest...but in a decade or two things would be close to normal... not uninhabitable for hundreds of years, like the areas around Fukoshima or Chernoble.

Low co2 emissions does not define "green".

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 11 2019 10:15pm
by billvon
jonescg wrote:
Mar 11 2019 9:40pm
I'd say most of that is due to the angle of the panels - 30 degrees is steep for that latitude. It will probably produce better power in winter (which is when you need it anyway).
For his location, 30 degrees from the horizontal is about right. Sydney is at 33 degrees south. That means the sun will make an angle of between 7 and 56 degrees off straight up, averaging around 33 degrees. So 30 degrees is biased slightly towards summer collection. You could make an argument that going to 25 degrees might increase summer collection even more (when both available sun and power draw is higher) at the expense of winter production (which is lower anyway) - but it's so close that it's not going to be a big change.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 11 2019 10:19pm
by billvon
classicalgas wrote:
Mar 11 2019 10:14pm
Even if one of Hawwii's volcanoes blew as fully as St Helens did, you'd have a lot of deaths, and square miles of roasted rain forest...but in a decade or two things would be close to normal... not uninhabitable for hundreds of years, like the areas around Fukoshima or Chernoble.
The Chernobyl exclusion zone is the healthiest ecosystem in the Ukraine. Several species we thought were extinct now live there in large numbers. People live there; others take tours through it.

From that perspective, the Chernobyl accident is the best thing to happen to that area ecologically since man arrived. Over 100 people live within the exclusion zone, and are in general outliving the people who stayed away. This is, of course, more a statement on the damage man does to the environment (and to himself) than anything about nuclear power being "good" for either - but claiming it is "uninhabitable" is alarmist nonsense.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 11 2019 10:25pm
by cricketo
jonescg wrote:
Mar 11 2019 9:40pm
I'd say most of that is due to the angle of the panels - 30 degrees is steep for that latitude. It will probably produce better power in winter (which is when you need it anyway).
According to this website https://solarcalculator.com.au/solar-panel-angle/ ideal for Sydney is 33.9, or basically equivalent of the latitude. I've seen other formulas around, but even then, you may see some 30% change in output when for instance laying panels flat when they should be at an angle, but not 50%. That screams like there is some kind of issue with the system.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 11 2019 10:43pm
by jonescg
Yes I agree there is more to it. I should also point out that my panels are used panels (about 6 years old) so they won't be delivering as much as brand new panels.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 11 2019 10:49pm
by Hillhater
I cannot claim to be an expert on RT solar performance, but i must say i actually "hope" there is something wrong here.
Another 25 C , 95% cloudless, day today and again only 1.3kW max at 1pm.
Visually the panels appear practically perfect perpendicular to the sun.
Alarmingly, even the slightest hazy cloud (still bright sun) drops the output to 100 - 200W .
This is after hoseing down the panels to be sure .....even though it rained 2 days ago.
If that is normal for RT solar, we really do have a problem
So i am with Bill on this, somethig is not right.
Its definitely a cheap system, (who would install only 3 kW when you have enough space for 6+ ?)..install by the previous owner.
But its only 4 yrs old, so ought to perform better.
The solar doctor will be consulted ! :(

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 11 2019 10:54pm
by jonescg
A friend had a similar problem - turned out to be a corroded MC4 connector. Easy fix.

Oh - Beastie, you might want to update your stupid meme. Most windfarms have better power density than that. Snowtown occupies 0.29 km2 and has a nameplate capacity of 370 MW. So a 1 GW wind farm will occupy about 1 km2. It's got a solid 40% CF, so lets be generous and call it 3 km2.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 12 2019 12:26am
by cricketo
jonescg wrote:
Mar 11 2019 10:43pm
Yes I agree there is more to it. I should also point out that my panels are used panels (about 6 years old) so they won't be delivering as much as brand new panels.
So are mine :)

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 12 2019 1:27pm
by Chalo
jonescg wrote:
Mar 11 2019 10:54pm
Oh - Beastie, you might want to update your stupid meme. Most windfarms have better power density than that. Snowtown occupies 0.29 km2 and has a nameplate capacity of 370 MW. So a 1 GW wind farm will occupy about 1 km2. It's got a solid 40% CF, so lets be generous and call it 3 km2.
Hey! That's better capacity per land than his permanent exclusion zone nuke plant/cancer factory.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 12 2019 6:28pm
by Hillhater
jonescg wrote:
Mar 11 2019 10:54pm
.... Snowtown occupies 0.29 km2 and has a nameplate capacity of 370 MW. So a 1 GW wind farm will occupy about 1 km2. It's got a solid 40% CF, so lets be generous and call it 3 km2.
Hmmm ?
I know Wiki etc report the farm size as 0.29 km2 , but i wonder exactly how that is derived.
Page 4 of the site fact sheet shows a map of the farm...
https://www.trustpower.co.nz/-/media/fi ... ashx?la=en
Unless i am mistaken , that map has a 1 km grid overlay,...
.... and for reference, the lake at the bottom (lake Bumbunga), is recorded at 13.8 km2.

Then this project fact sheet states that the farm is spread. " over 20km of the hil ranges" . :?:
https://www.aussierenewables.com.au/dir ... d=67&id=86
So , a good estimate for 1 GW average output version of this wind farm would be that it needs another 220 km of similar ideal ridge top land. ! :roll:
And also states that the "swept area" of the farms turbines is ...0.29 km2 !!! :shock:
Coincidence ??

EDIT..
looking again at the map on ..
https://www.trustpower.co.nz/-/media/fi ... ashx?la=en
...it is obvoius that the windfarm extends over 30 km long , spreading variably 1-3km wide.
..so , at least 50 km2 of area for its 370MW
Suggesting 135km2 per GW nameplate,...
Hence ....338km2 /GW output
Oh, and the windfarm developers also had to allocate another 104 ha as an "Environmental Offset"

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 12 2019 7:33pm
by Cephalotus
TheBeastie wrote:
Mar 02 2019 2:36am

Then on top if you look at the REAL-WORLD DATA on wind/solar renewables you don't on any notable level actually cut co2 emissions.
This is the amazing reality mainstream media and politics ignore.. Because its all about the politics and financial gains pushing this crap, not science or logic.

Look at the emissions right now of Nuclear based France vs Germany or South Australia.
This are CO2 emissions from electricity production in Germany and as you can see specific CO2 emissions have been falling from 764g/kWh to 480g/kWh and this happened while shutting down more than half of our nuclear power plants.

Germany will also phase out electricity production from coal until 2038 (or 2035).

It will start with shutting down around 12GW of coal power plants until 2022.

So expect the CO2 emissions to go down much more significantly in the timeframe after 2022

What would have happend if Germany would decide to stop building more RE and invest in nuclear power reactors instead?

Nothing.

It will take around 20 years from the idea to build new nuclear power plants to have them generating electricity in the modern western world. There are enough examples around to learn from. We would need more than 50 nukes to make a significant impact. This would cost hundreds of billions of Euro before generating a single kWh.
In the 20 years the investments in solar power plants and wind power plants will have been already repaid and they would have produced huge amounts of CO2 low electricity.

Image

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 13 2019 1:36am
by Hillhater
Cephalotus wrote:
Mar 12 2019 7:33pm

Germany will also phase out electricity production from coal until 2038 (or 2035).

It will start with shutting down around 12GW of coal power plants until 2022.
Someone had better get that conversion plan moving,...there are still periods when wind and solar can only produce less than 10% of the demand.

BUT... I thought the objective was to reduce actual Total carbon emmissions ..Tonnage PA.... Not "specific" emmissions. ?
Germany seems to have stayed at round 300 MT PA , ....within 10% of where it was 20 yrs ago ?

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 13 2019 10:19am
by Cephalotus
Hillhater wrote:
Mar 13 2019 1:36am
Someone had better get that conversion plan moving,...there are still periods when wind and solar can only produce less than 10% of the demand.
Already happens.

The last critical grid situation was in February 2012 and during that time Germany saved France from blackouts, not otherwise.
BUT... I thought the objective was to reduce actual Total carbon emmissions ..Tonnage PA.... Not "specific" emmissions. ?
Germany seems to have stayed at round 300 MT PA , ....within 10% of where it was 20 yrs ago ?
When comparing France with Germany you always compare specific emissions. Now you say that's not a good indicator?

German electricity production (not demand) increased significantly during the last 10 years, despite shutting down half of our nukes so far. We now export roughly 10% of our electricity production during a year. Emissions are still ours, that#s why spefic emissions get significantly better, but absolute emissions not so much.

10 years is also not a long period for changing an energy systems. within 10 years from the idea you will not build a single nuclear reactor.

The long time scale involved is the reason why we need to hurry and use solutions that are quick to build and why it is not a good idea to wait for that brakethrough technology or magic unicorns. Available is solar and wind and as an interim technology natural gas instead of coal.
Not available are magic nukes or fusion.

Those who promate magic nukes promote staying with burning coal instead.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 13 2019 11:08am
by billvon
Cephalotus wrote:
Mar 12 2019 7:33pm
What would have happend if Germany would decide to stop building more RE and invest in nuclear power reactors instead?

Nothing.

It will take around 20 years from the idea to build new nuclear power plants to have them generating electricity in the modern western world.
Yep. We should do both. Shortsighted planning got us into this mess; shortsighted planning won't get us out. We need both renewables and baseload to supply the grid, and nuclear and hydro are the cleanest sources of baseload power we have. And you can't build hydro in most places.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 13 2019 7:28pm
by jonescg
Hillhater wrote:
Mar 12 2019 6:28pm
jonescg wrote:
Mar 11 2019 10:54pm
.... Snowtown occupies 0.29 km2 and has a nameplate capacity of 370 MW. So a 1 GW wind farm will occupy about 1 km2. It's got a solid 40% CF, so lets be generous and call it 3 km2.
And also states that the "swept area" of the farms turbines is ...0.29 km2 !!! :shock:
Coincidence ??
Yeah that's what I suspected - Someone should really update that. I'm a big fan (hur hur) of wind farms but claiming the swept area as the total area of the farm is disingenuous. Even clicking around with the distance / area calculator on Google maps puts it at about 70 km2.
Snowtown.JPG
At least the entire area can be used for grazing. Can't do that with a coal/nuclear facility.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 13 2019 11:12pm
by Hillhater
Cephalotus wrote:
Mar 13 2019 10:19am
Hillhater wrote:
Mar 13 2019 1:36am
Someone had better get that conversion plan moving,...there are still periods when wind and solar can only produce less than 10% of the demand.
The last critical grid situation was in February 2012 and during that time Germany saved France from blackouts, not otherwise.
I was refering to just a week or so ago..Feb2019.. (its a regular occurance) , when 95% of germany's electricity was supplied by fossil/thermal generators as the wind failed.
https://www.energy-charts.de/power.htm? ... 019&week=9
When comparing France with Germany you always compare specific emissions. Now you say that's not a good indicator?.....
I do not recall making that comparason, but im sure it is valid anyway ..
However, the whole purpose of the move to RE generation is supposed to be to reduce the tonnage of CO2 emmissions.
So far, Germany has spent $200+ bn on RE subsidies alone with minimal impact on CO2 emmisions, whilst resulting in one of the highest consumer electricity costs in the world.
....10 years is also not a long period for changing an energy systems. within 10 years from the idea you will not build a single nuclear reactor.....
"You". may not be able to,...but others certainly can (China ?)
Relying on NGas as a backup/base load for windless evenings, leaves Germany exposed to the whims of Putin.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 14 2019 3:13am
by Punx0r
Any time you quote gCO2/KWh that's a specific emissions measure.

Has China actually completed any commercial nuclear plant (from placing order to full operational status) in 10 years?

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 14 2019 6:46pm
by Hillhater
Punx0r wrote:
Mar 14 2019 3:13am
Any time you quote gCO2/KWh that's a specific emissions measure.
:?: STFO :roll:
And avoids the issue of actual total emmissions !
Punx0r wrote:
Mar 14 2019 3:13am
Has China actually completed any commercial nuclear plant (from placing order to full operational status) in 10 years?
Im sure you will dispute the "placing an order " start point, but.....
Chinas Nuke plants have "Project Timelines". of between 4 and 9 years (most 5-6),
Ningde, NDNPConstruction of CGN's six-unit Ningde nuclear power plant commenced in 2008. This is on three islands in Fuding city in northeast of Fujian province, and the first construction phase comprises four CPR-1000 units. Ningde Nuclear Power Co Ltd (NDNP) was set up in 2006 as a joint investment of CGN (46%), China Datang Corporation (44%) and Fujian Energy Group Co., Ltd. The project was approved by the National Development & Reform Commission (NDRC) in September 2006, and local content will be about 75% for units 1&2 and 85% for units 3&4. It marks a significant step into nuclear power for Datang.Construction of the first unit started in February 2008, and it was grid connected in December 2012 after 58 months. .........
The "20 yr". Nuclear project is a a anti Nuke concept based on misinformation.
If Regulatory Authorities ever pull their fingers out and do a little work, you would probably be able to buy a "Plug and Play". Nuclear generator from Amazon . :wink: (With free delivery on Prime !)

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 14 2019 11:20pm
by billvon
Hillhater wrote:
Mar 14 2019 6:46pm
If Regulatory Authorities ever pull their fingers out and do a little work, you would probably be able to buy a "Plug and Play". Nuclear generator from Amazon . :wink: (With free delivery on Prime !)
Perhaps. Of course, you could say the same thing about solar. Get rid of the bureaucrats and the regulatory hurdles and you could put in a plug and play solar + battery system for half the price you pay now - and install it yourself in a day.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 15 2019 6:51am
by Hillhater
That already happens

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 15 2019 2:23pm
by billvon
jonescg wrote:
Mar 13 2019 7:28pm
Hillhater wrote:
Mar 12 2019 6:28pm
jonescg wrote:
Mar 11 2019 10:54pm
.... Snowtown occupies 0.29 km2 and has a nameplate capacity of 370 MW. So a 1 GW wind farm will occupy about 1 km2. It's got a solid 40% CF, so lets be generous and call it 3 km2.
And also states that the "swept area" of the farms turbines is ...0.29 km2 !!! :shock:
Coincidence ??
Yeah that's what I suspected - Someone should really update that.
"Swept area" is an engineering term referring to the area swept by the turbine blades.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 17 2019 6:05am
by Punx0r
Now, I'm no geologist or cartographer, but on that google maps screenshot, the wind farm seems to occupy a hilly outcrop that doesn't look like it was even suitable for agriculture, let alone building on. But wind turbines work well on elevated areas like this. So, how can it be argued that wind turbines make inefficient use of land that would be better occupied by a nuclear or coal plant?

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 17 2019 6:25am
by jonescg
Punx0r wrote:
Mar 17 2019 6:05am
Now, I'm no geologist or cartographer, but on that google maps screenshot, the wind farm seems to occupy a hilly outcrop that doesn't look like it was even suitable for agriculture, let alone building on. But wind turbines work well on elevated areas like this. So, how can it be argued that wind turbines make inefficient use of land that would be better occupied by a nuclear or coal plant?
A someone who worked in agriculture for many years, I can tell you that ridge is pretty barren and only suitable for light grazing of sheep. Seems a good use of the area to me.

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 17 2019 6:11pm
by Hillhater
jonescg wrote:
Mar 17 2019 6:25am
Punx0r wrote:
Mar 17 2019 6:05am
Now, I'm no geologist or cartographer, but on that google maps screenshot, the wind farm seems to occupy a hilly outcrop that doesn't look like it was even suitable for agriculture, let alone building on. But wind turbines work well on elevated areas like this. So, how can it be argued that wind turbines make inefficient use of land that would be better occupied by a nuclear or coal plant?
A someone who worked in agriculture for many years, I can tell you that ridge is pretty barren and only suitable for light grazing of sheep. Seems a good use of the area to me.
Barren ???
"Light grazing for sheep". It is probably better than 90% of SA land usefulness ! :lol:
Image

Not a strong standpoint guys !
Irrespective of how ferile or useful the land may be, im sure you are well aware the main objections ( not mine ) to Wind farms are "Environmental" !
In particular is "Visual" and Audio pollution , and to a lesser extent the physical disruption of the area...
.... ( The Snowtown development needed 60+ km of new access roads built on that ridge)
Erecting a 70km2 wind farm on a prominent ridge just amplifies those environmental issues.
I would be very surprised if there is not some "First People" group claiming the ridge has significant traditional significance and should be returned to its traditional owners !
All that 70km2 for a project that produces <150 MW on average, and often nothing, zero, nada, .. (such as this very moment !). !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Posted: Mar 17 2019 7:14pm
by jonescg
Because the Hunter Valley looks similarly pristine?

Image