Theres the pollutants no on3 addresses and dumping into our own homes. Fl6 ash, high in mteta.# a crap is utilized by concrete. Companies an$ we pay dumping free material, often hign in Mg and subjec5 to spalling. Once again ignoran5 consumers pay for poison.Chalo wrote: ↑Dec 24, 2017 1:33 amRqegarding the 200-300 km^2 of solar installation to replace one 4000MW coal plant:
Everybody wants the lights to come on and the air conditioning to work, but nobody wants to live near a coal plant or eat things that are grown nearby. I dare say that solar installations don't have that kind of repellent zone around them.
You are seeing frequency support or perhaps voltage support.Hillhater wrote: ↑Dec 23, 2017 10:22 pmThis continues to puzzel me as to what is going on.
Continuous spurts of 30MW in random, frequent ( almost continuous) patterns , wit only short breaks of a few hours to charge again ?
If its testing , its a very odd method,....
If its grid demand initiated, Even more strange ?
Anybody care to suggest possible explanations ?
They were likely running their baseload plants further from maximum power so they had more margin.
It goes without saying that its all about real world generation statistics. I chose two REAL power-station projects, a nuclear power-station and a real solar-farm. If we are going to talk about stuff, in theory, why not quote the power of a man-made artificial star via a fusion reactor like Sendler just mentioned? Or even the Bill Gates Terrapower nuclear reactor at least its based on proven fission and safer, as well as using nuclear waste as fuel and only needs to be refueled every 60 years and Bill Gates promises will be cheaper than coal power-station generation.Punx0r wrote: ↑Dec 22, 2017 2:41 pm"Thebeastie", do you have a reading comprehension problem? Or do you just ignore when someone replies to your posts? It seems you just copy & paste a load of bumpf from some other website, because you posted this a few days ago:
Jil wrote: ↑Dec 18, 2017 5:01 amSorry to come again but please stop using old data for solar energy.TheBeastie wrote: ↑Dec 01, 2017 2:41 amTopaz Solar Farm ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Topaz_Solar_Farm ) in the desert of the USA. 25km2 sized. 2016 generation: 1,265,805MWh (great year 2016, 2017 looks to be a lot lower)
Average power 144MW = (1,265,805MWhours / 8760_hours_in_a_year)
Average coal or nuclear power station: average output 3927MW = (34,402,000MWh / 8760)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paluel_Nu ... ower_Plant
3927MW / 144MW = 27 times more power.
25km2 x 27 = 675km2 of land covered in solar panels to generate the same average power (if you have a super huge battery as well, that will require a lot of land and a lot of energy to dispose of once used)
The ratio easily achievable today is 1 MWp/ha for solar fixed tilt, and 0.5 MWp/ha for single-axis trackers (the technology mainly used in countries with high irradiation).
In the first case, with average irradiation you can count on 1500 MWh/MWp/year of energy produced, in the second case (trackers) 2000 MWh/MWp/year. With 99.5% availability. For nuclear and coal plants, it's more around 90%.
So it makes for fixed-tilt 150 GWh/km2/year, and for trackers 100 GWh/km2/year, for average sites (for Nevada with high irradiation it will be more).
If you compare to a nuclear or coal plant of 4000 MW with 90% availability, the equivalent production of 31,500 GWh will require between 200 and 300 km2 of land (and probably 50% less for Nevada). Not 675. By the way what surface of land does require a 4000 MW plant for coal mining ?
As you can see, your claim about land area required for PV was debunked. So, what did you post next?
Yep, just repeated the exact same thing again. It's like anything that doesn't support your existing, denialist beliefs is simply ignored. Or are you just trolling?
Those that can must focus to elevate from the norm with a system view to offer guidance as we plan ahead for the biggest change humankind has ever had to endure. The end of fossil fuel.
Great! I am all for research; sounds like some great theoretical work. But:TheBeastie wrote: ↑Dec 27, 2017 4:33 amIf we are going to talk about stuff, in theory, why not quote the power of a man-made artificial star via a fusion reactor like Sendler just mentioned? Or even the Bill Gates Terrapower nuclear reactor at least its based on proven fission and safer, as well as using nuclear waste as fuel and only needs to be refueled every 60 years and Bill Gates promises will be cheaper than coal power-station generation.
So let's use technologies that DO work in the real world, like solar, while we spend money researching those cool future technologies.He talks about how the theoretical numbers just don't work in the real world.
Yep. And nuclear will be "too cheap to meter." That was the claim by the chairman of the atomic energy commission in 1954, over 60 years ago. Today solar is considerably cheaper.
Three months per year, when energy demand is the highest, solar basically doesn't work at all for weeks at a time in the UK. Or North East USA/ Canada. Or Russia.
It might have a claimed 50% renewables capacity but that graphic shows the vast majority of energy is from gas. Your 1.7 GW of wind is barely peaking to .7 GW and is averaging not quite .3 GW. Less than 20% capacity factor and highly intermittent.
Well that certainly explains why it gets colder and darker during the Winter here. I was wondering what that was...
What big changes in panel technology have occurred since Topaz that make it obsolete?. It and Solar Star are the only examples we have of actual published data and Cap Cost of large farms. Most other farms seem to be withholding information that could judge them. Pricing for a farm in Dryden, NY completed in 2015 is still running $5 Million for a 2 MW and it is doing 15.7% of capacity annually. So, $15.92/ Watt average for the year. Probably close to Zero production for the last 5 days since we have had continual snow fall.
Well actually NO.
There are many problems with fossil fuels, not least being their ultimate exhaustion, but i believe that currently it is not possible to maintain a practical society without them......Most folk see fossil fuels are the worser evil, but you see no problem with fossil (because it's the status quo and you deny anthropogenic climate change), therefore RE is an unnecessary solution to what you perceive as an unbroken system......
Oh, and coal is definitely on the way out. Half of Europe's coal plants are already losing money as they are out-competed due to carbon pricing and low cost RE. Expect the majority to close in the next 10 years:
Right - but we are talking about electricity here.
Definitely true. Nor can you believe everything you read on denier sites, or on FOX News or Breitbart. Journals like Nature and Science, and periodicals like Science News and MIT Technology Review are much better sources. Better yet, go to the source (as I did above.)You can't believe everything you read (write?) in heavily biased solar trade magazines.
Mainly CdTe panels. CdTe panels are much less efficient than crystalline panels - but when the panels were ordered (2010) they were the cheapest option, because they were going for about $2 a watt and crystalline panels were going for $2.50-$3.00. In addition, CdTe panels have a wearout mechanism that means they are only good for a decade or so; their efficiency drops quite steeply as compared to crystalline panels (which see almost no degradation over time.)