Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

[Hillhater]

Interesting to note that four of the five big coal fired power stations in NSW tripped out this weekend.

No doubt Hillhater will be along shortly to try and claim it was somehow caused by unreliable wind generators.

just for you..
.. i am not aware of any reports of issues with generators on the weekend,...
but it is true that earlier in the week (Tuesday and Thursday) several big generator units did shut down causing major supply issues in the network,. and whilst we dont know all the reasons yet, 2 of them were certainly planned shutdowns taking several hours to ramp down.
And it should be noted that at no time did 4 " power stations" shut down,..at the most it was 4 "generators" ( there are 4-6 generator units in each power station)..and those 4 units represent less than 15% of the fossil power capacity (from 200 generator units) on the east grid.
( 3.8 GW ..15% of coal generation "Went offline" , but at the same time , solar and wind capacity was 4.5GW ..50%..below "normal" output..due to poor weather conditions !)

PS.. Thursday was a bad situation, with our largest Auminium smelter being shut down via the "Demand Response" system, almost to the point of no return ( frozen pot lines).
What saved the day ?....yes, bringing other hydro and gas generators up on line again. :lol:
Oh yes, and just to put the cream on the cake, those power shortages forced power prices up to $14,000 MWh !
But the real issue is not that these outages happened, ...or that wind and Solar was also non existent at the time,....but that our green tinted SFB leaders have manipulated the energy sector to shut down 20% of generation capacity ( 8+ GW) in the last 6 years, with no effective replacements planned , leaving very little spare "Base Load" ( dispatch able ?) generation capacity
So yes, those crisis periods WERE the result of the "greenwash" of our generation system which now goes critical whenever the weather is unfavorable for wind and solar.

 

[Hillhater]

....
Renewables currently account for 25% of global electricity. Most countries are committed to at least 50% by 2050. Many are being more ambitious, with a few targeting 80-100%....

just you YOU are clear..
1) over half of that "25%" "Renewables" power is from Hydro ,( probably even including pumped hydro ?)
2) only 4% is from Wind generation
3) less than 1% is from Solar..much of that from Roof Top installations (which can only ever be estimated from installed capacity)
most of the "Easy , cheap, convenient" hydro locations have been developed, so that wont be our saviour...So , Somebody better up their game on wind and Solar ( oh but yes, that is having a few issues too now in Germany , China, etc .. )

....
TBH the nay-saying is getting boring. How do you maintain it while all around the world countries keep achieving what you have repeatedly claimed is impossible.

would you mind elaborating on exactly which countries have achieved a transition from fossil fueled generation to a low cost wind or solar base load majority supply ?

 

[Hillhater]

To me it says two things -
1. Coal is not the reliable trooper it's made out to be. It's capable of shitting itself at the worst time, just like any other machine.

True , but thats due to several factors..
1) privatization of the generators in NSW..IE, making generation a "business" needing profits
2) introduction of the LGCs ( Carbon Credit certificates to you and me) which the coal generators have to buy.
3) the above two have resulted in cost reductions ( less maintenance) with the deliberate run down to the closure of many of the coal generators.
4) with less base load generation available, even planned downtime ( such as last week) can result in supply shortages when the other generation sources ..wind and solar,..also "shit themselves"

And if I might through in another point - If we had grid scale energy storage in the form of pumped hydro, we could have banked the miserable windy (southern) and sunny (northern) conditions last week and turned the taps on this week. If every second home had batteries installed with their PV, they would have reduced the demand on the generators who are trying to keep up.

grid scale storage is a dream.. technically and financially
Multiple Snowy 2s, wont even crack that..
even at their max, Southern wind generation doesnt supply enough to keep SA powered without gas support.....let alone pump enough water to supply the country for a few days !
RT solar and battery is great for those that can afford it, but it does shift the entire cot of generation and distribution to those that cannot afford it ! ..not a nice situation.
oh yes, and you guys in WA should be well aware of the effects with too much roof top solar and grid supplys ?

 

[jonescg]

I'm not so pessimistic about grid scale storage. I doubt that grid scale battery storage will be used in quantities to replicate pumped hydro, but I can see all new RE generators being required to have some amount of battery storage for stability.

I think home energy storage is going to take up about one third of the nation's storage needs, while an eventual increase in pumped hydro capability will be available for despatchable bulk power. Batteries are attracting no subsidies, and perhaps should stay that way. The generous feed in tariffs should be wound back as soon as the contracts expire. That frees up funds to cover other grid improvements. I can see every house having an EV in the garage before too long, and V2H systems will mean the home can get away with a smaller battery if they choose to use the car for backup.

 

[billvon]

PS.. Thursday was a bad situation, with our largest Auminium smelter being shut down via the "Demand Response" system, almost to the point of no return ( frozen pot lines).
What saved the day ?....yes, bringing other hydro and gas generators up on line again.

Cool! Renewables save the day again. And there was plenty of water due to those evil intermittent renewables reducing the amount of water needed during the day.

 

[Hillhater]

PS.. Thursday was a bad situation, with our largest Auminium smelter being shut down via the "Demand Response" system, almost to the point of no return ( frozen pot lines).
What saved the day ?....yes, bringing other hydro and gas generators up on line again.

Cool! Renewables save the day again. And there was plenty of water due to those evil intermittent renewables reducing the amount of water needed during the day.

Ha Ha ..those are some real good green tints on those glasses of yours..
Hydro did what it has done daily for 50+ years since it was constructed..it ramped up to meet demand , as did the gas plants.
Your glasses filtered out the little detail of the missing input from wind and solar..
Of the 7.8GW of installed RT solar, only 2 GW was available, (mid day peak) , and of the 5.3GW of installed wind, only 3.2 GW was being generated (one of its better days actually !)
So like i said , the root cause of that issue, was the replacement of base load coal generation, with wind and solar unreliables.

....Tomago ( the Aluminium smelter). said it had been forced to halt each of three potlines this week – one on Tuesday and two on Thursday – because of a lack of reserve across the grid serving eastern states.

Matt Howell, Tomago’s chief executive, told Fairfax Media on Friday lunchtime, the company was concerned it may face another curtailment of operations later in the day. Just before 6.30 pm, he said the company had probably “dodged a bullet”, with the demand peak over.

AEMO ( the National Power supply organisation). said this was partly due to heavier than expected cloud cover which reduced the output from solar rooftop generation, resulting in increased demand from the grid.

 

[Punx0r]

What saved the day ?....yes, bringing other hydro and gas generators up on line again. :lol:

So, not your favoured coal then?

Why is it you like to exclude hydro as a renewable? Is it because it has been long established as being effective? BTW there's plenty of hydro capacity left to be exploited at existing dams.

....
TBH the nay-saying is getting boring. How do you maintain it while all around the world countries keep achieving what you have repeatedly claimed is impossible.

would you mind elaborating on exactly which countries have achieved a transition from fossil fueled generation to a low cost wind or solar base load majority supply ?

Interesting how you tried to railroad what I said (general use of a significant amount of RE without causing grid or supply failures) to a specific claim of "majority supply" of "base load" using only "wind or solar" and it has to be "low cost" and has to have been a (presumably) recent "transition from fossil fuelled generation". Thereby excluding any subsidised systems or any countries that have long been exploiting hydro or geothermal power.

Regards, there are still examples.

Denmark is at 60% RE electricity (>42% wind) already (2014 figures). 60% of the population receives distributed hot-water heating. All electrical and heating energy will be renewable by 2035 and by 2050 this will be extended to include all other energy requirements (including transport).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Denmark

 

[sendler2112]

Denmark is doing a good job with it's world class wind and link to world class hydro in Norway. But keep in mind it is only 5.7 million people and 43,000 km2. So percentages of consumption are easy to stack up in that scale. Which is half of a single metro area in the USA. Whatever they did there, Megacities around the world would have to do times 5. Each. Without the blessing of world class wind and massive hydro at a similar scale per capita.

 

[Hillhater]

Hmm ?...Denmark, not really a ideal example.
They have an annual electricity consumption of 33,000 GWh, which in real terms is an average of less than 4 GW
Somewhat less than a large town !
But, in order to supply that they have 5+ GW of wind generator capacity....as well as 9+ GW of fossil fueled generation .
So forgive me for not being too impressed with them managing to average nearly 3 GW from RE
AND..there is that little matter of their electricity cost being the highest in Europe (actually, probably the world too)
No , not an example of a successful transition to RE.

 

[Punx0r]

Right. So after your repeated claims that the amount of RE used in South Australia (between one third and half as far as I can find) was unworkable and is resulting in blackouts and grid meltdown, I gave you an example of a country doing more and you claim that isn't a valid example of a significant amount of RE in a grid working.

What's the matter? Is it supposed to be cheaper than any other form of generation right now as well to meet your ridiculous criteria?

As for the price of electricity in Denmark, is not expensive before general taxation. High electricity cost in one of the wealthiest countries in the world (and a high cost of living along with a high level of social services) is hardly surprising.

Denmark has mediocre electricity costs (including about DKK 5 billion in costs for cleaner energy)[37] in EU for industries at 9 eurocent/kWh,[56][57][58][59] but general taxes increase the household price to the highest in Europe at 31 eurocent/kWh.[56][60]

Transmission costs are around 1c/kWh, and support regimes cost 2½ c/kWh in 2014.[61]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_Denmark#Electricity (again)

 

[billvon]

Ha Ha ..those are some real good green tints on those glasses of yours..

Don't need green tints to see that.

Solar growing 60% a year. Wind growing 20% a year. California 30% renewable energy in 2017; growing 15% a year. You have to wear VERY brown glasses to ignore all that.

Hydro did what it has done daily for 50+ years since it was constructed..it ramped up to meet demand , as did the gas plants.

Exactly. The system worked, and renewables saved the day - even with those evil solar panels in the mix.

....Tomago ( the Aluminium smelter). said it had been forced to halt each of three potlines this week – one on Tuesday and two on Thursday – because of a lack of reserve across the grid serving eastern states.

Matt Howell, Tomago’s chief executive, told Fairfax Media on Friday lunchtime, the company was concerned it may face another curtailment of operations later in the day. Just before 6.30 pm, he said the company had probably “dodged a bullet”, with the demand peak over.

Yep. As time goes on, more and more industries will implement sheddable loads to take advantage of cheaper power. A win-win.

 

[sendler2112]

California 2016 electrical generation by source as stated on wikipedia:
Wind 9.1%
Solar 8.1%
import 31.7%
.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California
.
Other sources show California wind at less than 7%.
.

.
I couldn't find a report on California solar and wind percentage of primary energy but there are plenty for the USA. But even though California solar would be many times the national average, It is still a miniscule portion of total primary energy we are consuming. And will need to very shortly entirely replace. Or figure out how to live without.
.

.

 

[TheBeastie]

As far as I am concerned Denmark is another great example of failed wind renewables.
Despite being a small country with a huge sea front that is probably one of the best in Europe for wind aside from England, Denmark still burn a lot of coal and get a huge amount of their energy from Norway's/Swedens Hydroelectricity. So sure they can claim they are green but its pure cheating when your getting that green electricity from another country.
The whole point of talking about these countries and what they have done is so it can be copied anywhere in the world like Australia or the USA or the middle east/Asia/Africa.

But of course, these other countries don't live next to another countries huge hydro setup just so they can muddy the waters and mislead people.
This is the typical sight of what you get in Denmark, sucking most of their power from Norway's/Swedens hydro while STILL emitting 10 times more co2 than nuclear based France.
Again, if we were comparing these countries as black boxes you can buy or comparing cars, something thats emitting 10 times more co2 than the other would be considered a silly joke. The only people to get stuck and confused in all this are people who are vulnerable to the Chewbacca defense. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chewbacca_defense https://youtu.be/clKi92j6eLE


Denmark are offline right now and as silly and dubious as it sounds, I agree with Sendler suggesting that its amazing how frequently these states electricity data disappears offline when its looking bad, its not that hard to show your electricity data, even the poorest countries in eastern Europe like Estonia etc have theirs up 24/7, but somehow the richest countries in Europe that are suppose to be beacons of how great renewables are struggle to keep theirs online.
I happen to have one screen shot where you can see they are importing/exporting coal powered electricity while importing Norway's hydro.


I don't know how quickly some of you guys are forgetting but I think its always on the back of Sendler2112 mind judging from his posts, and that is once we transition off fossil fuels for everything like transport etc you start needing electricity on a level not yet even conceivable by todays standard. It seems like some of you are stuck in a mind frame that It's like building for the energy needs of 1930 and not the future.
That is why the these fantasy renewable roadmaps get powerfully debunked such as requiring 600 Hoover Dams just as a tiny 4 hour backup supply of energy for the USA . We are looking at all this for the future and it all screams that if you go down this path you use up the entire worlds resources like never before trying to build renewables as the answer and failing terribly.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2017/06/26/debunking-the-unscientific-fantasy-of-100-renewables/#5b2b955529f9
"- assumes unlimited hydroelectric power as backup, with new installations equivalent to 600 Hoover Dams;"

 

[Hillhater]

There is much made of Denmarks "42%" average wind contribution to its electricity use,..and also to the days when they even generate a surplus (which they have to export at a loss!)
But its not often mentioned how often wind contributes less than 1% of electricity supply !
That happens quite often , infact a few years ago it totalled 54 days of the year

......
As for the price of electricity in Denmark, is not expensive before general taxation. High electricity cost in one of the wealthiest countries in the world (and a high cost of living along with a high level of social services) is hardly surprising.

The fact is, those high taxes are directly related to the high subsidies the Danes pay the wind generators.
Now, even they are realising that it is a financial disaster..

....In 2012 a 95% majority in the Danish parliament arrived at a political agreement for 50% of energy consumption to be from wind power by 2020, and 84% by 2035.
The Danish government has now completely changed its mind.
Recently, the Danish government decided to abort the plans to build five offshore wind power farms, which were to stand ready by 2020. At the same time, Denmark is also scraping its green energy tariffs and abandoning some of its climate goals.
“Since 2012 when we reached the political agreement, the cost of our renewable policy has increased dramatically,” said Minister for Energy and Climate Lars Christian Lilleholt to Reuters.
The cost of subsidizing wind power has become increasingly heavy as energy prices in the Nordic countries have fallen dramatically over the last couple of years, making the renewable alternatives a lot less attractive. .....
......
Without all these extra costs Danes would pay below the European average for their energy.
"We can't accept this, as the private sector and households are paying far too much. Denmark's renewable policy has turned out to be too expensive," the climate minister said.

https://nordic.businessinsider.com/after-all-the-money-poured-into-wind-energy-denmark-admits-its-too-expensive-2016-5/

 

[Punx0r]

......
As for the price of electricity in Denmark, is not expensive before general taxation. High electricity cost in one of the wealthiest countries in the world (and a high cost of living along with a high level of social services) is hardly surprising.

The fact is, those high taxes are directly related to the high subsidies the Danes pay the wind generators.

You got a reference for that? Because you'll note the pre-tax electricity price I quoted included a 5bn cost for "cleaner energy".

 

[billvon]

Some updates from the US -

Coal plant desperate for subsidies so they can continue to operate:
============================
Owners of coal-fired Somerset power plant seek more tax breaks
By Thomas J. Prohaska
June 13, 2018
The Buffalo News

The Somerset Operating Co. power plant wants a $1 million cut in how much it pays to local governments for its coal-fired power plant in the Town of Somerset on the shores of Lake Ontario.

A new payment-in-lieu-of-taxes arrangement, presented Wednesday to the Niagara County Industrial Development Agency, would reduce the plant's total bill to $3 million a year in 2019 and 2020. The company's current PILOT s $4.12 million.

The power plant's first PILOT, in 2006, was $17.3 million.

If the new PILOT is approved, the tax on the plant would be 83 percent less than the 2006 amount. The NCIDA has steadily reduced the figure as the plant has been affected by declining electrical prices. . .
============================


Another coal plant shutting down and converting to solar for economic reasons:
============================
Major Coal-Fired Power Plant in Washington to Go Solar
By Starre Vartan
Jun. 13, 2018 08:53AM EST
NRDC

It was once Washington state's largest coal pit, a terraced, open-to-the-sky strip mine, five miles from the city of Centralia and halfway between Seattle and Portland, Oregon. Today, the coal beds are quiet and blanketed in green, but an adjacent TransAlta power plant with three tall stacks still churns out electricity the traditional way, with coal now supplied from Wyoming.

Not for much longer. The coal mine closed in 2006—the last of the state's mines to be shuttered—and then in 2011, TransAlta reached a deal with the state to shut down the plant. One burner will go cold in 2020 and the other by 2025. This move is part of Washington's larger plan to get carbon dioxide emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. And it should go a long way toward meeting that goal: Today, in a state that relies on hydropower for most of its energy, the Centralia power plant contributes 10 percent of the state's total greenhouse gases—as much as the emissions from 1.75 million cars.

The plant currently also contributes a good deal of electricity, of course. When the Centralia power plant's smokestacks quit spewing in 2025, it will mean a loss of 1,340 megawatts of energy. (Of that, it currently supplies about 380 megawatts to area homes via Puget Sound Energy, or PSE, the largest power supplier in the state.) To help fill that gap, TransAlta is converting about 1,000 acres of its former mine site to a solar farm. In homage to the old pioneer town of Tono that once stood where the mine now craters the earth, Tono Solar will be the land's next incarnation.
===============================

Plans to subsidize coal to save it will likely fail:
===============================
Trump Wants to Bail Out Coal and Nuclear Power. Here’s Why That Will Be Hard.

By BRAD PLUMER and NADJA POPOVICH
JUNE 13, 2018 NYT

In 2010, the United States had 580 coal-fired power plants. They provided 45 percent of the nation’s electricity.

By March 2018, the number of plants had fallen below 350 and coal’s market share had dropped to 30 percent, mostly because of competition from cheap natural gas, state efforts to boost renewables and stricter pollution rules.

At least 40 more coal plants have announced they will close or reduce capacity by 2025, and others may soon follow. President Trump has asked his energy secretary to take emergency measures to avert these retirements.

When Mr. Trump came into office, he vowed to revive America’s coal mining industry by rolling back Obama-era environmental regulations. But coal keeps getting edged out by cheaper and cleaner alternatives. At least 15.4 gigawatts of coal capacity is set to retire this year, one of the biggest years on record, according to the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis. And the coal units that are left now operate far less frequently than they used to, replaced by natural gas, wind and solar power.

For many utilities, the decision to abandon coal comes down to simple economics. Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest electric utility, recently concluded that it could save $213 million by retiring two of its older coal-fired units a decade ahead of schedule and replacing them with a mix of wind, solar, battery storage and natural gas.

“We built a lot of our coal fleet 40 years ago, and it’s costly to maintain,” said Joshua D. Rhodes, an energy expert at the University of Texas Austin. “Many utilities are now finding that there are plenty of lower-cost options.”
==========================

 

[sendler2112]

Good luck making a decent capacity factor with a solar farm in Washington state. And replacing thermal 1.3GW 24/7. It would make much more sense to spend the same amount of money at a good location for wind nearby. At least Washington does have good wind and the nation's best hydro to compliment it.

 

[billvon]

Good luck making a decent capacity factor with a solar farm in Washington state.

Capacity factor and solar pricing go hand in hand. As solar prices drop, you can get more and more average energy from a solar installation for the same cost - even in areas with poor insolation.

And as you point out, the "peakiness" of such energy becomes a lot less important when your baseline source of energy is hydro.

 

[Hillhater]

......
As for the price of electricity in Denmark, is not expensive before general taxation. High electricity cost in one of the wealthiest countries in the world (and a high cost of living along with a high level of social services) is hardly surprising.

The fact is, those high taxes are directly related to the high subsidies the Danes pay the wind generators.

You got a reference for that?......

I could spell out the details for you, ...but since you dont seem inclined to believe the Danish Government as reported in the Nordic financial press above, i suspect i would be wasting my time trying to educate you.!

 

[Hillhater]

Some updates from the US -

Another coal plant shutting down and converting to solar for economic reasons:
============================
......At least 40 more coal plants have announced they will close or reduce capacity by 2025, and others may soon follow. President Trump has asked his energy secretary to take emergency measures to avert these retirements.
.........

For many utilities, the decision to abandon coal comes down to simple economics. Xcel Energy, Colorado’s largest electric utility, recently concluded that it could save $213 million by retiring two of its older coal-fired units a decade ahead of schedule and replacing them with a mix of wind, solar, battery storage and natural gas.
.......
“We built a lot of our coal fleet 40 years ago, and it’s costly to maintain,” said Joshua D. Rhodes, an energy expert at the University of Texas Austin. “Many utilities are now finding that there are plenty of lower-cost options.”
==========================

Yep. Simple economics !....just follow the money,....
....IE, go where the incentives, rebates, tax breaks, etc etc, are.
And if they think a 40 year old coal fleet is "costly to maintain", ..i wonder what they with think of the cost for maintaining a 40 yr old Solar or Wind farm of similar capacity ?

 

[billvon]

Yep. Simple economics !....just follow the money,....
....IE, go where the incentives, rebates, tax breaks, etc etc, are.

Hmm. So coal plants are claiming they need incentives, rebates, tax breaks etc etc to survive. Follow the money!

Or better yet end ALL incentives. No more cheap coal mining leases; you want to mine an area, you buy the land like everyone else. No more tax breaks for coal plants OR solar plants. No more Price-Anderson act to enable cheaper nuclear power. No more exceptions for dirty power plants - everyone meets the same BACT standards for fossil fuels, period.

I'd be all for that.

And if they think a 40 year old coal fleet is "costly to maintain", ..i wonder what they with think of the cost for maintaining a 40 yr old Solar or Wind farm of similar capacity ?

Since they are considerably cheaper to both build and maintain - and since they are getting cheaper all the time - and since they take zero fuel - they (and their stockholders) will like them quite a bit.

 

[Punx0r]

......
As for the price of electricity in Denmark, is not expensive before general taxation. High electricity cost in one of the wealthiest countries in the world (and a high cost of living along with a high level of social services) is hardly surprising.

The fact is, those high taxes are directly related to the high subsidies the Danes pay the wind generators.

You got a reference for that?......

I could spell out the details for you, ...but since you dont seem inclined to believe the Danish Government as reported in the Nordic financial press above, i suspect i would be wasting my time trying to educate you.!

No, go on. Please provide a reference to support your assertion that the majority of the high cost of Danish electricity is due to subsidies for wind generators. You've made a lot claims in this thread but they're very rarely supported by any evidence.

 

[TheBeastie]

One thing I have frequently seen claims on TV is that "one kilogram of Hydrogen can make a car go 500km", this seems to be a bit exaggerated, the real world examples of Hydrogen cars seem to be around 100km per 1 kilo of Hydrogen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Mirai#Fuel_economy_and_range
But that has often made me wonder about "Flying electric cars" that run on Hydrogen electricity via fuel cells instead of batteries.
I really think there is a future in casual daily flying electric cars but its always going to be energy intensive.
And I don't see installing a single 10 million dollar wind-turbine for each flying electric car to be able to provide the required energy for each flying EV as compatible, for the long-term future.
A "a single 10 million dollar wind-turbine for each flying electric car" should only be wanted by the very dumbest people who want a clear and massive divide between what the rich and poor can have in the future. To me it simply does not make sense.

The required energy to run a 787 Dreamliner in batteries would require 4.5 million pounds weight/ 2,041 metric tons.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-electric-aircraft-20160830-snap-story.html

While there are a few proofs of concept Hydrogen electric aircraft most of them look quite dated.
Then I came across videos of various commercial drones you can actually buy that is hydrogen fuel cell powered, giving up to 2 hours of flight time in a single flight. This demonstrates how hard Hydrogen kicks the arse of batteries for flying.

The thing that constant loops around my head is the fact that the biggest wind/solar renewable energy experts keep claiming is "Capacity Factor doesn't matter".
Every time I see them say that, I think about the fact then surely Hydrogen conversion losses simply can not "matter" then also..
And the upside is theres no toxic battery to dispose of at the end of its life that often never gets disposed of properly anyway, so why not Hydrogen.

One company called "Intelligent Energy" has their motto as "Fly for hours, not minutes"
http://www.intelligent-energy.com/our-products/uavs/
More here details here, https://youtu.be/u9DaHIecIc4?t=53s

https://youtu.be/AHlrLU7kTys
[youtube]AHlrLU7kTys[/youtube]


To me its all about what we will be doing in the future. I keep thinking we are going to use massive amounts of energy compared to what we use now and compact sources of large anything is the most practical way forward, not covering up forests with solar panels and clumsy wind-turbines.
So next gen nuclear like the Bill Gates Terra power reactor, that uses nuclear waste as its fuel and promises to be cheaper than coal seem like the most practical solution.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7gL2iBMAeY
[youtube]e7gL2iBMAeY[/youtube]


https://youtu.be/johZ5Ay6RRE
[youtube]johZ5Ay6RRE[/youtube]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GmUipYda3JQ

I think if folks want to use some kind of technology from Elon Musk, then use is BFR rocket to launch nuclear waste (if there actually is any from next-gen nuclear) and store it on the moon. Then everyone should be happy.

 

[Chalo]

I think if folks want to use some kind of technology from Elon Musk, then use is BFR rocket to launch nuclear waste

What could possibly go wrong?

 

[billvon]

One thing I have frequently seen claims on TV is that "one kilogram of Hydrogen can make a car go 500km", this seems to be a bit exaggerated, the real world examples of Hydrogen cars seem to be around 100km per 1 kilo of Hydrogen.

Methane is a much better way to transport hydrogen than hydrogen.

The thing that constant loops around my head is the fact that the biggest wind/solar renewable energy experts keep claiming is "Capacity Factor doesn't matter".
Every time I see them say that, I think about the fact then surely Hydrogen conversion losses simply can not "matter" then also..
And the upside is theres no toxic battery to dispose of at the end of its life that often never gets disposed of properly anyway, so why not Hydrogen.

Because it's explosive, hard to contain and dangerous to use. However, methane is easily made from CO2 and hydrogen - and we have it right now.

To me its all about what we will be doing in the future. I keep thinking we are going to use massive amounts of energy compared to what we use now and compact sources of large anything is the most practical way forward, not covering up forests with solar panels and clumsy wind-turbines.

You don't put solar panels over forests.

So next gen nuclear like the Bill Gates Terra power reactor, that uses nuclear waste as its fuel and promises to be cheaper than coal seem like the most practical solution.

That's great. But it has a long way to go to demonstrate that it is 1) safe, 2) reliable and 3) cheap.

I think if folks want to use some kind of technology from Elon Musk, then use is BFR rocket to launch nuclear waste (if there actually is any from next-gen nuclear) and store it on the moon.

Right. Because rocket launches are 100% reliable.