Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9263
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 14 2018 11:48pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 14 2018 3:05pm
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 13 2018 10:32pm
even that limited capacity diesel plant can provide 5+ GWh per day if needed.
If they needed that sort of energy they should have installed a fast startup combined cycle gas plant....
.....yes..and of much greater capacity. That was my point !
How expensive would a similar capacity BESS be ?
billvon wrote:
Feb 14 2018 3:05pm
...Very expensive - because that's not what you use BESS for....
..So why did you suggest it ?
..and what would you use to charge it ?
billvon wrote:
Feb 14 2018 3:05pm
Solar, wind, spare conventional generation, the usual......
But the state is already hundres of MW short on generating capacity, so there is no surplus available ,..let alone for a 5GWh charge !
But it would not be needed at all if the output from the wind farms was more consistent.
billvon wrote:
Feb 14 2018 3:05pm
Or if they got themselves a BESS.
Duhh ?... I think that gets us back to the original point of this facility...to back up the wind farms irratic supply !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4832
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 15 2018 5:46am

If this thing is intended to often run for 2 days straight then that makes it baseload? Just not a regular one? It's definitely not a peaker and not a load follower as they ramp down at night (less than 24hr usage pattern).

Regardless, I struggle to understand why someone would select reciprocating engines for that (and diesel rather than natural gas fuelled, really?!). Maybe they were cheaper based solely on initial purchase.

Like I said before, something is screwed up with your power supply, but I think it is management/politics, not the RE technology per se

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 15 2018 11:50am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 14 2018 11:48pm
.....yes..and of much greater capacity. That was my point !
No, you missed the point.
If they need ENERGY, then solar or wind or a CCS gas turbine is a great way to go.
If they need POWER to stabilize the grid, then BESS makes more sense.

Do you understand the difference between energy and power?
..So why did you suggest it ?
See above.
But the state is already hundres of MW short on generating capacity, so there is no surplus available ,..let alone for a 5GWh charge !
So add solar or wind or natural gas.
Duhh ?... I think that gets us back to the original point of this facility...to back up the wind farms irratic supply !
Exactly. It enables cheap energy for consumers.
--bill von

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 15 2018 11:54am

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 15 2018 5:46am
If this thing is intended to often run for 2 days straight then that makes it baseload? Just not a regular one? It's definitely not a peaker and not a load follower as they ramp down at night (less than 24hr usage pattern).
Here in the US, there has been an attempt to define baseload as "plants that can store 90 days of fuel on site." (Note that this means that natural gas plants and large hydro plants are not covered.) If this doesn't make much sense, it's because it was a political effort to save coal fired power plants.
Regardless, I struggle to understand why someone would select reciprocating engines for that (and diesel rather than natural gas fuelled, really?!). Maybe they were cheaper based solely on initial purchase.
Cheaper and faster starting. And if they are needed for very short periods of time the fuel costs aren't huge.

(However I agree that a natural gas fueled recip, or even a boosted diesel recip, would be cheaper still.)
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9263
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 15 2018 9:30pm

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 15 2018 5:46am
......
Like I said before, something is screwed up with your power supply, but I think it is management/politics, not the RE technology per se
Yes, it is politics...."Green" politics to be precise, which have dictated poor energy strategy decisions to eliminate all existing coal power, and commit to RE for "base load".
This now means they have to find a way to cope with the huge and unpredictable variations in generation output.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9263
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 15 2018 10:01pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 15 2018 11:50am
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 14 2018 11:48pm
.....yes..and of much greater capacity. That was my point !
No, you missed the point.
If they need ENERGY, then solar or wind or a CCS gas turbine is a great way to go.
If they need POWER to stabilize the grid, then BESS makes more sense.
Do you understand the difference between energy and power?...
No , i did not miss the point.
But I admit you have me confused,..... but obviously not as confused as you are...
The SA grid needs more POWER (600+MW). for long periods of time ..12+ hrs at a time, often much longer.
Which means they need a lot of ENERGY, (7-10 GWh)
This new 210MW plant could at least supply 5 GWh per day, not enough but much much more than any concievable BESS .
So again bill, ...why suggest a BESS for that situation ? when you have already said its not practical ?
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 14 2018 11:48pm
But the state is already hundres of MW short on generating capacity, so there is no surplus available ,..let alone for a 5GWh charge !
.
billvon wrote:
Feb 15 2018 11:50am
...So add solar or wind or natural gas.
I seriously hope you do not mean for recharging the BESS ! :shock:
And if you mean to make up the generating capacity shortage, then think again about solar or wind , and why they have the shortfall currently !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 15 2018 10:28pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 15 2018 10:01pm
[The SA grid needs more POWER (600+MW). for long periods of time ..12+ hrs at a time, often much longer.
Which means they need a lot of ENERGY, (7-10 GWh)
I very much doubt they need it for "12+ hours at a time." Look at the demand curve; it peaks once, and it's not anywhere near flat.
This new 210MW plant could at least supply 5 GWh per day, not enough but much much more than any concievable BESS .
Why do you think that?
I seriously hope you do not mean for recharging the BESS !
Yes, I did. Most thermal plants are most efficient when run at or near full power. And at 2am, demand is very low. Recharging a BESS during those times both improves the overall efficiency of your generation stations and provides peak power for daytime peak loads.
--bill von

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1746
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Feb 16 2018 12:41am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 15 2018 10:01pm
billvon wrote:
Feb 15 2018 11:50am
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 14 2018 11:48pm
.....yes..and of much greater capacity. That was my point !
No, you missed the point.
If they need ENERGY, then solar or wind or a CCS gas turbine is a great way to go.
If they need POWER to stabilize the grid, then BESS makes more sense.
Do you understand the difference between energy and power?...
No , i did not miss the point.
But I admit you have me confused,..... but obviously not as confused as you are...
The SA grid needs more POWER (600+MW). for long periods of time ..12+ hrs at a time, often much longer.
Which means they need a lot of ENERGY, (7-10 GWh)
This new 210MW plant could at least supply 5 GWh per day, not enough but much much more than any concievable BESS .
So again bill, ...why suggest a BESS for that situation ? when you have already said its not practical ?
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 14 2018 11:48pm
But the state is already hundres of MW short on generating capacity, so there is no surplus available ,..let alone for a 5GWh charge !
.
billvon wrote:
Feb 15 2018 11:50am
...So add solar or wind or natural gas.
I seriously hope you do not mean for recharging the BESS ! :shock:
And if you mean to make up the generating capacity shortage, then think again about solar or wind , and why they have the shortfall currently !
Yeah a lot of things these companies do now, especially AGL seem to be about limiting supply, just like how AGL are going to shutdown Liddel power-station and are refusing to sell it to anyone, they are going to shut it down and demolish it to ensure no one else can use it.
South Australia's imports as much as 30% of its electricity via the Victorian interstate grid, which is an extraordinary amount to rely on from another state, all depends on the weather how much they will import from Victoria.
2018-02-07 (15).png
2018-02-07 (15).png (75.51 KiB) Viewed 782 times
Came across these articles in Denmark (the home of windturbines) where the locals are fighting to stop them being built as they are noisy, alienate the locals and cause stress.
https://www.dr.dk/nyheder/politik/kv17/ ... de-stoejer
While I have seen such articles all over the world, there is a guy in Australia who just released a book on the subject Simon Chapman who claims windfarms causing health issues is a bunch of baloney and he even says he traveled to Denmark and everyone told them they have never ever heard of anyone having any issues living next to wind turbines.
http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... an/9396452
http://www.afr.com/lifestyle/health/men ... 127-gztyaw
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range https://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/ZhFFot
https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9263
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 16 2018 1:13am

billvon wrote:
Feb 15 2018 10:28pm
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 15 2018 10:01pm
[The SA grid needs more POWER (600+MW). for long periods of time ..12+ hrs at a time, often much longer.
Which means they need a lot of ENERGY, (7-10 GWh)
I very much doubt they need it for "12+ hours at a time." Look at the demand curve; it peaks once, and it's not anywhere near flat.
This new 210MW plant could at least supply 5 GWh per day, not enough but much much more than any concievable BESS .
Why do you think that?
I seriously hope you do not mean for recharging the BESS !
Yes, I did. Most thermal plants are most efficient when run at or near full power. And at 2am, demand is very low. Recharging a BESS during those times both improves the overall efficiency of your generation stations and provides peak power for daytime peak loads.
Jeez bill, get real and just look at the facts..
This is SA power gen and demand today. Typical except they probably had more wind than normal !
Image

Notice how much power they are importing..(purple)
Notice their max gas thermal capacity (red)= 1 GW .
At 2 am they are still importing power .
I will let you work out how much surplus energy they produced and how much they had to import.
Now tell me again , what capacity and what cost that BESS is going to be
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
Chalo   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7177
Joined: Apr 29 2009 11:29pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Chalo » Feb 16 2018 3:08am

Looks like they need more PV solar.
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: 9263
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 16 2018 3:51am

You must not be aware of the Thermal Solar plan for SA.
Another $650m or so, for a 150 MW solar tower with 8 hrs of storage.
If you do the maths, that averages out at <60 MWh equivalent continuous..if the sun shines 100%
..except in winter when there is not enough sun to run the plant at all !!
Truely a "World Class" dumb idea !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 924
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 16 2018 6:31am

Solar pv with a Westerly set would help 14:00 to 18:00. The other two peaks at 07:00 and Midnight are a problem. I assume peak demand would be much less in the Winter. The big issue in the whole discussion of SA is that they are shutting down carbon generation without first having replaced it. And no availablity for economic growth. It also appears that the major populations in Victoria are quite a ways from the good sun in the interior.
.
http://pv-map.apvi.org.au/performance#4/-28.77/134.91
.

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4832
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 16 2018 8:13am

sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 16 2018 6:31am
The big issue in the whole discussion of SA is that they are shutting down carbon generation without first having replaced it.
I think that's a fair assessment. Like I say, it's a local political issue but Hillhater uses it to assume RE cannot work anywhere on the planet.

What's the probable cause of the demand spike at midnight? Seems a bit strange. Maybe these are timed loads to take advantage of what would otherwise be the start of the low demand period?
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 16 2018 3:51am
Another $650m or so, for a 150 MW solar tower with 8 hrs of storage.
If you do the maths, that averages out at <60 MWh equivalent continuous..if the sun shines 100%
..except in winter when there is not enough sun to run the plant at all !!
$650M AUS for 150MW is $4300/kW = $3443 USD/kW. Compare with coal at ~$3500/kW

The storage would allow the thing to continue supporting the peak evening demand and possible even the early morning one. It obviously wouldn't need to run all night when there's little demand. Similarly it wouldn't need to run during the winter when there's little demand for air-conditioning (which seems to the problematic demand in S. Aus.).

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9263
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 16 2018 4:51pm

Punx0r wrote:
Feb 16 2018 8:13am

What's the probable cause of the demand spike at midnight? Seems a bit strange. Maybe these are timed loads to take advantage of what would otherwise be the start of the low demand period?..
....yes , its the old 11pm, "Off Peak" timer meter for water heaters etc.
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 16 2018 3:51am
Another $650m or so, for a 150 MW solar tower with 8 hrs of storage.
If you do the maths, that averages out at <60 MWh equivalent continuous..if the sun shines 100%
..except in winter when there is not enough sun to run the plant at all !!
Punx0r wrote:
Feb 16 2018 8:13am
$650M AUS for 150MW is $4300/kW = $3443 USD/kW. Compare with coal at ~$3500/kW

The storage would allow the thing to continue supporting the peak evening demand and possible even the early morning one. It obviously wouldn't need to run all night when there's little demand. Similarly it wouldn't need to run during the winter when there's little demand for air-conditioning (which seems to the problematic demand in S. Aus.).
ITS NOT a PEAK demand problem !......Its a generation shortage that is the issue.
Remember its solar, so it can only supply or store 8 or so hours of energy ...
Say 8x150MW = 1200 MWh per day at best....which would be 440 GWh per year absolute max.
A similar priced (Your fugures) 150 MW coal plant could supply 24/7, or 1300 GWh per year if needed.
So which is better value .
PS... In winter the commercial demand remains and the domestic switches to heating.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 16 2018 5:08pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 16 2018 4:51pm
ITS NOT a PEAK demand problem !......Its a generation shortage that is the issue.
Cool. Then if all you need is generation, then install a lot of cheap solar.

However, I think you will find that peak demand still matters.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9263
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 16 2018 6:40pm

:roll: :roll: :roll:
And do what for the 18 hrs the sun is not shining ?
I guess you dont bother looking at data graphs posted ?
...if you had , you may have noticed the continual power import during the night.

Solar and wind advocates refuse to accept the concept of "Base load" ...the simple fact that most utility grids experience a demand minimum that is never exceeded, with normal operational demand always higher than that base level. Its a generation capacity that must be available 24/7.
Of course , that reality does not work well with sources that are either totally intermittent (solar) , or highly variable (wind). And throw in the unpredictability factor for both, then you see why a continuous Base load is a concept they would rather argue against than accept.
BESS, Solar Thermal, Pumped Hydro, etc etc , have all been proposed as substitutes to "time shift" stored power and even out the supply variations, but its becoming increasingly obvious that none of them are viable solutions on a national (or State) scale utility grid.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
wineboyrider   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2644
Joined: Sep 30 2009 9:08am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Feb 16 2018 7:33pm

Most Australians heat their homes with electricity? Here it's propane or natural gas. Natural gas is super cheap nowadays.[url][https://www.nmgco.com/Current_Natural_G ... s.aspx/url]
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

User avatar
jonescg   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3305
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Feb 16 2018 8:22pm

wineboyrider wrote:
Feb 16 2018 7:33pm
Most Australians heat their homes with electricity? Here it's propane or natural gas. Natural gas is super cheap nowadays.[url][https://www.nmgco.com/Current_Natural_G ... s.aspx/url]
Gas was cheap here until the export marked exploded - now it's getting rather pricey. Natural gas producers would rather export it for better margins. As a result, domestic gas has gotten rather expensive - at least as expensive as heating your home with electricity. In Victoria it's cheaper to heat your home and cook with electricity than gas.

The proposed solar thermal station planned for South Australia is claimed to have a capacity factor of about 30%, which is rather good considering its challenges. I do agree with Hillhater though, that it's a hell of a lot of money to spend on a 150 MW peak generator, but at the same time I am excited to see how it pans out. It might have been better to build a PV+Battery system for the same or a bit less money, and have the benefit of being able to accept power from all forms (wind, PV, arbitrage).

User avatar
wineboyrider   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2644
Joined: Sep 30 2009 9:08am
Location: Tularosa, New Mexico
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by wineboyrider » Feb 16 2018 8:28pm

jonescg wrote:
Feb 16 2018 8:22pm
wineboyrider wrote:
Feb 16 2018 7:33pm
Most Australians heat their homes with electricity? Here it's propane or natural gas. Natural gas is super cheap nowadays.[url][https://www.nmgco.com/Current_Natural_G ... s.aspx/url]
Gas was cheap here until the export marked exploded - now it's getting rather pricey. Natural gas producers would rather export it for better margins. As a result, domestic gas has gotten rather expensive - at least as expensive as heating your home with electricity. In Victoria it's cheaper to heat your home and cook with electricity than gas.

The proposed solar thermal station planned for South Australia is claimed to have a capacity factor of about 30%, which is rather good considering its challenges. I do agree with Hillhater though, that it's a hell of a lot of money to spend on a 150 MW peak generator, but at the same time I am excited to see how it pans out. It might have been better to build a PV+Battery system for the same or a bit less money, and have the benefit of being able to accept power from all forms (wind, PV, arbitrage).
Amazing the climate similarities though between the southwest and most of Australia, but a stark difference in energy mix. Only places I can think of electricity as a cheap heating source is where Hydro is plentiful.
ES IS SAVED! THANK YOU JUSTIN.

User avatar
sjd.aliyan   1 mW

1 mW
Posts: 10
Joined: Jan 17 2018 9:45am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sjd.aliyan » Feb 17 2018 12:17am

both renewable and fossil fuels/nuclears have benefits.what we can do?

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9263
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 17 2018 12:37am

wineboyrider wrote:
Feb 16 2018 7:33pm
Most Australians heat their homes with electricity? Here it's propane or natural gas. Natural gas is super cheap nowadays.[url][https://www.nmgco.com/Current_Natural_G ... s.aspx/url]
There has been a huge uptake of A/C systems througout Australia, such that Reverse Cycle A/C is rapidly becoming the prefered cold weather heating method , replacing gas and even solid fuel fires...(together with those trendy log burner stoves !)
Also there is less daylight hours for any rooftop solar to harvest power, and a longer period for lighting requirements.
So whilst these is still reduced electricity demand in winter months, its not a defined as it used to be.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 924
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 17 2018 8:24am

California had a sunny day again yesterday. It's interesting how flat the peak from solar is shown. Flat accross from Noon to 18:00. And how much they can vary the hydro. Very poor wind again though.

NY cruises along 16 GW at 200gm/ kWh with 50% hydro and nuclear.

Germany had good sun and wind yesterday making it down toward 300 gm/ kWh. Today, not so good. And the data just now dropped out! I hope it comes back.

Looks like all of the solar and wind build out in India is in the North West Gujarat area.

South Australia had a good day with 20% of 1.5GW from solar at noon and now the wind is finally whipping with 500MW out of 1.5GW installed.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=ma ... wind=false
.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1806
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 17 2018 11:24am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 16 2018 6:40pm
And do what for the 18 hrs the sun is not shining ?
I think you're starting to lose track of your own arguments.
Solar and wind advocates refuse to accept the concept of "Base load" ...the simple fact that most utility grids experience a demand minimum that is never exceeded, with normal operational demand always higher than that base level. Its a generation capacity that must be available 24/7.
Right. And for now that will be met with conventional generation. That will slowly change with time, as storage and conventional renewables expand.
BESS, Solar Thermal, Pumped Hydro, etc etc , have all been proposed as substitutes to "time shift" stored power and even out the supply variations, but its becoming increasingly obvious that none of them are viable solutions on a national (or State) scale utility grid.
In 20 years, a significant amount of our power will come from time-shifted intermittent renewables.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9263
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Feb 17 2018 5:32pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 17 2018 11:24am
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 16 2018 6:40pm
And do what for the 18 hrs the sun is not shining ?
I think you're starting to lose track of your own arguments.
What makes you think that ?

..In 20 years, a significant amount of our power will come from time-shifted intermittent renewables.
Utility scale ?... Using exactly which forms of storage do you believe ?
Before that "dream" materialises, i suspect we will have much better options for base load generation.
Until then, we better make the most of our fossil resources.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1746
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Feb 18 2018 7:04am

sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 17 2018 8:24am
California had a sunny day again yesterday. It's interesting how flat the peak from solar is shown. Flat accross from Noon to 18:00. And how much they can vary the hydro. Very poor wind again though.

NY cruises along 16 GW at 200gm/ kWh with 50% hydro and nuclear.

Germany had good sun and wind yesterday making it down toward 300 gm/ kWh. Today, not so good. And the data just now dropped out! I hope it comes back.

South Australia had a good day with 20% of 1.5GW from solar at noon and now the wind is finally whipping with 500MW out of 1.5GW installed.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=ma ... wind=false
.
Yes with Germany it does have these long multiday dropouts. Its been grey color for about 24 hours now? While I can see the previous hours it was grey about this time yesterday when I looked at it. I don't understand how they can't supply their data, even much poorer euro countries like Latvia/Lithuania etc can provide their electricity data 24/7 but Germany just can't do it.
And it always seems to happen when the wind is dubiously low, I know it seems just too silly to accuse Germany that they are pulling their data when it looks really bad on wind but so far it always seems to go out on bad days.
England is at 4% wind right now and Italy about the same so not a lot of wind around Europe atm I guess.
2018-02-18.png
2018-02-18.png (88.72 KiB) Viewed 706 times
Came across this article which had an interesting chart
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca ... 874eba128c
Thought this was the most interesting bit

On a total dollar basis, wind has received the greatest amount of federal subsidies. Solar is second. Wind and solar together get more than all other energy sources combined.

However, based on production (subsidies per kWh of electricity produced), solar energy, has gotten over ten times the subsidies of all other forms of energy sources combined, including wind (see figure).
But the subsidies for nuclear and fossil fuels are indirect subsidies like decommissioning and insurance assistance, leasing of federal lands, and other externalities, unlike the subsidies for renewables which are directly for the production of electricity and directly affect cost and pricing.

Within the renewables, electricity-related subsidies increased more than 50% for wind and solar, whereas conservation, end-use, and biofuel subsidies deceased more than 50%. This is unfortunate since conservation and efficiency usually yield great results with little cost or infrastructure requirements.

Image
Until they do away with subsidies to an even level across all energy these claims that renewables is cheaper thus better than conventional energy will continue to be a bunch of baloney to me, because if it's that great then it doesn't need taxpayer help.

The other thing I been thinking about is how we keep going down a more slippery slope with renewables and their environmental destructiveness while still calling them renewables
With South Australia and their taxpayer helped Tesla solar+battery system I was thinking about how much Cobalt has gone up, apparently, its like $4,000 worth goes into a Tesla car at the $80,000 a ton mark for Cobalt.

So the question I ask, if its all so "renewable" then why is the price to make this stuff going up on price so much? Because its not renewable. Unlike Hydro-electricty which is very abundant constantly being recycled water cobalt gets locked up into batteries and before Tesla has really even begun making a difference the price is starting to kill it, so it highlights just how lacking it is in renewables.
Image
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2018 ... batteries/

Just checking out some of the ultra-potent green house gases emitted from solar-panel manufacturer and they are still rocketing higher, just grabbed this live from NOAA. And its not hard to calculate that these single handedly out do most countries entire co2 emissions and of course can't be absorbed by trees and will be in the atmosphere for 100s to 1,000s of years.
https://youtu.be/v6uVnyjTb58?t=12m47s
hats.MLO.sf6.7.none.daily.all.png
hats.MLO.sf6.7.none.daily.all.png (74.58 KiB) Viewed 698 times
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles range https://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/ZhFFot
https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

Post Reply