Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10318
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 17 2019 7:20pm

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.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 17 2019 11:05pm

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 17 2019 6:11pm
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...
Those aren't environmental; they are human. PEOPLE (not the environment) don't like how they look, and don't like how they sound.
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 !
Probably.
All that 70km2 for a project that produces <150 MW on average, and often nothing, zero, nada, .. (such as this very moment !). !
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.
--bill von

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5316
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Mar 18 2019 4:33am

jonescg wrote:
Mar 17 2019 6:25am
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.
:thumb:

It's a use the land can still perform perfectly well after installation of the turbines.

Ohbse   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 818
Joined: Dec 26 2013 5:15pm
Location: Auckland, New Zealand

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Ohbse » Mar 18 2019 5:06pm

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.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10318
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 18 2019 6:15pm

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.
.... 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

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 18 2019 6:19pm

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 18 2019 6:15pm
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.
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

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10318
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 18 2019 7:09pm

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)
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 18 2019 7:53pm

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 18 2019 7:09pm
There is usually a reason for the NIMBY reaction,..often fully justifiable.
By definition, term NIMBY describes an unjustifiable opposition to something. Yes, feel free to dump millions of gallons of toxic waste into the ocean, just NOT NEAR MY BEACH(house).

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10318
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 18 2019 8:46pm

cricketo wrote:
Mar 18 2019 7:53pm
By definition, term NIMBY describes an unjustifiable opposition to something. ?.....
:roll: No, it does not even suggest it is unjustifiable....
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

User avatar
Chalo   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7961
Joined: Apr 29 2009 11:29pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Chalo » Mar 18 2019 9:15pm

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.
This is to express my gratitude to Justin of Grin Technologies for his extraordinary measures to save this forum for the benefit of all.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10318
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 18 2019 9:47pm

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
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 18 2019 11:21pm

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 18 2019 9:47pm
It simply an acronym .
The reasons for the objection can be many.
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.
You are simply assuming it is always selfish motivation
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.

However, "selfish" is not always bad.
Often, Businesses, planning agencies and authorities, need another view and opinion to see the full picture of the consequences resulting from developments.
Agreed. They can get those other opinions from places other than NIMBYs. Indeed, those other places generally have more cogent opinions and views.
--bill von

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 18 2019 11:28pm

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 18 2019 9:47pm
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
:lol:

Did you say you do engineering for living ?

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1904
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Mar 19 2019 8:20am

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 11 2019 4:54am
Moltex 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/
.
That video is a pretty good video explaining molten salt reactors, nice find!
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.



New news on approvals for next-gen reactors.. Really seems like Canada is going to be one of the key homes for next-gen nuclear because they have a comparatively supportive government. China is probably the world leader in being the most supportive.
http://analysis.nuclearenergyinsider.co ... actor-push

Some of these new and interesting nuclear designs are now stepping into phase 3 of the approval process
Last month, Ontario's Global First Power became the first small modular reactor (SMR) developer to advance to the third stage of Canada's selection process to build a full-scale demonstration plant.

In June 2018, four SMR developers, including Global First Power, Terrestrial Energy and Starcore Nuclear, entered into CNL's design selection process.

Image

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another subject...

They had a new round of kids on "climate change strike" the other day..
https://www.news.com.au/technology/envi ... 688dda768a
I enjoyed listening to Scott Adams take on the subject, he didn't say much but I think he nailed it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... CEiNEN_rr4

When I look at those protesting climate change doom kids, all I see are kids who are poorly informed and brainwashed from broadcast media and their school teachers, on what is a truly effective solution.
If they merely just browsed the kids friendly Electricitymap website they would see that nuclear-based France is typically emitting 10 times less CO2 than Wind/Solar renewables based Germany or South Australia.
I have to keep saying it.. "This is 10 times the difference! If we are comparing 10 times the co2 emissions difference as like with car emissions these differences would be considered a COMPLETE JOKE played on people."
But look at the kids, no smarter than most of the general broadcast media fed adult public, of course.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=fa ... emote=true
Image

The other thing to note is that Electricitymap.org has officially claimed they can NOT get access to all of eastern Australias electricity generation data anymore!
There is no answer yet from the groups in charge of the Australian energy data, but there are increasing claims that they are deliberately blocking ElectricityMap from gaining the data because it shows how flawed renewable energy is, even though Electricitymap tries to deliberately paint wind/solar renewables in the best light possible, (I believe EM even gets their funding from renewable energy companies in Europe)

If you go to EM right now you see its all blank except for Western Australia who are lucky/smart enough not to be connected to the rest of Australias grid.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=fa ... emote=true
2019-03-19 (2).png
It's been a few weeks now, I don't think this is getting "sorted out"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another subject...
The wording and the release date on a Saturday of all new grid-line towers signal just how massive the new transmission tower power lines set be, and having them riddled all over western rural Victoria. That should really lower the price of farm properties in the western side of Victoria.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-17/ ... y/10808534

The amount of new huge transmission towers that are going to be built all over the western side of Victoria for wind-farms is going to be bigger than all the transmission towers over the eastern side of Victoria from the old coal power-stations.
If wind farms have to be built I would rather them not be connected to the grid and just have them produce hydrogen
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/austral ... y-storage/

I am always surprised to see how much new fuel cell news and developments come out but fly under the radar of mainstream media.
https://twitter.com/fuelcellsworks

Other Hydrogen fuel-cell news.. NPR did a fanastic article on how Japan wants to go Hydrogen and why.
Amid global push to reduce carbon emissions, Japan looks past battery-powered electric cars and envisions a ‘hydrogen society’
Hydrogen fuel cell buses are on tap for 2020 Olympics, and more fuel stations are planned

https://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvani ... -hydrogen/
“There’s just no behavior change as long as you have [hydrogen] infrastructure in place,” he said. “We go to the same gas station and fuel up in the same few minutes and just keep on tootling on. And I think that is ultimately the reason that Toyota and other carmakers now have more interest in fuel cells.”

Klippenstein says he sees the divide between hydrogen fuel cells and battery electric plug-ins tracking the parallel path as the gasoline and diesel split familiar to American consumers.

“We will see a similar split where batteries will, for decades at least, dominate the light duty vehicle passenger cars whereas fuel cells will ultimately win out in the heavier applications.”


Another interesting fuel-cell article
Stanford Researchers Create Hydrogen Fuel from Seawater
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/stanfor ... -seawater/

Previous studies attempting to split seawater for hydrogen fuel had run low amounts of electric current, because corrosion occurs at higher currents. But Dai, Kenney and their colleagues were able to conduct up to 10 times more electricity through their multi-layer device, which helps it generate hydrogen from seawater at a faster rate.

And without the risk of corrosion from salts, the device matched current technologies that use purified water. “The impressive thing about this study was that we were able to operate at electrical currents that are the same as what is used in industry today,” Kenney said.


Reversible Protonic Ceramic Fuel Cells Able to Store Energy
https://fuelcellsworks.com/news/reversi ... re-energy/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On another subject..
We have gone over this 50 times now, but for those new posters here too noob to work it out.
We all know the reality is Hydroelectricity generation is a no-brainer that gets built anywhere it can..
Please understand states like South Australia more or less gets into mini-wars with other states fighting for its scant water supply just for drinking water and farming, there are no Hydroelectricity options here.
Everyone in the world would love to just run on Hydroelectricity, that is impossible to do so.
From 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.
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.
https://www.afr.com/news/economy/voters ... 318-h1ci5r
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

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 19 2019 9:11am

TheBeastie wrote:
Mar 19 2019 8:20am
From 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.
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.
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.
And anyone who does not understand hydro's peaking potential should get their money back for any engineering education they paid for.
--bill von

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 20 2019 2:53pm

billvon wrote:
Mar 19 2019 9:11am
And anyone who does not understand hydro's peaking potential should get their money back for any engineering education they paid for.
What's your take on using Sabatier reaction to supply fuel to gas peakers ?

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 20 2019 3:02pm

cricketo wrote:
Mar 20 2019 2:53pm
What's your take on using Sabatier reaction to supply fuel to gas peakers ?
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

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1297
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 20 2019 5:09pm

Greta Thunberg "Everything has to change"
.
https://youtu.be/H2QxFM9y0tY
.

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 20 2019 6:09pm

billvon wrote:
Mar 20 2019 3:02pm
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.
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   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2932
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 20 2019 6:14pm

cricketo wrote:
Mar 20 2019 6:09pm
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.
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.

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

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1297
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 20 2019 6:25pm

cricketo wrote:
Mar 20 2019 6:09pm
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.
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.

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3660
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Mar 20 2019 8:27pm

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...

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 20 2019 9:33pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 20 2019 6:25pm
Except no one here ever wants to see the math
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.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 10318
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Mar 20 2019 10:56pm

cricketo wrote:
Mar 20 2019 9:33pm
....... 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.
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
......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.
https://reneweconomy.com.au/wind-and-so ... rid-96404/

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

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 470
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 21 2019 12:06am

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 20 2019 10:56pm
...
That's business stuff, which is doesn't abide by the laws of physics. Yawn.

Post Reply