Quite right, apologies, I misremembered the crossover point...billvon wrote: ↑Jan 01, 2018 11:21 am
0F is about-17C.
Coldest I've experienced is -38F with a windspeed of 120mph. Now _that_ was cold. (And that was also about -38C; the scales meet at -40C.)
A lot of people report peak productions well above summer maximums (although for much shorter times due to the shorter days.)
Niagara Falls is pretty much frozen over so not much power coming out of there.sendler2112 wrote: ↑Dec 29, 2017 10:01 pmNiagara Falls hydro has 5 GW installed capacity. Shared 50%/ 50% with Canada. I couldn't find anything on actual production average. Massive as this hydro source is, it wouldn't come close to propping up a 100% RE blend of 24GW on long winter nights if the wind dies.
These numbers are daunting. 100 GW of wind turbines. And this is for just 1 state out of 50 in the USA. And then 6X for the world.
I use the NREL tables as a starting point: https://www.nrel.gov/gis/solar.html They are pretty accurate and I have had good luck using them in New York, Arizona and San Diego.
That used to be very common. With solar so cheap nowadays it's becoming more common to just put up two arrays (say, one vertical and one optimized for summer.) A lot of home installs, for example, now use east and west side arrays, connected to a common inverter. Since the two arrays don't peak at the same time, the inverter can be smaller (and cheaper) overall - but allows generation for more of the day.Punx0r wrote: ↑Jan 01, 2018 7:29 pmI was thinking earlier about seasonal adjustment of panels. It doesn't need to be electric and automated. A simple pivot bolt and a locking pin inserted into different holes corresponding to a seasonal angle setting would be very cheap and allow a one or two man team to adjust a field of panels in a day.
The turbines that generate power from the falls are miles from the falls themselves - so freezing of the falls themselves doesn't mean much.
It's perfectly acceptable to most people. Most people can cover 100% of their load with nothing more than the space on their roof. And for the rest - most people are just fine with square miles of solar collectors. They are less OK with coal plant deaths and powerplant meltdowns.What I can't get over with Solar is that even if the power was decent the footprint is still very unacceptable
Hmm. It would be fun to watch you say that to someone who gets all their power from solar.I still think all these crazy renewable energy projects are just the result of misinformed people which is the result of bad mainstream media and renewable energy facebook memes.
When looking at some of the garbage that comes out of the mouths of some people this makes sense to me.
??? Rewind a few pages Chalo and get some of the facts on Germany.Chalo wrote: ↑Jan 01, 2018 10:00 pmThe Germans use a lot of PV solar successfully, and they're at really high north latitudes, with hideous weather. I think it has a lot to do with their willingness to do it well, and the fact that there aren't large domestic business or political interests there promoting oil and gas-- because they don't really have any. ...
Coal was supplying the bulk of power throughout most of the 1900's....capacity dictated only by demand growth.billvon wrote: ↑Dec 31, 2017 1:02 amThe first coal power plant opened in 1882. That was 135 years to ramp up to the point where it supplies a big chunk of our power.
The first natural gas power plant opened in 1940. That's 77 years to ramp up.
We've done it before; we can do it again. It might take another 77 years. It might take a lot less if we put the effort into it,
I think you have forgotten the basis of your original point...that coal plants need a local supply of fuel.Punx0r wrote: ↑Dec 30, 2017 12:05 pmCoal requires a train or cargo ship to transport, electricity can be potentially be sent thousands of miles in a matter of seconds from wherever has available wind/solar/wave/hydro/geothermal. Before you say "that kind of grid would be difficult/expensive to build" take a good look at the complexity of the petroleum infrastructure. Take the Deepwater Horizon well: someone developed the technology and fronted the money to drill in over 4000ft of water to a total depth of over 35,000ft! That is hard! Even then the oil was 250 miles from anywhere useful and still had to be refined into a useable fuel.Hillhater wrote: ↑Dec 29, 2017 4:02 pmWell actually NO.
....one of the often overlooked advantages of coal is that it can easily be transported and stored relatively cheaply...no special containers required. And most coal generators stockpile several weeks of fuel to guard against supply chain issues...even if they are not built on a coal source.
Yeah if you look at this large 6,224-megawatt (MW) coal power plant complex in Bình Thuận province, Vietnam via googlemaps you can see its purely powered by coal imports via sea. That relatively tiny pile of coal can deliver epic power for probably a few weeks.Hillhater wrote: ↑Jan 03, 2018 5:45 amI think you have forgotten the basis of your original point...that coal plants need a local supply of fuel.
...Which is of course untrue, as there are numerous such plants around the world fueled on imported coal ftom countries such as Australia, Brazil etc. it is a cheap , stable, solid fuel that can be easily and cheaply transported and stockpiled.
You may want to check the practical limitations, and efficiencies , of transfering electrical power over similar distances...let alone storing any significant quantity.
Gas plants are growing like crazy because natural gas is so cheap compared to coal.
35 years of ramp-up has gotten us to 72 terawatt-hours a year of solar generation. 35 years after the first coal power plant opened (1917) the US as a while didn't even consume that much electrical power a year _total_ (because most places didn't have electric power.)The Photovoltaic cell was first produced in 1941, and the first commercial PV solar farm on line in 1982.....so thats 35 years of " ramp up"....to get to ~~1-2% ??
if not for weak politics,...Coal would still be the #2 choice for power , .
As i said, ....Coal increased at a rate in response to demand....and still is !.......35 years of ramp-up has gotten us to 72 terawatt-hours a year of solar generation. 35 years after the first coal power plant opened (1917) the US as a while didn't even consume that much electrical power a year _total_ (because most places didn't have electric power.)
I think that's doing pretty well.
What are its technical advantages? It is painful to mine, ship, store, burn - and it is then difficult to store the waste after burning it. It's an annoying fuel. Which is one reason it's so expensive.
So is solar.As i said, ....Coal increased at a rate in response to demand....and still is !
...?? I guess i should expect those comments from such a biased viewpoint..
I wouldnt say coal has much political support at the moment..worldwide.its a political outcast....and i certainly would not suggest its the best energy source for the future (it may not be available).Currently coal is the politically correct fuel to support. (Hundreds of jobs for miners, economy in red states, Trump support etc etc.) But I'd recommend looking beyond political correctness at what the best energy source is for the future.
Natural gas is both more plentiful and cheaper to mine. (And you can make natural gas.)
And natural gas is even easier. Don't even need a ship - all you need is a pipe, which is the lowest of low tech., ship ( simple open trains, ships)
2016 levelized costs of utility scale energy:It is still the cheapest source of utility scale , continuous, reliable power generation for locations that do not have a local fuel source.
Our president has made it quite clear that coal is the politically correct energy source to support, and has directed the DOE to ignore DOE studies and throw its support behind coal. Coal generators are getting subsidies from the DOE, and they are writing rules to promote coal over other, cheaper forms of power. Any regulations that bear on coal power plants and coal mining are getting slashed. It is the "correct" thing to support if you want to get political support in the US.I wouldnt say coal has much political support at the moment..
You are selectively quoting, and forgetting the point..billvon wrote: ↑Jan 04, 2018 6:05 pmNatural gas is both more plentiful and cheaper to mine. (And you can make natural gas.)And natural gas is even easier. Don't even need a ship - all you need is a pipe, which is the lowest of low tech., ship ( simple open trains, ships)2016 levelized costs of utility scale energy:It is still the cheapest source of utility scale , continuous, reliable power generation for locations that do not have a local fuel source.
Natural gas $42-$78/MWHr
So your gas supply pipe either has to be trans ocean, or you ship CNG/LNG with all the infrastructure and cost that implies ! Gas is only cheap if you have it available locally and cheap.It is still the cheapest source of utility scale , continuous, reliable power generation for locations that do not have a local fuel source....