Renewable Energies

His comment was a rare attempt at humor.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

e:

s upswing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other ener gy types, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are govern ment 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?

nergy market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a sig nificant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Intere stingly 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 how things work out.

idised.

I don't

newables has been decreasing. That is the point.

oint before we all pass away. Carbon generation will only be used when req uired because of the high costs, both directly economic and environmentally .

intermittents use up many times more land than fossils per gigawatt. Their higher cost also means they use more materials in construction & more labou r, which could be doing something else useful.

t and they will remain cheaper then carbon based energies.

yet for one simple reason. Every megawatt of intermittent generation requi res 1 megawatt of reliable generation to back it up. Thus using intermitten ts adds cost. That is the point.

e energy is largely variable, it is not so bizarrely variable that it would all go out at once.

far. Generation often falls so low that it's as near zero as makes no diff erence.

?

me months every 18 months or so. Does that make nuclear nonviable?

no, planned maintenance is covered by the existence of more nuke capacity. When intermittents routinely drop to zero (solar) or 4% (wind), the existen ce of extra capacity would need to be at an untenable level to work.

unning it isn't polluting.

ger rely on lots of coal.

sed power, gas and petroleum.

near zero pollution problem for you then

investment (unlike renewables for the most part) it is the fuel costs. Les s fuel used, much lower cost.

that is pointless.

the reasonable views of the future that will make this possible.

hat the future will bring intermittents more into play, as I've already sai d here. But that does not mean they are in any position to replace conventi onal generation, nor are they currently competitive.

rm.

subsidies

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.

it's profitable because of subsidies. Take those away & there isn't a chanc e.

er electronics better able to handle the issues of unreliable supply. But y ou still can't use unreliable sources for most tasks without causing a whol ly unreasonable level of problems.

the wind blows again before we can cook. Sorry kids, we can't bring you tha t educational content because generation is down to 4% again - but we can r un a 3w lightbulb, by which you can almost see the blackboard.

not at all. When solar output drops to 0% and wind to 4% capacity, just wha t do you think will be the unavoidable outcome if not that. You don't seem to have any grasp of what it means in real terms.

r the grid using the energy source that is in excess at that time. No carb on 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 actually low for example.

isn't practical. It's like suggesting we can run a modern internet just on unused phone line capacity. It was done once, but to go back to that now wo uld mean the loss of nearly all the business value, education value and fwi w entertainment value of the internet. Nobody would entertain such a propos al seriously. Except you.

commuted 100 miles round trip and only had to fill his tank every other day at most. Most people run their cars better part of a week before they nee d to fill up... well unless they only have 11 gal tanks like my friend's ec onobox. Electric cars are the same way,

no they're not, that's the critical difference. They have much shorter rang e because battery capacity is expensive, and recharging is a very slow busi ness - if in your world the energy is available at all.

charging if supply is short. Those who need charging will get it. Unless we are in a nuclear winter renewables don't go away 100%.

You show no grasp of what intermittent generation means in real terms.

NT

John, thanks for taking the time to write a detailed description, it's very helpful indeed! THANK YOU!

--
 Thanks, 
    - Win

ised.

e sited where the wind blows and solar only works in the day time. When t hey are truely cheaper, subsidies will not be needed.

hased out in the future. Actually the subsidies aren't about renewables be ing more expensive. It's about getting them installed. Even if they were already lower cost, it takes money to get them in place. Subsidies promote the installation of new systems.

e subsidies for that to happen. Subsidising intermittents is purely politic al.

Why can't you understand the value in expediting the adoption of new techno logy? The subsidies help to get up the curve of something that is inevitab le when we are much benefited by earlier adoption. Yeah, we could wait the additional 10 or 20 years for the technology to develop on its own or we c an have it now and be profitable earlier.

Rick C.

Tesla referral code -+-++

It was a response to your use of the same phrase earlier.

Rick C.

Tesla referral code -++--

ote:

:

ous upswing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other en ergy types, what is wrong with trying to switch over? Maybe there are gove rnment 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 ou t the subsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

energy market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a s ignificant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Inte restingly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing i s in Texas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how things work out.

bsidised.

Ok, so don't, great!

renewables has been decreasing. That is the point.

point before we all pass away. Carbon generation will only be used when r equired because of the high costs, both directly economic and environmental ly.

r higher cost also means they use more materials in construction & more lab our, which could be doing something else useful.

So everything about renewables are bad and everything about burning carbon fuels is good? Seems like a large percentage of the world disagrees with y ou. You can keep doing things the way you have been. No one is going to s top you. But you don't get to apply your ideas to the rest of us. The wor ld will move forward without you.

Renewable energy is useful... more than useful really, essential. But if y ou are in denial about that there is nothing more to say.

out and they will remain cheaper then carbon based energies.

't yet for one simple reason. Every megawatt of intermittent generation req uires 1 megawatt of reliable generation to back it up. Thus using intermitt ents adds cost. That is the point.

ble energy is largely variable, it is not so bizarrely variable that it wou ld all go out at once.

so far. Generation often falls so low that it's as near zero as makes no di fference.

Actually, I didn't realize renewables are are almost 20% of the generation in the US! So at what times does that become zero?

some months every 18 months or so. Does that make nuclear nonviable?

. When intermittents routinely drop to zero (solar) or 4% (wind), the exist ence of extra capacity would need to be at an untenable level to work.

More capacity... making nukes even more expensive. Nuclear is about done f or. The plants cost so much to build they can't produce economic electrici ty. I haven't dug into the details but in South Carolina it seems there is a big controversy over who is going to pay for the failed construction pro ject of new nuclear capacity. Seems it became too expensive to even finish after spending some boatload of money. Bottom line it will be the rate pa yers.

running it isn't polluting.

onger rely on lots of coal.

based power, gas and petroleum.

Zero pollution from carbon??? You aren't making any sense. Carbon is the problem renewables are solving.

e investment (unlike renewables for the most part) it is the fuel costs. L ess fuel used, much lower cost.

g that is pointless.

t the reasonable views of the future that will make this possible.

that the future will bring intermittents more into play, as I've already s aid here. But that does not mean they are in any position to replace conven tional generation, nor are they currently competitive.

term.

You mean the fossil fuel subsidies, $4.6 billion per year? Forbes says abo ut the DOE's program to promote clean energy,

The program got a black eye in the wake of the bankruptcy of California-bas ed solar manufacturer Solyndra in 2011. Oddly enough, the loan program was actually established by federal legislation passed in 2005 that was critica l for catalyzing the shale gas boom in recent years.

Where would we be without federal subsidies?

planned 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 cl early things it will be profitable even with the uncertainty of subsidies g oing forward.

nce.

You mean the fossil fuel subsidies?

rter electronics better able to handle the issues of unreliable supply. But you still can't use unreliable sources for most tasks without causing a wh olly unreasonable level of problems.

l the wind blows again before we can cook. Sorry kids, we can't bring you t hat educational content because generation is down to 4% again - but we can run a 3w lightbulb, by which you can almost see the blackboard.

hat do you think will be the unavoidable outcome if not that. You don't see m to have any grasp of what it means in real terms.

Can you show when and where that happened?

for the grid using the energy source that is in excess at that time. No ca rbon emitted. If the sun doesn't shine for a few days many autos can charg e at night when the wind tends to blow or just forego charging until they a re actually low for example.

y isn't practical. It's like suggesting we can run a modern internet just o n unused 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 f wiw entertainment value of the internet. Nobody would entertain such a prop osal seriously. Except you.

d commuted 100 miles round trip and only had to fill his tank every other d ay at most. Most people run their cars better part of a week before they n eed to fill up... well unless they only have 11 gal tanks like my friend's econobox. Electric cars are the same way,

nge because battery capacity is expensive, and recharging is a very slow bu siness - if in your world the energy is available at all.

They don't have "much shorter range". My truck goes 400 miles on a fill an d my Tesla nearly 300. I don't care if the charging takes 40 or 50 minutes on a trip - because I got out of a car after 4 hours and I need to take a leak and eat a bite.

Talking about convenience... when I'm at home, I charge at home. I don't n eed to take the car somewhere to put gas in it. I don't need to bother wit h a messy, smelly fuel leaking from the nozzle when I replace it in the pum p and I never get gas on my hands.

But then I do feel guilty when I stop to scrape bugs off my windshield at a gas station. I took a bathroom break at a gas station and bought a cup of coffee. The guy said he would fill me right up if I pulled up to the pump s... making a joke. I guess he knew what a Tesla is.

t charging if supply is short. Those who need charging will get it. Unles s we are in a nuclear winter renewables don't go away 100%.

You must not either because you are doing a lousy job of explaining it.

Rick C.

Tesla referral code -++-+

:

wing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy ty pes, 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 s ubsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a signific ant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interesting ly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Te xas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how things work out.

d.

John Larkin's definition of "insult" is idiosyncratic - he experiences any suggestion that he doesn't know what he is talking about as an "insult", ra ther than an opportunity to learn a bit more about the subject under discus sion.

les has been decreasing. That is the point.

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 ad ds cost. That is the point.

As if John Larkin were in a position to assess whether a discussion were "r ational". All he cares about is whether what is said agrees with what he ha s claimed.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

As I mentioned.

We've never seen the China Syndrome - it's a silly idea that got embedded in a film title. Control rods work because not all neutron release is prompt - you've got time to damp the output.

Dropping in lots of neutron absorbing material can stop nuclear fission quite quickly, if you are prepared to kill the reactor more or less forever.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Like John Larkin, NT thinks that he has perfect grasp of the matter under discussion, and can't imagine that what he knows is wrong or out of date.

Both defend their delusions by claiming that the corrections they get are ill-founded.

Pity about that.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

org:

airly close to the places that are going to consume power.

building now is offshore farms of several MW turbines.

Australia's coal-fired power stations were built with 500MW steam turbines, with a couple per power station. The most recent plants have moved up 700M W turbines.

a

Several MW wind turbines are big, but still two orders of magnitude smaller .

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

ote:

.

ted where the wind blows and solar only works in the day time. When they are truly cheaper, subsidies will not be needed.

They don't seem to be subsidised in Australia, and everybody seems to be in stalling loads of renewable generating capacity, and nothing that depends o n burning fossil carbon.

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.

That's your claim, not backed up by any evidence.

The web is full of cost estimates, but Dan can't find any of them. I can fi nd them, but they don't present a coherent picture, which probably means th at at least some of them have been concocted by the climate change denial l obby, who want us to keep on spending our money on the fossil carbon they h appen to own.

Australia's pattern of investment in new generating capacity is probably a more reliable guide to the real costs. Australia's current government seems to be heavily influenced by coal mining interests and aren't happy about t he way the generating mix is changing. With any luck they will get booted o ut at the next election - sometime next year.

-- Bill Sloman, Sydney

And, we dont, Q .E. D.

It's an interesting control loop!

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

There was TMI and Chernoble and Fukushima and some others. Dropping the rods absorbs neutrons, but isotopes decay at various time constants and make heat for years.

John DeArmond's explanation is cool. The "control" rods aren't used to control the reaction.

--

John Larkin         Highland Technology, Inc 

lunatic fringe electronics

'China sydrome' refers to fuel overheating, melthing through containment, and proceeding unimpeded down into the substrata.

TMI didn't brech containment; Chernobyl popped the roof off and burned the core, not a 'China syndrome' match. Fukushima had problems because of reactors that WERE ALREADY shut down, no chain reaction involved.

The reason 'China syndrome' doesn't happen, is that the core is a working part of the reactor: damaging that causes the reaction to shut down, just like control rods would. Melting the core isn't the beginning of anything dramatic, it's the END of the drama, and the start of messy cleanup.

And - as his explanation makes clear - there are other control mechanisms which make the output of the nuclear reactor he was familiar with equally controllable.

The original claim was that nuclear reactors couldn't be controlled to deliver less power, which was clearly wrong.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The reason for spreading renewable sources over large geographical areas is for reliability.

A high pressure area (with low winds) may have a diameter of several hundred kilometers so if wind farms are distributed into an area of

1000 km or more in diameter, some wind mills are in windy connections producing electricity. Thus an electric transmission system is needed, which can transmit electricity economically for at lest 1000 km to calm areas. Integrating solar energy into this network also helps powering the high pressure areas.

The problem is that these days it is hard to build high pylons due to NIMBY, thus underground cabling would be the option. This rules out AC feeds due to the cable capacitance, so HVDC transmission would have to be used.

Nuclear is good for powering 24/7 industry. Solar is good for the higher daytime consumption, but other sources are required for the variable loads.

Neither is 100 % renewable possible unless you build a huge number of biofueled steam power stations.

On Monday, November 19, 2018 at 12:45:49 AM UTC-6, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com w rote:

e:

wing, the cost to the end user is below the market rate for other energy ty pes, 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 s ubsidies as this happens. Why would anyone be opposed to this?

market to be useful. Certainly they can supplement and replace a signific ant portion of energy sources in the US and many other places. Interesting ly enough one of the areas where wind energy is on a major upswing is in Te xas, home of the Permian basin and much of the US refining industry. Funny how things work out.

the

ill

r e n

stant source with little ability to adjust to demand. So do you factor in the peaking generators to adjust the supply to the load?

n. So we need alternate energy sources and Nuclear can only fill its niche .

Solar is not actually a good match for day time loads. They tend to peak i n the early AM before solar has gotten to it's peak and in the late afterno on/early evening now after the solar peak. Combined with the night time in crease for wind this may work better depending on exactly when the wind pow er picks up and drops off. I haven't seen those curves and they are averag es anyway.

Something needs to be worked out for sure. There are a lot of variables, b ut even if we don't retire carbon based generation plants, by using them a lot less we would be helping things.

Rick C.

Tesla referral code -+