Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1166
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 21 2019 4:53am

cricketo wrote:
Mar 20 2019 9:33pm
Starship Hopper may get a first static fire this week.
Complete waste of engineering talent and resources. We have much better things we could be doing than to send 200 people to eventually die on Mars.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9931
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 21 2019 6:51am

cricketo wrote:
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.
Line losses are simple physics, and the parameters are well understood.
Underestimating them by several orders of magnitude, such that they significantly reduce the financial viability of the project, is a basic engineering error.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

cricketo   1 kW

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

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 21 2019 10:07am

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 21 2019 6:51am
Line losses are simple physics, and the parameters are well understood.
Underestimating them by several orders of magnitude, such that they significantly reduce the financial viability of the project, is a basic engineering error.
this part :
Last year, falls in marginal loss factors of 20 per cent or more were imposed on some projects as a result of grid congestion, or changes to load. That has the potential to dramatically alter the economics of a project, affecting equity owners and lenders alike.
As for line losses, the problem has been significantly reduced with (ultra)high voltage DC transmission lines.

cricketo   1 kW

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

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 21 2019 10:25am

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 21 2019 4:53am
Complete waste of engineering talent and resources. We have much better things we could be doing than to send 200 people to eventually die on Mars.
Yeah, tell me how you feel about our defense initiatives.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1166
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 21 2019 10:38am

cricketo wrote:
Mar 21 2019 10:25am
Yeah, tell me how you feel about our defense initiatives.
A complete selfish waste harkening back to our ingrained tribal competition. Sooner or later we must realize we are all stuck here together on one small planet and need to cooperate and act wisely.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 21 2019 3:40pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 21 2019 4:53am
Complete waste of engineering talent and resources. We have much better things we could be doing than to send 200 people to eventually die on Mars.
Or they could stay here and die . . .

In any case, the BFR is going to replace the Falcon 9, and 99.99% of its launches will be commercial satellite and spacecraft launches, not Mars missions. And since it will be considerably cleaner (and more efficient for large launches, and more reusable) that's a good thing overall. For example, if solar power satellites are ever going to become a possibility, then something at _least_ as large as the BFR (now Super Heavy/Starship) will be essential.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1166
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 21 2019 4:10pm

billvon wrote:
Mar 21 2019 3:40pm
For example, if solar power satellites are ever going to become a possibility, then something at _least_ as large as the BFR (now Super Heavy/Starship) will be essential.
GigaWatt scale microwave energy transmission from orbit is somewhere between won't happen and can't happen. Much better to just put the panels on the ground and run wires.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 21 2019 4:45pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 21 2019 4:10pm
GigaWatt scale microwave energy transmission from orbit is somewhere between won't happen and can't happen.
If you say so.

IMO it is worth researching, since it solves the "no solar power at night" problem. With existing technology, solar power satellites could be launched via the BFR, and each one would generate ~100 megawatts. Current technology allows 1KW/20KG and designs on the drawing board can hit 1KW/1KG - and the BFR system can launch 100 metric tons into LEO at a time. With a predicted launch cost of $7 million, that means the satellite could cost $90 million and still be competitive with coal. China is planning to launch their first one in 2030.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1166
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 21 2019 5:49pm

billvon wrote:
Mar 21 2019 4:45pm
sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 21 2019 4:10pm
GigaWatt scale microwave energy transmission from orbit is somewhere between won't happen and can't happen.
If you say so.

IMO it is worth researching, since it solves the "no solar power at night" problem. With existing technology, solar power satellites could be launched via the BFR, and each one would generate ~100 megawatts.
Generation is not the problem. Transmission is. This is an idea similar to inductive charging. Which seems really cool until you find out about the materials and losses involved. You immediately want to go right back to wires.

LeftieBiker   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 559
Joined: Nov 06 2012 1:33am
Location: Upstate NY, United States

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by LeftieBiker » Mar 21 2019 5:53pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 21 2019 5:49pm
billvon wrote:
Mar 21 2019 4:45pm
sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 21 2019 4:10pm
GigaWatt scale microwave energy transmission from orbit is somewhere between won't happen and can't happen.
If you say so.

IMO it is worth researching, since it solves the "no solar power at night" problem. With existing technology, solar power satellites could be launched via the BFR, and each one would generate ~100 megawatts.
Generation is not the problem. Transmission is. This is an idea similar to inductive charging. Which seems really cool until you find out about the materials and losses involved. You immediately want to go right back to wires.
This is where giant cables extending from anchors on the ground, right up to that geosynchronous solar power station in orbit, come in. Still in the science fiction stage, but definitely not impossible.

cricketo   1 kW

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

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 21 2019 6:04pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 21 2019 5:49pm
This is an idea similar to inductive charging.
No, it's not. Inductive charging is meant for compact applications, and it doesn't work all that great for that very reason.
For earthbound applications, a large-area 10 km diameter receiving array allows large total power levels to be used while operating at the low power density suggested for human electromagnetic exposure safety. A human safe power density of 1 mW/cm2 distributed across a 10 km diameter area corresponds to 750 megawatts total power level. This is the power level found in many modern electric power plants.

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 21 2019 6:26pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 21 2019 5:49pm
Generation is not the problem. Transmission is. This is an idea similar to inductive charging. Which seems really cool until you find out about the materials and losses involved. You immediately want to go right back to wires.
Which won't work in this case. A microwave link at 50% efficiency from orbit to Earth wins over an impossible wired link.

Look at it this way. Nuclear power plants are about 30% efficient, heat in to energy out. But we still use them.
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1166
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 21 2019 6:40pm

We have the rockets. We could try it. A GW orbiting farm needs a 1 km2 transmitter array. i wonder what the cross section and mass of the wires would be to carry a GW. The ground array is 10 km2. Would humans need to be there to assemble it?

cricketo   1 kW

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

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 21 2019 6:53pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 21 2019 6:40pm
A GW orbiting farm needs a 1 km2 transmitter array. i wonder what the cross section and mass of the wires would be to carry a GW. The ground array is 10 km2. Would humans need to be there to assemble it?
It is my understanding is that it's not possible to combine multiple smaller antennas to generate a more focused beam onto a smaller receiving antenna, but it is possible to combine multiple smaller antennas of equivalent size of a single antenna to produce the same amount of power onto a larger receiving antenna. In other words a bunch of smaller satellites can be deployed beaming onto the same receiving antenna, which would be much easier to implement than one giant satellite.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9931
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 21 2019 7:04pm

cricketo wrote:
Mar 21 2019 10:07am
As for line losses, the problem has been significantly reduced with (ultra)high voltage DC transmission lines.
Which, for cost reasons are only used for long distance , interstate type, transmissions , and are uneconomical for a typical state grid network.
Why engineer a grid for 100+ GW load peaks, when the required maximum load is only 20 GW ?
No, if the intermittent , high peak loads from , RE generators are the main cause , then they should be peanised until they install systems (storage?) to regulate and smooth the injection of power into the system.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

cricketo   1 kW

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

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 21 2019 7:14pm

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 21 2019 7:04pm
Which, for cost reasons are only used for long distance , interstate type, transmissions , and are uneconomical for a typical state grid network.
Would be interesting to know what do you consider "cost reasons" in this case. There is nothing inherently expensive about DC transmission. DC has not been widely used due to difficulties and inefficiencies in voltage conversions, unlike AC. That was before solid-state devices were developed that make it easy and practical to work with DC. Now the only obstacle is the prevalence of AC systems, but when talking about new types of grids and power systems DC is a fair game.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9931
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 21 2019 9:07pm

cricketo wrote:
Mar 21 2019 7:14pm
Hillhater wrote:
Mar 21 2019 7:04pm
Which, for cost reasons are only used for long distance , interstate type, transmissions , and are uneconomical for a typical state grid network.
Would be interesting to know what do you consider "cost reasons" in this case. There is nothing inherently expensive about DC transmission. DC has not been widely used due to difficulties and inefficiencies in voltage conversions, unlike AC. That was before solid-state devices were developed that make it easy and practical to work with DC. Now the only obstacle is the prevalence of AC systems, but when talking about new types of grids and power systems DC is a fair game.
A HVDC substation costs around 190 Million Euros as compared to a HV AC substation at around 60 Million Euros.
This is a reason why HVDC is usually reserved for distances over 1,600 kM. Or where coupling different frequency systems ( 50 and 60 Hz for example)
HVDC does reduce line losses by 4% or so. But is only cost effective at voltages of 500 kV to 1000 kV. Very expensive components at those voltages.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
jonescg   1.21 GW

1.21 GW
Posts: 3543
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Mar 21 2019 9:37pm

My prediction for 2050:

Australia will have a HVDC power line crossing the Nullarbor so that West Australian solar energy can be exported to the east coast during periods of high demand. Similarly, East coast solar power can prime WA with energy first thing in the morning.

We may even be exporting renewable energy to Indonesia and PNG by then...

cricketo   1 kW

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

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 21 2019 10:53pm

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 21 2019 9:07pm
A HVDC substation costs around 190 Million Euros as compared to a HV AC substation at around 60 Million Euros.
This is a reason why HVDC is usually reserved for distances over 1,600 kM. Or where coupling different frequency systems ( 50 and 60 Hz for example)
HVDC does reduce line losses by 4% or so. But is only cost effective at voltages of 500 kV to 1000 kV. Very expensive components at those voltages.
Well, you win. Or rather I give up :) Not that it matters either way.

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1166
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 22 2019 2:52pm

"In addition, when new energy sources supplanted pre-existing ones in the past, it was always because they proved to be “superior” to those in terms of energetic quality and productivity. Coal supplanted water, wind power and biomass because it proved to be a much more powerful, convenient and versatile source of energy. Petroleum then supplanted coal because it was superior still in terms of energy density, power density, fungibility, storability, transportability, ready availability, convenience and versatility of use. On all these aspects it does not appear that solar and wind energy may be in the same way “superior” to fossil fuels – but rather that they are in fact significantly “inferior”. The capture of diffuse and intermittent energy flows through man-made devices is, inherently, an imperfect substitute for the extraction and burning of concentrated energy locked up in fossil fuels. Unfortunately, no amount of “innovation” is fundamentally going to change that."
.
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019 ... -strikers/

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1166
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 22 2019 2:58pm

"Here is how: in addition to your “climate strike”, or as a substitute to it if or when you get frustrated of being denied the kind of change you want, embark with all the strength and enthusiasm of your youth on an “energy diet”. A big, fat, relentless and endless energy diet. Not only on Fridays, but every single day of the week, 365 days per year, for the rest of your life.

Think about it this way: climate-wrecking fossil fuels only get supplied because there is huge and rising demand for them. And this demand, ultimately, comes from you, from me, from us. The vast majority of the things we do, each and every day, in each and every aspect of our lives, entails using fossil fuels, either in your country or on the other side of the world, or somewhere in between. For most of those things fossil fuels cannot be easily and quickly substituted by energy obtained from solar and wind flows. Therefore, just stop doing them, or at least reduce what you do to what is really necessary and useful."

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 22 2019 3:52pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 21 2019 6:40pm
We have the rockets. We could try it. A GW orbiting farm needs a 1 km2 transmitter array. i wonder what the cross section and mass of the wires would be to carry a GW.
Well, that 1km2 array would be comprised of thousands of synchronized magnetrons, each running at ~250kW or so. So each node would have to carry that 250kW.
The ground array is 10 km2. Would humans need to be there to assemble it?
Odd question. Of course they would.
--bill von

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 22 2019 3:56pm

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 21 2019 9:07pm
A HVDC substation costs around 190 Million Euros as compared to a HV AC substation at around 60 Million Euros.
And the only reason for the difference is semiconductor and control costs. The heavy metal (transformers, powerlines, breakers) are almost identical*.

And semiconductors and controls are two things which, historically, come down _very_ fast.
This is a reason why HVDC is usually reserved for distances over 1,600 kM. Or where coupling different frequency systems ( 50 and 60 Hz for example) HVDC does reduce line losses by 4% or so. But is only cost effective at voltages of 500 kV to 1000 kV. Very expensive components at those voltages.
Yep. And long distance transmission is a great way to start. Put in a line from Phoenix to Texas, so Phoenix can help Texas deal with its 7-8pm peak load. (Sun will still be up in Phoenix.) Then put one from Texas to Atlanta - same effect. Then as controllers/inverters/rectifiers get cheaper, put substations along the way to let smaller cities benefit as well.

(* - with breakers the big difference is going to be the big, well protected blowout magnets you'll need.)
--bill von

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1166
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 22 2019 4:10pm

billvon wrote:
Mar 22 2019 3:52pm
Well, that 1km2 array would be comprised of thousands of synchronized magnetrons, each running at ~250kW or so. So each node would have to carry that 250kW.
So thousands of rocket flights (to geostationary altitude?) to install super high tech 1GW. Wouldn't it just be much cheaper and less energetic to just install 4GW of cheap nameplate on the ground?

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2760
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 22 2019 4:30pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 22 2019 4:10pm
So thousands of rocket flights (to geostationary altitude?)
Well, in the example I gave, ten BFR launches to LEO, then a tug to get it out to geostationary orbit - that would give you 1GW.
to install super high tech 1GW. Wouldn't it just be much cheaper and less energetic to just install 4GW of cheap nameplate on the ground?
If you could install that 4GW around the world and link them all with HVDC transmission - yes. But I don't know that that would be cheaper.
--bill von

Post Reply