Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
User avatar
jonescg   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3432
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Mar 01 2019 6:24am

Always maintained the best thing you can do by the environment is walk places.

iOn <-+-> uOil   1 mW

1 mW
Posts: 12
Joined: Feb 14 2019 5:56am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by iOn <-+-> uOil » Mar 01 2019 6:29am

But no like Paul Walker ... :wink:
Truth hurts

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9572
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 01 2019 7:52am

jonescg wrote:
Mar 01 2019 6:24am
Always maintained the best thing you can do by the environment is walk places.
I believe most people do exactly that for most practical journeys, but once the journey time becomes impractical, then some form of mechanised transport is necessary.
We need a complete rethink on the home vs workplace location to minimise the "commuter" factor.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   10 GW

10 GW
Posts: 4999
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Mar 01 2019 2:32pm

I have a feeling (but cannot check right now) that cycling is more efficient/lower lifetime impact over walking... Walking burns around 100kcal/mile and food production is a big deal for climate change. Of course, that's further complicated by what food you eat :wink:

Either form of locomotion is far better than driving though (EV or ICE), so if that was what you meant then I wholeheartedly agree :thumb:

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 360
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 01 2019 2:37pm

Punx0r wrote:
Mar 01 2019 2:32pm
I have a feeling (but cannot check right now) that cycling is more efficient/lower lifetime impact over walking... Walking burns around 100kcal/mile and food production is a big deal for climate change. Of course, that's further complicated by what food you eat :wink:
You're correct. Walking is some 80MPGe, light cycling is over 200. There was a paper on that somewhere, I will link it if I find it.

Found it :

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/11/mpg-of-a-human/

User avatar
TheBeastie   1 MW

1 MW
Posts: 1785
Joined: Jul 28 2012 12:31am
Location: Melbourne Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by TheBeastie » Mar 02 2019 2:36am

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal Could Cost $93 Trillion, Group Says
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... 3-trillion

^This makes sense, if you ever take existing Tesla grid battery installation cost like the Tesla South Australia battery and then extrapolate it to power a large city for a few days its remarkable how the digits break into the trillions.

Then on top if you look at the REAL-WORLD DATA on wind/solar renewables you don't on any notable level actually cut co2 emissions.
This is the amazing reality mainstream media and politics ignore.. Because its all about the politics and financial gains pushing this crap, not science or logic.

Look at the emissions right now of Nuclear based France vs Germany or South Australia.
France is 10 times LESS co2 emissions most of the time, if we are comparing it as like with cars these differences would be considered a COMPLETE JOKE played on people.
France 44g co2 per KWh
Germany 409g
South Australia 415g
https://www.electricitymap.org/?wind=fa ... emote=true
Image
Nuclear based France is literally the only green low CO2 emitting country in the world right now.

South Australia should be winning because its a TINY population of just 1.6million vs France 67million people!
South Australia has the PERFECT coastline for wind known as the "Great Australian Bight" which draws in large winds naturally from the Antarctica cold and was one of the big reasons why SA jumped into wind-farms so early.
Plus they have the biggest lithium-ion battery in the world. If you can't make it work on a rather tiny population like SA you can't really make it work anywhere compared to just going nuclear and beating South Australia by 10 times less co2 emissions.

Here is the data on an annual average basis for France vs Germany, so much CO2 from Germany despite 100% capacity of wind/solar just the problem of there NEVER being enough wind blowing or land/sun for solar to make a difference.
https://twitter.com/energybants/status/ ... 1797714944
Image

One of the most CO2 causing materials on the planet, concrete!
In fact it's easy to calculate that if you migrate in people from the 3rd world into the western world that gives them concrete infrastructure/place to live in with electricity and plastics etc than its easy to calculate 1 million new immigrants causes x60million times more co2 to be emitted for that country!
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019 ... are_btn_tw
I thought the world was doomed if we keep increasing our CO2 emissions, it seems that if it stands in the way of making more money by putting more pressure via "Supply/Demand law on low wage pressure on jobs" or gaining extra political power the real-world data is completely ignored.

All these socialist ideas from the likes of AOC are just pure bat-sht crazy!
Fact is, the word "Socialism" should just be changed to "VirtueSignalism" because it really is just all the same level of madness.
And the word "Socialists" with the words "SJW VirtueSignalist".
Every part of alt-energy is nasty and twisted VirtueSignalism, even African kids digging up cobalt.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwutXVTWkrw

Then there's all the radioactive sludge lakes from wind-turbine magnet manufacturing that as big as 10km2 in size.
https://www.google.com/maps/@40.6378498 ... a=!3m1!1e3
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/mosliv ... scale.html
And then super warming GHG emissions from solar cell manufacturing.
Countless tons of radioactive sludge created per single wind-turbine, the average wind-turbine is 3MW.

https://www.epa.gov/f-gas-partnership-p ... r-industry
EPA quote "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). "

Image

https://www.afr.com/news/economy/the-co ... 303-h1bxhm
Last edited by TheBeastie on Mar 04 2019 9:01am, edited 9 times in total.
Speed Kills Range, 10mph = 46 miles range, 20mph = 20 miles, 30mph = 8 miles rangehttps://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/TcKtHs https://goo.gl/ZhFFot https://goo.gl/gfa215
10 Square Miles of solar panels = 0.12GW average power! https://goo.gl/Ub1S39

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 360
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 02 2019 3:17am

TheBeastie wrote:
Mar 02 2019 2:36am
even kids digging up cobalt
Think of the children! And puppies! Suffering because of all those wind turbines and solar panels!

:mrgreen:

User avatar
jonescg   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3432
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Mar 03 2019 1:51am

"How will we ever pay for all this?"

From taxes. The same way we pay for everything of public significance. Like the military.

In fact if you took money out of military spending and put it towards securing low emission, import-free energy (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear) you won't have as many enemies, and therefore wont need the bomb budget anyway.

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 360
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 03 2019 2:13pm

jonescg wrote:
Mar 03 2019 1:51am
"How will we ever pay for all this?"

From taxes. The same way we pay for everything of public significance. Like the military.

In fact if you took money out of military spending and put it towards securing low emission, import-free energy (solar, wind, hydro, nuclear) you won't have as many enemies, and therefore wont need the bomb budget anyway.
+100

To add, I'd rather die poor (because I spent all the money on RE) after living a long healthy life, than die early (pollution-caused health issues) with all that money in the bank account.

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 03 2019 9:26pm

cricketo wrote:
Mar 02 2019 3:17am
TheBeastie wrote:
Mar 02 2019 2:36am
even kids digging up cobalt
Think of the children! And puppies! Suffering because of all those wind turbines and solar panels!
And don't forget the birds! Solar is a MAGNET DEATHRAY for BARBEQUING THE CRAP out of the poor, poor birds! Why do you want MAGNET DEATHRAY BARBECUED BIRDS, you commie green socialist liberal loonie? (Unless you get them from Chick-Fil-A or Koo Koo Roo, then it's OK.)
--bill von

User avatar
Dauntless   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 7212
Joined: May 29 2010 1:49am
Location: Coordinates: 33°52′48″N 117°55′43″W

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Dauntless » Mar 04 2019 12:46am

Any sufficiently advanced technology is INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM MAGIC!
- Arthur C. Clarke

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 360
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 04 2019 12:55am


classicalgas   10 W

10 W
Posts: 67
Joined: May 15 2016 12:14am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by classicalgas » Mar 04 2019 9:43pm

"Nuclear based France is literally the only green low CO2 emitting country in the world right now."

Bullshit. Iceland, and a half dozen other countries produce more of their power "green" than France (ignoring the fact that nuclear isn't green by any sane definition) https://makewealthhistory.org/2012/07/0 ... le-energy/

Saying wind/ solar/ hydro is" dirty" compared to coal,NG, or gasoline is stupid. Look up tar sand or fracking. Note that it takes about 50 gallons of even the best grade crude oil to make 25 gallons of gasoline(tar sand is has a much lower yield when processing is factored in) Subtract the energy needed to extract, refine, and transport that gasoline. Then notice that about 80% of the energy in that 25 gallons of gas, when fed through an internal combustion engine, leaves as heat. Only about 20%(under ideal conditions, real world efficiency is even less ) is available at the flywheel.

Now look at an electric car. According to the US Department of Energy, an electric car converts about 60% of the electricity it gets from the grid into movement (that's factoring in losses in charging, battery heat and motor losses) Those "dirty " batteries will last for thousands of charges (some first model Prius's are past a million miles on their original packs) and remain valuable even if the car is crashed, as sources of batteries for home built power walls or smaller EV battery packs.They wont go in a landfill, even if dead... Tesla will reclaim the materials, they are cheaper to reclaim than manufacture new.

The claim of wind turbines creating more radioactive waste than the nuclear power industry is also bullshit. It's the usual disinformation, outright lies, and invalid comparisons.
https://skeptics.stackexchange.com/ques ... r-power-pl

From that debunk on skeptics.stackexchange.com..."A single spent fuel rod is several orders of magnitude more radioactive than the radioactive waste produced by the manufacture of Wind Turbines for an entire year." That's completely ignoring the tons of radioactive waste made in manufacturing those fuel rods, and the energy expended in doing so.

On the cobalt issue. There are currently lithium batteries that use no cobalt at all...they just don't have the power/weight ratio of cathodes containing cobalt . With cobalt demand and costs rising sharply in the last few years, there's lots of research going into alternative chemistries with no cobalt.

So, when someone claims electric cars, or wind turbines, are dirty...you know they are either too lazy to check the facts, or they have an agenda, and they are willing to lie to make their case. Just ask..."Compared to what? "

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1060
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 05 2019 5:40am

Iceland is blessed with vast hydro and is unique with shallow high temp geothermal. Costa Rica shares one of the worlds largest dams. Quebec has 90% hydro. Ontario is 90% nuclear. France nuclear. New Zealand, Norway, Washington State, Brazil. All of the world leaders in low carbon electricity are blessed with exceptional hydro. Or have built out vast nuclear.
.
Germany has nearly 200% installed capacity of wind and solar and is ranked 23rd on electricity map. Denmark 32nd. California 48th. Denmark 49.
.
If your area does not have vast hydro resources, and you care about carbon emissions, you should be pushing for nuclear.
.
Why is a rich tropical area like Hawaii still 70% diesel fuel?
.
https://www.electricitymap.org/?page=ma ... wind=false
.

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 05 2019 12:16pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Mar 05 2019 5:40am
Why is a rich tropical area like Hawaii still 70% diesel fuel?
Agreed. Of all places, Hawaii could use a few SMR's, say in Hawaii, Honolulu and Maui. With each generating around 100MW, that would cover most of their baseline usage. Build them in the US (or South Korea, or Japan) ship them to Hawaii by sea, put them in the containment building, and then when their fuel is used up, haul them out and ship them back for refurbishing. No fuel handling in Hawaii and no waste to figure out what to do with.

That takes care of your baseline usage, and the waste heat is usable for things like desalination. Then solar/wind for peaking and sheddable loads. (And geothermal, of course.)
--bill von

User avatar
MJSfoto1956   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 365
Joined: Jul 28 2010 9:28pm
Location: Boston, MA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by MJSfoto1956 » Mar 05 2019 6:39pm

billvon wrote:
Mar 05 2019 12:16pm
That takes care of your baseline usage, and the waste heat is usable for things like desalination. Then solar/wind for peaking and sheddable loads. (And geothermal, of course.)
Multi-use is key baby!
Single-use is so 1900s.

M

classicalgas   10 W

10 W
Posts: 67
Joined: May 15 2016 12:14am

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by classicalgas » Mar 10 2019 2:36pm

Fukoshima kinda made nuclear unattractive to anyplace with a big tourist industry...like Hawaii. It doesn't take too many people picking another tropical vacation destination (where there aren't nuclear plants within hundred miles) to hurt your tourism bottom line.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9572
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 10 2019 5:17pm

So joe tourist is concerned about the minor risk of a Nuclear accident, rather than the continous eruption of one of the biggest active volcanoes on the planet which has 1000 times the destructive potential ?
Most tourists dont know what generation systems are used in their chosen holiday area, and i doubt many woud care anyway !. They would rather have Nuke power than no power at all.
They should worry more about where the drinking water comes from or where their waste goes
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 360
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 11 2019 1:31am

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 10 2019 5:17pm
They should worry more about where the drinking water comes from or where their waste goes
Meanwhile... how is your solar system doing ? :)

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9572
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 11 2019 4:00am

cricketo wrote:
Mar 11 2019 1:31am
Hillhater wrote:
Mar 10 2019 5:17pm
They should worry more about where the drinking water comes from or where their waste goes
Meanwhile... how is your solar system doing ? :)
You tell me...
12 panels, facing north (Southern hemiphere) 25/30 deg angle.
Nominal (nameplate) capacity 3.1 kW
Output 6.5-7.0 kWh per day max,..mid summer, clear bright 100% sun exposure.
Max power at noon, 1.4 kW
:( 8)
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1060
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Mar 11 2019 4:54am

Moltex is still posting news. I hope they can really get their salt developed and get their reactor built.
.
https://youtu.be/R4GSDRqah-0
.
https://www.moltexenergy.com/stablesaltreactors/
.

User avatar
jonescg   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3432
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Mar 11 2019 5:27am

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 11 2019 4:00am

You tell me...
12 panels, facing north (Southern hemiphere) 25/30 deg angle.
Nominal (nameplate) capacity 3.1 kW
Output 6.5-7.0 kWh per day max,..mid summer, clear bright 100% sun exposure.
Max power at noon, 1.4 kW
:( 8)
Sounds about right - the 25/30 degree angle is ideal for winter production. I have 12 panels of 195 Wp each - so a theoretical nameplate power of 2340 W. At midday they put out about 1900 W on a hot day, 2100 W on a cool day. And in October when light rain clears to reveal a bright midday sun, it cracks 2900 W :bolt:

7 kWh sounds about right for this time of year. I can get as high as 13 kWh in December.

cricketo   1 kW

1 kW
Posts: 360
Joined: Oct 23 2018 10:01pm

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by cricketo » Mar 11 2019 9:47am

jonescg wrote:
Mar 11 2019 5:27am
Hillhater wrote:
Mar 11 2019 4:00am

You tell me...
12 panels, facing north (Southern hemiphere) 25/30 deg angle.
Nominal (nameplate) capacity 3.1 kW
Output 6.5-7.0 kWh per day max,..mid summer, clear bright 100% sun exposure.
Max power at noon, 1.4 kW
:( 8)
Sounds about right - the 25/30 degree angle is ideal for winter production. I have 12 panels of 195 Wp each - so a theoretical nameplate power of 2340 W. At midday they put out about 1900 W on a hot day, 2100 W on a cool day. And in October when light rain clears to reveal a bright midday sun, it cracks 2900 W :bolt:

7 kWh sounds about right for this time of year. I can get as high as 13 kWh in December.
I think 1.4kW from a 3.1kW at noon on a sunny day is low. Yesterday my 6kW system was putting out a bit over 5kW, mid summer it's usually around 4900W. That's a free standing system. My roof mounted 2.16kW system had something like 1600-1700W on sunny Summer days when I kept track of it. That's Northwestern Oregon too, installers use 0.8 multiplier when planning the systems. I'd expect better for Sydney given lower latitude.

So with that in mind, I'd check first if perhaps panels are excessively dusty. Then start looking into mechanical damage and electrical issues.

billvon   10 MW

10 MW
Posts: 2385
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Mar 11 2019 8:55pm

Hillhater wrote:
Mar 11 2019 4:00am
12 panels, facing north (Southern hemiphere) 25/30 deg angle.
Nominal (nameplate) capacity 3.1 kW
Output 6.5-7.0 kWh per day max,..mid summer, clear bright 100% sun exposure.
Max power at noon, 1.4 kW
Get your system fixed - or get your money back from the shyster who sold you a cruddy system and took you to the cleaners.
Last edited by billvon on Mar 11 2019 10:08pm, edited 1 time in total.
--bill von

User avatar
jonescg   1 GW

1 GW
Posts: 3432
Joined: Aug 07 2009 9:22pm
Location: Perth, Western Australia

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jonescg » Mar 11 2019 9:40pm

I'd say most of that is due to the angle of the panels - 30 degrees is steep for that latitude. It will probably produce better power in winter (which is when you need it anyway).

Post Reply