Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 18 2018 6:41pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 17 2018 5:32pm
I think you're starting to lose track of your own arguments.
What makes you think that ?
Because you said "ITS NOT a PEAK demand problem !......Its a generation shortage that is the issue."

If that's the case (generation shortage) then install more solar. That will give you more generation; more total energy.

If you are having trouble meeting peaks, then install peakers or battery storage.

They are different problems.
..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 ?
Using
-LiFePO4 batteries
-flow batteries
-molten salt storage
-pumped storage (basically hydro)
-ARES-style storage
Before that "dream" materialises, i suspect we will have much better options for base load generation.
That would be great. But you will still need either storage or peakers to match load to demand. Take nuclear power. It's a good source of baseload, but is terrible at throttling; it works best when running at or near capacity forever. At night that can be a problem, because it can't easily be throttled back. That's where storage will help.
Until then, we better make the most of our fossil resources.
By using them as little as possible.
Last edited by billvon on Feb 18 2018 6:58pm, edited 1 time in total.
--bill von

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 18 2018 6:56pm

TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 18 2018 7:04am
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.
Looks like the fake news of the day. Most SF6 emissions come from the manufacture of electrical equipment and from magnesium casting.

===============================
The most significant sources of SF6 emissions are from the manufacture, operation and disposal of electrical equipment (27 million tons of CO2 equivalent (MtCO2e) in 2000, and magnesium die casting (9 MtCO2e in 2000). In addition, smaller amounts of SF6 are used in semiconductor production, as a tracer gas, for sound proofing in windows, in aluminum production and as an alternative to air in filling car tires. An inert gas, SF6 is used as an insulator for electrical equipment, to protect it from overloads and short circuit currents, as well as to connect and disconnect networks. In this context, SF6 is emitted primarily through leaks over the lifetime of the equipment (approximately one third of emissions); during maintenance, when the equipment must be opened for repairs and SF6 escapes; or when the equipment is decommissioned (maintenance and decommissioning together represent approximately two thirds of emissions). Although SF6 emissions from electrical equipment decreased significantly between 1990 and 2000 due to the high price of SF6 and technical improvements, emissions increased by 55% between2000 and 2003 due to increased sales and higher rates
of retirement for electrical equipment.

Magnesium production, an energy intensive process, has increased worldwide due to high demand for the lightweight metal, especially in the transportation industry. In magnesium die casting, SF6 is used as a cover gas to protect the molten metal from oxidation or ignition. It is emitted due to its function as a cover gas - SF6 emissions in the magnesium industry are therefore roughly equal to the industry’s consumption of the gas.

http://climate.columbia.edu/files/2012/ ... tsheet.pdf
=====================================
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.
Sure. Eliminate all subsidies for all forms of power, and treat everything the same. No more tax breaks for solar. No more Price-Anderson for nuclear power plants. No more free services from the NRC. Eliminate the coal and nuclear subsidy in the new DOE guidelines. Look at the cleanest fossil fuel plant out there, and set maximum allowable emissions to that.

Then let the market decide.
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.
Compared to coal they are incredibly clean. Google what comes out of a coal power plant every year.
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.
And if cobalt goes up enough, they will switch to another formulation (like LMO) that doesn't use cobalt. Easy. The market makes such decisions all the time.
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?
Supply and demand.
Because its not renewable.
Right. The materials to make them are not; the energy that comes out of them is.
Unlike Hydro-electricty which is very abundant constantly being recycled water
The materials to make dams and generators are not renewable. The energy is. Very much like other renewable energy sources.
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.
??? Food is renewable. Are you claiming that therefore food prices never skyrocket due to droughts, blights and transportation problems? "Renewable" does not equal "immune to market forces."
--bill von

User avatar
jonescg   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3283
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Feb 18 2018 8:02pm

Beastie, for a guy who believes global warming is crap, you seem to be genuinely concerned with it with regards to sulphur hexafluoride - ...but only because it's used in the manufacture of solar panels. You know full well the majority of SF6 is used in all manner of industrial processes, of which solar panel manufacture is just a tiny proportion. And for a guy who thinks greenhouse gas emissions are nothing to worry about, I'm surprised you're using reduced CO2 emissions as a reason to embrace nuclear energy.

Mate, we understand you hate Greenies, Labor voters, the ABC, non-Murdoch media, Tesla, lithium-ion batteries, solar PV and wind, but please; be consistent with your reasons :D

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 872
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 18 2018 8:49pm

California had another great day of sun. The panels peaked at 70% of capacity from 09:30 to 16:00. And it is winter here. Almost looks a little too ideal with a flat plateu. And demand tapers down immediately at 17:00. How do they really do that? The wind is blowing today also with the turbines doing over 50% of capacity for 18 hours and now at 70%.
.
I would think that Australia could get a similar big flat peak to handle their afternoon cooling if they built some big solar farms in the interior were it is just as sunny.
.
Germany has still left their data blank. They must have gotten tired of us picking on them for running along at 500gm/ kWh CO2 for days on end this winter.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=ma ... wind=false
.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9108
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 18 2018 9:08pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 18 2018 6:41pm
....If that's the case (generation shortage) then install more solar. That will give you more generation; more total energy....
But it wont give you any more power at 2 am,...or the next day when its cloudy,..etc
What is missing, ..and you refuse to recognise , ...is sufficient reliable , continuous, "base load" generation.
....
Utility scale ?... Using exactly which forms of storage do you believe ?
billvon wrote:
Feb 18 2018 6:41pm
Using
-LiFePO4 batteries
-flow batteries
-molten salt storage
-pumped storage (basically hydro)
-ARES-style storage
Using the Worlds biggest Battery (129MWh) , and the KIREIP battery, as the only realistic examples , and seeing the impact they have on some of the smallest demand loads, i wont be expecting much from batteries (of any form ) when it comes to large scale grid supplies.
Pumped Hydro ?. We have already concluded there is not enough geographic oportunities to realise any significant benefit in most countries. (Germany is maxed out, Australia is scratching to find small oportunities, etc)
And of course in order to have stored energy available, you have to be able to generate it initially anyway !..
....IE,..huge over capacity of solar initially required=== cost cost cost.
Last edited by Hillhater on Feb 18 2018 9:31pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Chalo   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7077
Joined: Apr 29 2009 11:29pm
Location: Austin, Texas

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Chalo » Feb 18 2018 9:12pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 18 2018 8:49pm
California had another great day of sun. The panels peaked at 70% of capacity from 09:30 to 16:00. And it is winter here. Almost looks a little too ideal with a flat plateu.
Maybe there was a voltage conversion or transmission current capacity somewhere along that maxed out? Or a contractual maximum? Without some other constraint, it does seem like PV generation would develop a rounded peak, rather than a plateau, on a clear day.
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: 9108
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 18 2018 9:38pm

Chalo wrote:
Feb 18 2018 9:12pm
..... Without some other constraint, it does seem like PV generation would develop a rounded peak, rather than a plateau, on a clear day.
Solar output "Plateau" profiles are fairly common on large scale installations ( Solar Farms)
..i assume that it is due to the single axis tracking that many use.
Also i beIeve some farms bias groups of panels to optimise am, midday, and pm, incidence angles ? That might also tend to flatten out the peak, and reduce the actual maximum power compared to theoretical maximum, but give more total MWhs through the day ??

EDIT..
Just checked the reported output of the Nyngen fixed flat panel (all set to 25 deg?), 102MW rated, solar farm in Australia.
As reported, it displays a very distinct , flat, plateau from 12:00 to 15:00 at exactly 102 MW ??..
So maybe ther is some other limitation in the inverters or transformers etc ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 872
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 18 2018 9:59pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 18 2018 9:38pm
bias groups of panels to optimise am, midday, and pm, incidence angles ? That might also tend to flatten out the peak, and reduce the actual maximum power compared to theoretical maximum, but give more total MWhs through the day ??
I'm thinking it must be a little of both some differential alignment and some curtailment agreements. SolarStar has trackers but I haven't seen any other large farms that have them.

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 872
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 18 2018 10:04pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 18 2018 9:38pm
So maybe ther is some other limitation in the inverters or transformers etc ?
I guess it is possible that they might save money on the invertors and just fit an amount that they know they will fully use most of the time and curtail some DC when there is too much. The data from Germany always showed a distinct sine wave on a good day.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9108
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 18 2018 10:16pm

What options are available to restrict the output from a PV solar panel/ farm ?
Do they have some form of control available ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 19 2018 12:07am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 18 2018 9:08pm
If that's the case (generation shortage) then install more solar. That will give you more generation; more total energy....
But it wont give you any more power at 2 am,...or the next day when its cloudy,..etc
What is missing, ..and you refuse to recognise , ...is sufficient reliable , continuous, "base load" generation.
Then you need more average power, not more total energy.

Again, energy is not the same as power. If you need more energy, then solar is great. If you need more power at specific times, then battery storage (or conventional generation) will work.
Using the Worlds biggest Battery (129MWh) , and the KIREIP battery, as the only realistic examples , and seeing the impact they have on some of the smallest demand loads, i wont be expecting much from batteries (of any form ) when it comes to large scale grid supplies.
So I guess as BESS's continue to grow you will be surprised. Which is fine.
And of course in order to have stored energy available, you have to be able to generate it initially anyway !..
....IE,..huge over capacity of solar initially required=== cost cost cost.
Exactly. And when solar is cheap cheap cheap, then people prefer it over more expensive forms of energy. It's reaching parity with coal in many places even WITH storage.
--bill von

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 19 2018 12:09am

Chalo wrote:
Feb 18 2018 9:12pm
Maybe there was a voltage conversion or transmission current capacity somewhere along that maxed out? Or a contractual maximum? Without some other constraint, it does seem like PV generation would develop a rounded peak, rather than a plateau, on a clear day.
Trackers generally display a "mesa" shape in terms of generation throughout the day. The edges are rounded due to airmass effects, but from (for example) 10 to 2 you get pretty flat output.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9108
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 19 2018 1:08am

billvon wrote:
Feb 19 2018 12:07am
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 18 2018 9:08pm
If that's the case (generation shortage) then install more solar. That will give you more generation; more total energy....
But it wont give you any more power at 2 am,...or the next day when its cloudy,..etc
What is missing, ..and you refuse to recognise , ...is sufficient reliable , continuous, "base load" generation.
Then you need more average power, not more total energy.

Again, energy is not the same as power. If you need more energy, then solar is great. If you need more power at specific times, then battery storage (or conventional generation) will work.
bill, they have tried more Solar and more wind, ....its has not helped, infact it has made it worse by creating the need for more "fast response" thermal (gas, Diesel, etc) plants.
The only way more solar/wind could possible help, is combined with a HUGE BESS , ...
.....And that would mean a HUGE COST.
Check out their "Virtual Power Plant" plan that is also in the pipeline !!...
But they have already got the WORLDS BIGGEST BATTERY, ..and it doesnt even register on the supply chart !
Officially less than 1% contribution to supply by time shift.
Meanwhile whilst the SA Government, you, and others, dream of the RE utopia, .....S Australia will keep burning diesel and gas , whilst playing with expensive experiments and , pushing the power price ever upwards.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1745
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Feb 19 2018 1:51am

billvon wrote:
Feb 18 2018 6:56pm
TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 18 2018 7:04am
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.
The most significant sources of SF6 emissions are from the manufacture .. in semiconductor production,
Yes it sure is, all solar panels are just semiconductors
Any document or youtube video you find talking about the details of solar panels will say its a semiconductor, solar panels are made out of silicon. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer_(electronics) A wafer, also called a slice or substrate,[1] is a thin slice of semiconductor material, such as a crystalline silicon, used in electronics for the fabrication of integrated circuits and in photovoltaics for conventional, wafer-based solar cells.
"Semiconductor junction: the solar cell"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ETN709TgUnk
"Photovoltaic modules, commonly called solar modules, are the key components used to convert sunlight into electricity. Solar modules are made of semiconductors that are very similar to those used to create integrated circuits for electronic equipment. The most common type of semiconductor currently in use is made of silicon crystal. "
https://global.kyocera.com/prdct/solar/ ... /cell.html
Semiconductor and solar cell go hand in hand as in the videos you get describing the science behind solar cells and semiconductors are the same. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_ ... tors+solar

The EPA even has a DEDICATED page for the semiconductor industry and SF6 and its related gases.
https://www.epa.gov/f-gas-partnership-p ... r-industry
Semiconductor manufacturers use a variety of high GWP gases to create intricate circuitry patterns upon silicon wafers and to rapidly clean chemical vapor deposition (CVD) tool chambers. Semiconductor manufacturing processes use high GWP fluorinated compounds including perfluorocarbons (e.g., CF4, C2F6 and C3F8), hydrofluorocarbons (CHF3, CH3F and CH2F2), nitrogen trifluoride (NF3) and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Semiconductor manufacturing processes also use fluorinated heat transfer fluids and nitrous oxide (N2O).

There are the other ones but SF6 is an easy chart to come by with daily updates. Also with each wind farm/solar farm, it needs transmission towers etc to be built for the power to be delivered and ironically its suppose to be reducing GHG emissions and its really doing the opposite.

There are a whole bunch of these gases that are being emitted by the "renewables" industry.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/g ... ts&type=ts
As listed by the EPA in semiconductor manufacturing which solar cells represent the largest amount of manufacture by far but its also responsible for these green house gases as listed by the EPA.
C2F6
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluoroethane#Uses
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hexafluor ... al_effects
with an atmospheric lifetime of 10,000 years and a global warming potential (GWP) of 9200.
hats.WGC.C2H6.34.none.discrete.all.png
hats.WGC.C2H6.34.none.discrete.all.png (52.29 KiB) Viewed 575 times
C3F8
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Octafluoropropane
hats.WGC.P218.34.none.discrete.all.png
hats.WGC.P218.34.none.discrete.all.png (54.93 KiB) Viewed 575 times
CH2F2
hats.WGC.F32.34.none.discrete.all.png
hats.WGC.F32.34.none.discrete.all.png (51.65 KiB) Viewed 568 times
hats.NWR.F227e.6.none.discrete.all.png
hats.NWR.F227e.6.none.discrete.all.png (51.55 KiB) Viewed 569 times
With NF3 which is also used on solar cell semiconductor manufacture its just as bad. For whatever reason, there's no live generation chart for this one.
Image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_ ... nhouse_gas
NF3 is a greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential (GWP) 17,200 times greater than that of CO2.. 8000 tons a year
If we take the 17,200 x greater than co2 and times it by 8,000tons we get 137,600,000 co2 equivalent CO2e.
With SF6 is 23,900 greater than co2 warming equivalent and at an estimated 10,000tons a year 23,900x10,000 = 239,000,000 co2e.
239million tons of co2 equivalent while Australia's coal power-stations only emit around 151million tons a year (as discussed here https://theconversation.com/is-clean-co ... gets-71785 )

Merely just googling around NF3 the Alibaba adverts came up, you can buy it canisters at 400kilos per order.
https://www.alibaba.com/countrysearch/CN/nf3-price.html

Its just evil that the renewables industry that is supposed to be lowering GHG emissions is producing ones that are 1,000s of times worse, it's like McDonald's selling a cure for heart disease after creating it. What bothers me is the hypocrisy. It's like the only argument for wind and solar manufacture defense is that they mean well even though they're not really helping, but on top making peoples power-bills much more expensive.
billvon wrote:
Feb 18 2018 6:56pm
And if cobalt goes up enough, they will switch to another formulation (like LMO) that doesn't use cobalt. Easy. The market makes such decisions all the time.
They have been talking about that for a long time and none of it has happened for western EVs, just like the "battery breakthrough thread" you can see amazing 8000% increase battery promises from 10 years ago as thats how old that thread is now but none of it came through. Lithium-Cobalt-xxxx has been the core battery of choice for the last 10 years and we may as well put all our bets on cold-fusion/man-made-stars beating the next battery breakthrough that actually shows up in electric cars.
billvon wrote:
Feb 18 2018 6:56pm
Right. The materials to make them are not; the energy that comes out of them is.
The materials to make dams and generators are not renewable. The energy is. Very much like other renewable energy sources.
With Hydro-electricity the energy is stored in the water up high, with lithium-cobalt-xxx the energy is stored in that but the difference is one is very natural and is 'renewed' naturally while lithium-cobalt is not.
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

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 872
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 19 2018 7:10am

We do need to keep in mind the other side of the coin for building out solar and wind (GenIV closed cycle nuclear if it comes to fruition) which is fossil fuel depletion. Intermittent electricity will be much better than nothing. Oil and gas will run low in 50 years and it will be a complete shock to society the world over. Each year we develope more effective ways to drink from a bigger straw which pushes the end closer. What will we do with what we have left? Build out new energy regardless of price? Build out a new system of efficient electric rail to replace heavy trucks and planes. Convert mega farms for 10 Billion people to require no fossil fuel. Build out the rest of the WWWeb so that Women everywhere can have the freedom to learn their rights not to have so many children.

Or build bigger unsustainable mansions in cold climates and 3 year lease luxury cars and take round the world flights to theme parks to sign contracts for the construction of bigger war machines? Make Billion$ movies? Send a few hundred people to die on Mars just to prove we could?

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 872
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 19 2018 9:13am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 18 2018 10:16pm
What options are available to restrict the output from a PV solar panel/ farm ?
Do they have some form of control available ?
Solar panels don't have a problem sitting in the sun with an open circuit on their output so can be switched off. Wind turbines can feather their blades.

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 19 2018 11:47am

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 19 2018 1:08am
bill, they have tried more Solar and more wind, ....its has not helped, infact it has made it worse by creating the need for more "fast response" thermal (gas, Diesel, etc) plants.
Well, here in the US, the grid has become more reliable with the addition of more renewables. So it's certainly doable.
But they have already got the WORLDS BIGGEST BATTERY, ..and it doesnt even register on the supply chart !
The primary reason for that battery is not energy supply - it's grid stability. ANY system, whether composed of coal plants, nuclear plants or solar, needs to either run with a lot of margin (3-5%) or use something like a battery plant to provide frequency and voltage stabilization, ramp rate support and transient load support. That's what that battery plant is providing.

But in the longer term those batteries will indeed get bigger. Next year they will have another WORLD'S BIGGEST BATTERY and it will barely register on the supply chart. Two years after that they will have another WORLD'S BIGGEST BATTERY and it will be a more significant source of energy, as well as stability. Etc etc.
Meanwhile whilst the SA Government, you, and others, dream of the RE utopia, .....S Australia will keep burning diesel and gas , whilst playing with expensive experiments and , pushing the power price ever upwards.
And you and many others believe technology is static, and that things never change. I beg to differ. Solar (and other intermittent renewables) and storage will continue to grow very rapidly, and will become a significant chunk of our total energy supply in 10-15 years.
--bill von

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 19 2018 11:53am

TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 19 2018 1:51am
billvon wrote:
Feb 18 2018 6:56pm
TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 18 2018 7:04am
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.
The most significant sources of SF6 emissions are from the manufacture .. in semiconductor production,
Yes it sure is, all solar panels are just semiconductors
With "editing skillz" like that you could make a lot of money in places like FOX News.

But let's go with that, for fun:
TheBeastie wrote:
Feb 19 2018 1:51am
Australia's coal power-stations . . . emit around 151 million tons a year . . . Its just evil, the hypocrisy. . . .they're not really helping, . . making peoples power-bills much more expensive.
I agree, coal is evil and expensive!
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9108
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 19 2018 4:40pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 19 2018 11:47am
But they have already got the WORLDS BIGGEST BATTERY, ..and it doesnt even register on the supply chart !
The primary reason for that battery is not energy supply - it's grid stability. ANY system, whether composed of coal plants, nuclear plants or solar, needs to either run with a lot of margin (3-5%) or use something like a battery plant to provide frequency and voltage stabilization, ramp rate support and transient load support. That's what that battery plant is providing.
But in the longer term those batteries will indeed get bigger. Next year they will have another WORLD'S BIGGEST BATTERY and it will barely register on the supply chart. Two years after that they will have another WORLD'S BIGGEST BATTERY and it will be a more significant source of energy, as well as stability. Etc etc....
That grid functioned perfectly well ( and cheaply) without a battery, until the levels of Wind and solar increased to over 50%.
If , as claimed, the battery is effectively providing FCAS functions, why would it need to be any bigger?
Why did they specifically design it to have a much higher discharge rate than that used for FCAS?
Why did they claim it would provide backup power for any future blackout ?
billvon wrote:
Feb 19 2018 11:47am
....And you and many others believe technology is static, and that things never change. ....
bill, you need to stop making wild guesses at others thoughts and beliefs,...you are not good at it !
Contrary to your , and others statements, i am not "anti RE", i encourage the development of any energy technology that can improve society, but i am a realist and not blinded to the limitations and drawbacks of many of the technologies. Every option has compromises, some more relavent than others.
Solar + storage certainly has its place at least on a domestic level and possibly for isolated "off grid" communities,..wind less so, but i am certain that neither is a viable,economic, option for mainstream national scale grid supplies.
New technologies will be commercialised to replace the current essential fossil generation systems....its just a matter of time.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9108
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 19 2018 4:45pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Feb 19 2018 9:13am
Solar panels don't have a problem sitting in the sun with an open circuit on their output so can be switched off. Wind turbines can feather their blades.
That is my understanding also, but we still hear of states (CA, ?) , countries, (Germany), having to pay other adjoining grids to take surplus energy when there is excessive wind or solar ?
Why do they not simplyreduce the generation ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1644
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Feb 19 2018 4:59pm

Hillhater wrote:
Feb 19 2018 4:40pm
That grid functioned perfectly well ( and cheaply) without a battery, until the levels of Wind and solar increased to over 50%.
OK. Our grid functioned pretty well before batteries and renewables. Now it functions even better. Perhaps there are some lessons to be learned there?
If , as claimed, the battery is effectively providing FCAS functions, why would it need to be any bigger?
Because as time goes on, and battery systems become cheaper (and larger) they will perform more functions, like peak shaving and minimum load guarantees.
Why did they specifically design it to have a much higher discharge rate than that used for FCAS?
Why did they claim it would provide backup power for any future blackout ?
Because it can do those things - so they advertise accordingly.
Contrary to your , and others statements, i am not "anti RE", i encourage the development of any energy technology that can improve society, but i am a realist and not blinded to the limitations and drawbacks of many of the technologies. Every option has compromises, some more relavent than others.
Solar + storage certainly has its place at least on a domestic level and possibly for isolated "off grid" communities,..wind less so, but i am certain that neither is a viable,economic, option for mainstream national scale grid supplies.
Nothing wrong with that opinion - but time will demonstrate it to be incorrect. As time goes on, BESS installations will increase both in energy and power, and will both provide services for the existing grid (i.e. minimum loads for nuclear power plants and older gas plants) and provide storage for intermittent renewables.
--bill von

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 872
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 19 2018 7:41pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 19 2018 4:59pm
As time goes on, BESS installations will increase both in energy and power, and will both provide services for the existing grid (i.e. minimum loads for nuclear power plants and older gas plants) and provide storage for intermittent renewables.
Keep in mind people that the world used a continuous average of 17.7 TW thermal of primary power last year. The vast majority from fossil fuels. And it continues to go up every year. That is a gigantic amount of batteries, gravity, and high temp storage, to even store a few hours worth. And an immense amount of solar and wind to replace it in the first place. No time to waste.

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4745
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Feb 19 2018 8:12pm

It seem the state of electricity generation in S. Aus is rather different to that painted in this thread:

http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-austra ... ar-201617/
http://reneweconomy.com.au/busting-more ... lar-61495/

It seems wind and solar are reducing demand peaks and doing so cost effectively (or at least as well as fossil-burning states within a broken electricity market). It is also going to be getting a few hundred MW of additional generating capacity (wind and solar). The Torens Island gas plant is being replaced by the diesel plant because it's aged and unreliable.
Interestingly, the AER notes that the wild swings in prices often attributed to high renewable energy penetration are in fact being matched by states with rely almost exclusively on coal and gas. This is because the prices are, in the end, set by the high price of gas-fired generation, and often manipulated when states have few major generators.
While the increase in wind power in South Australia has been blamed for blackouts and high prices, the recent experience in South Australia does not support these conclusions.High levels of variable wind power, often resulting in exports to Victoria, have been complemented by gas generation, resulting in low prices and stable supply.

First, average wholesale prices in South Australia throughout the period were lower than in all three other mainland states and only very marginally higher than in Tasmania.As can be seen below, the two states with the highest prices during the month were Queensland and New South Wales, the two states with the highest shares of coal generation. Limiting new wind capacity and keeping old coal-fired power stations open is not necessary to reduce wholesale prices.
I didn't realise S. Aus had significant exploitable geothermal! : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_South_Australia

Get ready for 80% RE by 2022! :D

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9108
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 19 2018 9:15pm

billvon wrote:
Feb 19 2018 4:59pm
Hillhater wrote:
Feb 19 2018 4:40pm
That grid functioned perfectly well ( and cheaply) without a battery, until the levels of Wind and solar increased to over 50%.
OK. Our grid functioned pretty well before batteries and renewables. Now it functions even better. Perhaps there are some lessons to be learned there?
:shock: :?: California has one of the highest power costs of any state !
Luckily the CA grid is connected to neighbouring states such that it can import the 20+% of power that it fails to generate internally !
So yes, maybe there are some lessons to learn !
Germany , and SA, should also teach us the same lesson...
But some folk do not want to hear that lesson or accept the answer.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 872
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Feb 19 2018 9:44pm

It was windy in Australia yesterday. Germany not so much. Still averaging above 500gm/ kWh.
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=co ... tryCode=DE
.

Post Reply