Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
But at least they do produce continuous power ,..lots of it 6+ GW, non stop , 24/7, for 50+ years .
....and billions of dollars of export earnings for the country.
....and billions of dollars of export earnings for the country.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Those aren't environmental; they are human. PEOPLE (not the environment) don't like how they look, and don't like how they sound.
Probably.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 !
There's a 2GW nuclear plant down the beach from me producing nothing, zero, nada at this very moment. I bet over the next ten years that wind plant will produce way more energy than San Onofre.All that 70km2 for a project that produces <150 MW on average, and often nothing, zero, nada, .. (such as this very moment !). !
--bill von
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

It's a use the land can still perform perfectly well after installation of the turbines.
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
The majority of NZ is rolling green hills with sheep and cows grazing. An enormous quantity of this could have very large turbines installed on the higher hills and have zero appreciable impact to the primary function of feeding agriculture. Quibbling over power density is utterly pointless when the *actual* land area consumed is essentially the base of each tower, plus a narrow dirt road to allow access for maintenance crews.
I've spoken to a variety of people around the country on their opinions regarding wind generation, there's a pretty strong relationship between negative perception of the turbines and age - essentially baby boomers don't like new things. Everyone I've asked that's <35 is all in favour, including those who live and work on land with turbines.
Like anything, there are many factors to consider - but the irrational opposition is going to become less of a blocker as demographics change.
I've spoken to a variety of people around the country on their opinions regarding wind generation, there's a pretty strong relationship between negative perception of the turbines and age - essentially baby boomers don't like new things. Everyone I've asked that's <35 is all in favour, including those who live and work on land with turbines.
Like anything, there are many factors to consider - but the irrational opposition is going to become less of a blocker as demographics change.
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
But that is not a universal view.
As with any "survey" it depends on how the question is phrased and who you ask.
Most of the general public know very little about wind power, because they do not live near it and their only view of it is on a TV screen.
As with any "survey" it depends on how the question is phrased and who you ask.
Most of the general public know very little about wind power, because they do not live near it and their only view of it is on a TV screen.
.... But even land-based wind, which is a booming industry across parts of the midwestern U.S. and Great Plains, struggles against backlash from rural communities that pushed over 120 local governments to scrap or restrict turbines from 2015 to 2017. Offshore wind, meanwhile, has long struggled to gain a toehold thanks to fierce local opposition.
In Cape Cod, a 2001 attempt to launch what would have been the U.S.’s first offshore wind farm was abandoned in December 2017 after a decade of lawsuits from local residents concerned about disrupting fishing patterns and coastal views. Rhode Island’s 6-turbine Block Island Wind Farm, which opened in December 2016 after angry locals likened it to “visual pollution,” now holds the title of the first U.S. offshore wind farm.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Of course. NIMBYs are everywhere. Whenever you want to open ANYTHING - from a new recharge basin to a highway to a solar farm to a nuclear power plant - there will be people nearby screaming "PUT IT SOMEWHERE ELSE!" You could propose putting in a bank that gave out free money to people, and nearby residents would say they don't want the traffic.
--bill von
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
There is usually a reason for the NIMBY reaction,..often fully justifiable.
If it is a sewage plant or a dodgy Nuclear Plant (San Onofre ?), you could easily understand the objection.
Just because it is something ..(such as a wind farm) less obviously objectionable to YOU or me, does not mean someone else has to accept it.
And with a large wind farm, there are a lot of "back yards" that are likely to be affected
With developments that are likely to have a State/nation wide impact , then the objection goes way beyond NIMBY'ism (IE, total Nuclear ban in Australia)
If it is a sewage plant or a dodgy Nuclear Plant (San Onofre ?), you could easily understand the objection.
Just because it is something ..(such as a wind farm) less obviously objectionable to YOU or me, does not mean someone else has to accept it.
And with a large wind farm, there are a lot of "back yards" that are likely to be affected
With developments that are likely to have a State/nation wide impact , then the objection goes way beyond NIMBY'ism (IE, total Nuclear ban in Australia)
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

It simply defines a LOCALISED objection
NIMBY (an acronym for the phrase "Not In My Back Yard"),[1][2] or Nimby,[3] is a characterization of opposition by residents to a proposed development in their local area. It often carries the connotation that such residents are only opposing the development because it is close to them, and that they would tolerate or support it if it were built farther away. The residents are often called Nimbys, and their viewpoint is called Nimbyism.
Last edited by Hillhater on Mar 18 2019 9:34pm, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
The implication of "NIMBY" is that it's something that's necessary/desirable to have, but for selfish reasons people in the affected areas object to it.
For people who object to living near wind turbines or solar farms, I wish them solid waste landfills and methadone clinics.
For people who object to living near wind turbines or solar farms, I wish them solid waste landfills and methadone clinics.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
It simply an acronym .
The reasons for the objection can be many.
You are simply assuming it is always selfish motivation
Often, Businesses, planning agencies and authorities, need another view and opinion to see the full picture of the consequences resulting from developments
The reasons for the objection can be many.
You are simply assuming it is always selfish motivation
Often, Businesses, planning agencies and authorities, need another view and opinion to see the full picture of the consequences resulting from developments
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Right. But the objection is that it is too close to them, not any other reason. That's what makes them NIMBYs.
Someone who hates Wal-Mart, thinks they sell cheap Chinese crap and thinks they pay peanuts, is not a NIMBY if they object to a new Wal-Mart. They don't care where it is; they don't want more.
Someone who likes going to Wal-Mart, likes the taxes they pay etc but doesn't want one built near them because it might increase traffic and inconvenience them is a NIMBY.
It by definition is; they are desirous of a better outcome for themselves, said outcome being arrived at by putting the thing somewhere else. If you object to putting a coal power plant near a school some distance away due to the health risk to kids there, you are not a NIMBY.You are simply assuming it is always selfish motivation
However, "selfish" is not always bad.
Agreed. They can get those other opinions from places other than NIMBYs. Indeed, those other places generally have more cogent opinions and views.Often, Businesses, planning agencies and authorities, need another view and opinion to see the full picture of the consequences resulting from developments.
--bill von
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Hillhater wrote: ↑Mar 18 2019 9:47pmIt simply an acronym .
The reasons for the objection can be many.
You are simply assuming it is always selfish motivation
Often, Businesses, planning agencies and authorities, need another view and opinion to see the full picture of the consequences resulting from developments

Did you say you do engineering for living ?
- TheBeastie 1 MW
- Posts: 1904
- Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
- Location: Melbourne Australia
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
That video is a pretty good video explaining molten salt reactors, nice find!sendler2112 wrote: ↑Mar 11 2019 4:54amMoltex is still posting news. I hope they can really get their salt developed and get their reactor built.
.
https://youtu.be/R4GSDRqah-0
.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/stablesaltreactors/
.
Everyone should watch this video sendler2112 posted, so they can see just how different these MSR nuclear reactors are from traditional "solid fuel/uranium pellet" water reactors.
Last edited by TheBeastie on Mar 21 2019 3:55am, edited 1 time 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
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
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Yep. Fortunately, the more unreliable renewables you have, the more water you can save (and even pump back uphill) thus making hydro more economic on smaller and smaller water sources.TheBeastie wrote: ↑Mar 19 2019 8:20amFrom the love of RE and the money spent on wind/solar/batteries in South Australia, I am willing to bet that if it was possible, in any way possible, to build a hydroelectric dam no matter how much money it would cost, South Australia would build one, they just don't have the water.
And anyone who does not understand hydro's peaking potential should get their money back for any engineering education they paid for.Talking about Hydroelectricity should be considered an IQ failure test on this thread and be banned complete with their IP-firewalled from the ES forums server for wasting folks time.
--bill von
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
IF (big if) we had a source of hydrogen as a feedstock to do that, that would be great. The only ways I can see that happening is a new catalytic reaction that uses sunlight to convert water directly to hydrogen, or thermal dissociation via high temperature gas reactors.
--bill von
-
- Posts: 1297
- Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
- Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Well, it would be nice to get higher efficiency, but if the main issue being solved is the supplemental of spotty RE, then efficiency isn't really a primary concern - overprovisioning RE and using excess energy for Hydrogen production and then subsequent CH4 production will create sufficient CH4 reserves.billvon wrote: ↑Mar 20 2019 3:02pmIF (big if) we had a source of hydrogen as a feedstock to do that, that would be great. The only ways I can see that happening is a new catalytic reaction that uses sunlight to convert water directly to hydrogen, or thermal dissociation via high temperature gas reactors.
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
It's a lot easier/cheaper to get methane from sewage and trash than from solar electrolysis - and we have plenty of sewage and trash. In the short term I think money would be better spent on better transmission systems (so Arizona can sell power to eastern Texas) than the size of electrolysis systems you would need to pull the above hydrogen/sabatier thing off.cricketo wrote: ↑Mar 20 2019 6:09pmWell, it would be nice to get higher efficiency, but if the main issue being solved is the supplemental of spotty RE, then efficiency isn't really a primary concern - overprovisioning RE and using excess energy for Hydrogen production and then subsequent CH4 production will create sufficient CH4 reserves.
In terms of good uses for electricity, it's almost always better to use it to replace coal (and eventually natural gas) generation than to make some kind of fuel with it.
--bill von
-
- Posts: 1297
- Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
- Location: Syracuse, NY USA
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Except no one here ever wants to see the math of how imense the footprint is of rebuildables in trying to replace even half of the 17 TW we are now blowing through. It doesn't add up. Fossil fuels were a one time super dense energy gift which will never be repeated again. We are headed for a future with less. And we still have to try raise up the wellbeing of 3 billion people who still cook with firewood and dung. The sooner we accept this and start working on a new social system with far less frivolous waste, the less troubled the transition will be.cricketo wrote: ↑Mar 20 2019 6:09pmWell, it would be nice to get higher efficiency, but if the main issue being solved is the supplemental of spotty RE, then efficiency isn't really a primary concern - overprovisioning RE and using excess energy for Hydrogen production and then subsequent CH4 production will create sufficient CH4 reserves.
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Indeed the cheapest watt is the one you don't need.
The way homes are built in Australia is an embarrassment. For an extra 4% we can have draught-proof, well insulated homes which consume little heating energy through winder and through good architecture, stay cool through summer. But we are lazy, and bolt another aircon to the wall...
The way homes are built in Australia is an embarrassment. For an extra 4% we can have draught-proof, well insulated homes which consume little heating energy through winder and through good architecture, stay cool through summer. But we are lazy, and bolt another aircon to the wall...
Voltron Evo - Electric Superbike
Voltron - the dual Agni powered smoke machine
My Lithium powered E-Max scooter
My stolen e-bike
I build great batteries!
If you think electric bikes are slow, build a faster one and we'll see you next year.
Voltron - the dual Agni powered smoke machine
My Lithium powered E-Max scooter
My stolen e-bike

I build great batteries!
If you think electric bikes are slow, build a faster one and we'll see you next year.
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Starship Hopper may get a first static fire this week. There are all kinds of people that come out with all kinds of interesting Math discouraging ambitious visionaries from driving the progress. Please keep doing the Math, and we (engineers) will keep delivering results you're saying are impossible.
-
- Posts: 10318
- Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
- Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !
Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
Well someone didnt look at the maths, or did it wrong when they planned Australias RE conversion...
Wind and solar plants hit by massive de-ratings in congested grid
https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-so ... rid-96404/......Owners of wind and solar farms in Australia’s main National Electricity Market are being warned that they face another significant de-rating of their output as a result of the increasingly congested grid.
The Australian Energy Market Operator has released its draft “marginal loss factors”, which reflects the difference between the amount of electricity produced by a generator, and how much they are credited for and actually reaches a customer
Under the draft calculations for 2019/20, some wind and solar projects have been significantly derated, and face losses of output of 20 per cent or more, undermining their economic viability.
In addition to the geographical/ locarion issues mentioned, Wind and solar are most affected by the changes to the MLF due to the nature of their output.
Originally they calculated the losses based on designed output, MWh etc which is based on the CF for each plant .
But the reality is, the losses are a function of the actual power being transmitted , which is very different.
EG , a 100 MW (nameplate) Solar plant may have a designed output of 20MW from a CF of 20%, and that 20.0 MW is what was used for MLF estimates.
But the actual output varies enormously with much of the output close to the 100 max figure for a short period 4-5 hours around midday.
As the losses are power (current) related, then they increase expoentially..many times greater than the 20MW figure forcast.
Similar situation applies to Wind generation.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca