swing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy t ypes, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government subsidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the prices will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?
y market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a signifi cant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestin gly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in T exas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funn y how things work out.
ed.
and solar cells marginally cheaper, and economies of scale are going to ma ke both quite a bit cheaper as the rate of adoption rises.
ed up by stored power or fast-start gas-turbine generators does create prob lems, but Australia is seeing a lot more investment in both than in more co nventional generating capacity.
y on poles and wires to distribute the power to the end users - and paying for the distribution system is about half my electricty bill.
rly close to the places that are going to consume power.
if you want cost effective you need to go big, which is why what they are b uilding now is offshore farms of several MW turbines
You can turn the fission output up and down quickly, just not the decaying daughter isotopes.
Cheers
Phil Hobbs
--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510
http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com
ing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy typ es, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government s ubsidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the p rices will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the su bsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?
market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significa nt portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingl y enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Tex as, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how things work out.
.
Proof of the pudding...
es has been decreasing. That is the point.
But it is. Renewables will be significantly less expensive at some point b efore we all pass away. Carbon generation will only be used when required because of the high costs, both directly economic and environmentally.
they will remain cheaper then carbon based energies.
or one simple reason. Every megawatt of intermittent generation requires 1 megawatt of reliable generation to back it up. Thus using intermittents add s cost. That is the point.
Ah, that is the error on your part. Simply not true. While renewable ener gy is largely variable, it is not so bizarrely variable that it would all g o out at once. But even if you needed backup generation capability, when i t isn't running it isn't polluting. The cost of using carbon based electri cal generation isn't just the investment (unlike renewables for the most pa rt) it is the fuel costs. Less fuel used, much lower cost.
We can have this conversation all day long and you will never accept the re asonable views of the future that will make this possible. Electric vehicl e charging can be done at times when it is optimal for the grid using the e nergy source that is in excess at that time. No carbon emitted. If the su n doesn't shine for a few days many autos can charge at night when the wind tends to blow or just forego charging until they are actually low for exam ple.
g, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types , what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government sub sidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the pri ces will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subs idies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?
rket to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas , home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny ho w things work out.
nt source with little ability to adjust to demand. So do you factor in the peaking generators to adjust the supply to the load?
Of course it is. Nuclear can't be used for 100% of electrical generation. So we need alternate energy sources and Nuclear can only fill its niche.
BTW, you need to justify your claim of "significantly higher". Most carbon based generation expense is largely the fuel cost. Less use, less polutio n, lower cost.
ing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy typ es, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government s ubsidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the p rices will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the su bsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?
market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significa nt portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingl y enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Tex as, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how things work out.
e
l
nt source with little ability to adjust to demand. So do you factor in the peaking generators to adjust the supply to the load?
neutron flux, and the rate of fission within the reactor, and this the he at output.
as close to capacity as you can manage, but that's maximising the return o n your investment. You can turn it down or turn it off.
Sounds great, but they don't seem to be in use. If they could throttle dow n the heat from the reactor in a reasonable amount of time, why would they need generators to continue to circulate cooling water for days after a scr am or risk a meltdown?
swing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy t ypes, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government subsidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the prices will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?
y market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a signifi cant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestin gly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in T exas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funn y how things work out.
ed.
and solar cells marginally cheaper, and economies of scale are going to ma ke both quite a bit cheaper as the rate of adoption rises.
ed up by stored power or fast-start gas-turbine generators does create prob lems, but Australia is seeing a lot more investment in both than in more co nventional generating capacity.
y on poles and wires to distribute the power to the end users - and paying for the distribution system is about half my electricty bill.
rly close to the places that are going to consume power.
Except you can't if that is not a good location for wind. I saw a chart on ce that showed how wind potential is distributed around the US. There was no place in the entire state of Maryland (other than in a particularly adva ntageous gap in the Appalachian Mountains) suitable for wind power.
They aren't going to build wind turbines next to a Google building in Resto n, VA if there isn't enough wind to make it worthwhile. There is also the issue of NIMBY. No one wants wind power next to them. So it will be locat ed some distance from population centers just like nuclear.
he energy they generate.
se of the same word in two slightly different contexts confusing, but that' s your problem.
It's not just confusing, it's wrong. Transmitting power is the term used f or longer distances here. Distributing power is used for the distribution of power meaning branching out from the main transmission lines. Just like the distributor in older cars sent the spark from a single coil to multipl e spark plugs. Check with Webster if you are in doubt.
farms a fair way from the communities that use the power, but the individua l units aren't a big as the bits of conventional fossil-fuel-fired power st ation.
So you are agreeing with me? Good.
efers to the last few miles including various substations that lower the vo ltage for shorter distance wires.
e high-voltage links do have to be stepped down - the high voltage link tha t couples Tasmania to mainland Australia has substations on either side of Bass Strait - and the voltage gets stepped down again as you get closer to the power consumers.
Yes, indeed. Just be clear in your usage and all will be good.
of electrical energy which could be reduced if power generation is more loc al.
e mail-land to handle peak loads - Tasmania has mostly hydroelectric power
- but during the recent drought in Tasmania the current would have gone the other way, if the cable hadn't failed for few months.
Ok...
and transmission are sometimes lumped together... it depends on the company .
d distribution costs. The cost split information comes from the regulator, who wasn't doing a particularly good job.
Ok. In the US we used to get a single bill from a single company. Now we still get that, but the charges have been separated so that they can be com petitive. It was a "great" idea by our state governments but clearly is he lping no consumer since the only alternate generating source is still the l ocal electric utility conglomerate. We don't actually have much in the way of local companies these days other than the local branches of the major c ompanies.
That question bears little relation to the point about thermal cycling.
Provided the core and rods haven't already deformed, the control rods can be inserted quickly. (In the worst case power failure causes them to drop due to gravity).
They instantly moderate the neutrons and thus instantly reduce the heat generation. They neither stop all reactions, nor does the temperature change instantly (doh!). But they do stop the principal reaction.
ted where the wind blows and solar only works in the day time. When they are truely cheaper, subsidies will not be needed.
Which is where the conversation started, I said the subsidies will be phase d out in the future. Actually the subsidies aren't about renewables being more expensive. It's about getting them installed. Even if they were alre ady lower cost, it takes money to get them in place. Subsidies promote the installation of new systems.
By your argument they are already cheaper. Since we don't need to worry ab out system costs until they become a larger portion of the system we only n eed to focus on the incremental costs for now. But they still need subsidi es to get them in place now rather than waiting.
nd solar cells marginally cheaper, and economies of scale are going to make both quite a bit cheaper as the rate of adoption rises.
up by stored power or fast-start gas-turbine generators does create proble ms, but Australia is seeing a lot more investment in both than in more conv entional generating capacity.
solar to be cheaper, but it is not cheaper at this time.
For the low utilization we currently have it *is* cheaper. Much further do wn the road we will need to address the bigger issues of integration into a renewable focused grid.
the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government subsi dies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the price s will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subsid ies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?
et to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a significant p ortion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestingly en ough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how things work out.
Interesting. What was your point exactly? Did you have one?
They can "instantly" stop the heat generation of the principal reactions, simply by swallowing neutrons. There are secondary reactions that aren't moderated by the control rods; that relatively small amount of heat continues to need removal, lest the temperature rise too high. The fluid circulation will both remove the heat and, probably equally importantly, prevent temperature gradients in the core.
In a PWR or BWR obviously you don't want the water to disappear, so you need to keep it below boiling point. I don't know about Magnox reactor nor AGRs nor fast breeders, but I imagine there are analogous considerations.
building now is offshore farms of several MW turbines
Why are many turbines a lot cheaper to install if they are crowded together rather than being spread out? I don't think that is a significant factor. I suspect they put a large farm at the optimal location for generating ef ficiently and for consistent power output.
Is it really much different costwise if you put 100 turbines in 10 location s or 1000 in one location? Or maybe it is just that 1000 turbines still is n't enough power to worry about splitting them up for transmission efficien cy?
swing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy t ypes, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are government subsidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up the prices will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out the subsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?
y market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a signifi cant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interestin gly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in T exas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funn y how things work out.
ed.
I'm interested in fact & reason, but not posturing
bles has been decreasing. That is the point.
before we all pass away. Carbon generation will only be used when require d because of the high costs, both directly economic and environmentally.
it sounds like you hadn't read the reply there. The environmental cost of intermittents is greater, not less.
d they will remain cheaper then carbon based energies.
for one simple reason. Every megawatt of intermittent generation requires
1 megawatt of reliable generation to back it up. Thus using intermittents a dds cost. That is the point.
ergy is largely variable, it is not so bizarrely variable that it would all go out at once.
That old marketing myth has been killed off by intermittents' record so far . Generation often falls so low that it's as near zero as makes no differen ce.
ng it isn't polluting.
Pollution from trad energy isn't much of an issue these days. We no longer rely on lots of coal.
stment (unlike renewables for the most part) it is the fuel costs. Less fu el used, much lower cost.
it saves a little fuel, but overall cost goes up considerably. Denying that is pointless.
reasonable views of the future that will make this possible.
I would not accept that you're generally the voice of reason. I agree that the future will bring intermittents more into play, as I've already said he re. But that does not mean they are in any position to replace conventional generation, nor are they currently competitive.
FWIW the future will bring reduced energy harvest costs & cheaper smarter e lectronics better able to handle the issues of unreliable supply. But you s till can't use unreliable sources for most tasks without causing a wholly u nreasonable level of problems.
I'm sorry that you're hungry dear, but we will just have to wait until the wind blows again before we can cook. Sorry kids, we can't bring you that ed ucational content because generation is down to 4% again - but we can run a 3w lightbulb, by which you can almost see the blackboard.
e grid using the energy source that is in excess at that time. No carbon e mitted. If the sun doesn't shine for a few days many autos can charge at n ight when the wind tends to blow or just forego charging until they are act ually low for example.
Of course one can operate that way, but for >99% of motoring it simply isn' t practical. It's like suggesting we can run a modern internet just on unus ed phone line capacity. It was done once, but to go back to that now would mean the loss of nearly all the business value, education value and fwiw en tertainment value of the internet. Nobody would entertain such a proposal s eriously. Except you.
sited where the wind blows and solar only works in the day time. When the y are truely cheaper, subsidies will not be needed.
sed out in the future. Actually the subsidies aren't about renewables bein g more expensive. It's about getting them installed. Even if they were al ready lower cost, it takes money to get them in place. Subsidies promote t he installation of new systems.
If it's going to save business money, business will do it. It doesn't take subsidies for that to happen. Subsidising intermittents is purely political .
upswing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy types, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are governme nt subsidies helping with the price structures, but as renewables ramp up t he prices will continue to drop. It shouldn't be a problem to phase out th e subsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?
rgy market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a signi ficant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interest ingly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Texas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Fu nny how things work out.
ised.
Then don't posture....
wables has been decreasing. That is the point.
nt before we all pass away. Carbon generation will only be used when requi red because of the high costs, both directly economic and environmentally.
Care to explain that? It's not logical.
and they will remain cheaper then carbon based energies.
et for one simple reason. Every megawatt of intermittent generation require s 1 megawatt of reliable generation to back it up. Thus using intermittents adds cost. That is the point.
energy is largely variable, it is not so bizarrely variable that it would a ll go out at once.
ar. Generation often falls so low that it's as near zero as makes no differ ence.
You mean the record of the nearly zero contribution to the grid? There is a nuclear plant near here that goes from 100% to 0% every for some months e very 18 months or so. Does that make nuclear nonviable?
ning it isn't polluting.
r rely on lots of coal.
"trad"??? What does coal have to do with it? We use plenty of carbon base d power, gas and petroleum.
vestment (unlike renewables for the most part) it is the fuel costs. Less fuel used, much lower cost.
at is pointless.
Stating it is wrong.
e reasonable views of the future that will make this possible.
t the future will bring intermittents more into play, as I've already said here. But that does not mean they are in any position to replace convention al generation, nor are they currently competitive.
If they weren't competitive they would not be invested in for the long term . I am east coast not far from DC and there is a 500 MW solar farm being pl anned on 3,500 acres here. I would never have expected this to be built on the east coast with the not so great record of sunshine. But someone clea rly things it will be profitable even with the uncertainty of subsidies goi ng forward.
electronics better able to handle the issues of unreliable supply. But you still can't use unreliable sources for most tasks without causing a wholly unreasonable level of problems.
e wind blows again before we can cook. Sorry kids, we can't bring you that educational content because generation is down to 4% again - but we can run a 3w lightbulb, by which you can almost see the blackboard.
Not into posturing, eh? How about hyperbole?
the grid using the energy source that is in excess at that time. No carbon emitted. If the sun doesn't shine for a few days many autos can charge at night when the wind tends to blow or just forego charging until they are a ctually low for example.
n't practical. It's like suggesting we can run a modern internet just on un used phone line capacity. It was done once, but to go back to that now woul d mean the loss of nearly all the business value, education value and fwiw entertainment value of the internet. Nobody would entertain such a proposal seriously. Except you.
Just the opposite. Few people run their gas tanks dry in a day. My dad co mmuted 100 miles round trip and only had to fill his tank every other day a t most. Most people run their cars better part of a week before they need to fill up... well unless they only have 11 gal tanks like my friend's econ obox. Electric cars are the same way, only needing a partial charge each d ay or going for several days without charging if supply is short. Those wh o need charging will get it. Unless we are in a nuclear winter renewables don't go away 100%.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.