Texas power prices briefly soar to $9,000/MWh as heat wave bakes state

e 23 GW of capacity. A single 3 GW facility has an energy capacity of 30 G Wh.

They should. The main takeaway message from the South Australia Tesla batte ry buy was that it was brilliant at stabilising voltage and frequency, and made back it's purchase price in little over a year in selling those servic es to the grid. Pumped storage isn't as quick, and when generators break do wn you can need an initial fast response to stop the disturbance knocking o ther generators off-line.

The Tesla battery in South Australia demonstrated that shortly after it was installed, where a grid disturbance took out a lot of generators in the tw o adjacent states, but none in South Australia. They did a bit of gloating at the time.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman
Loading thread data ...

What is the actual population f Texas ? Some sources claim 29 million, but with the southern border leaking like a sieve, the number must be even greater.

Anyway, with 29 million, the consumption is just 2.5 kW/person. In some countries the winter peaks are at 3 - 4.5 kW/person.

Reply to
upsidedown

Bill Sloman wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Yeah... I thought they should make tall water towers and pump, slowly to fill them using tidal energy. The stored water has kinetic energy but takes a along time to fill with free tidal energy. Note I am not talking about using sea water in the tanks, merely sea energy to run the pumps that slowly fill them. Not much juice, but every penny helps.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

reserve.

acle.....

r generation firms are even cheaper, and haven't bought any (China is the b ig supplier), let alone the power storage gear you need when you start gett ing lots of power from erratic renewable sources.

r, which was facilitated years ago by Perry subsidizing the transmission sy stem with state money. The winds dropped out during the recent heat wave an d they lost about 20GW, causing overload on the non-renewable generation ca pacity. They probably had the backup capacity to cover it, but it couldn't react fast enough. The really big suff takes hours to spin up, and when the load fluctuates on the order of GW's per hour, they can't track it. They h ave so-called gas powered peaker plants that can track it, but capacity of those is limited to smaller fluctuations, few hundred MW.

Texas is a big state. They have most of their wind power fields in the west ern desert part near the New Mexico border, an area that is perpetually win d swept. And they have a bunch installed in the Gulf. If they can get the g enerator tower anchored in bedrock, you don't want to be around for the hur ricane that knocks one of them down, it would have to be record-setting in a bad way.

Reply to
bloggs.fredbloggs.fred

Every penny doesn't help if the power it produces costs so much that it can't compete. What do you think all those tanks, pumps, and most of all the infrastructure to harness the tide energy would cost?

Reply to
Whoey Louie

You mean like nuclear? Yeah, I agree. We need to phase out the overly expensive technologies.

--
  Rick C. 

  +- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

xpensive technologies.

Nuclear is competitive and viable, which is why plants continue to be built around the world. The US is unique, because we let radical obstructionists block it. The same obstructionists who say the world is being doomed by CO

  1. How hypocritical and stupid is that?
Reply to
Whoey Louie

Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

He is an idiot. Water tanks are cheap... even at five time the price, which they are not.

The pump is the tidal pump. The tide make the energy to rotate the pump. No expense there slow, high pressure pumps are easy to build and introduce to certain shorelines. The offshore tanks would fill no problem. Once full, they no longer need any tidal energy. They are a kinetic capacitor.

LardyTard4 cannot grasp man's use of kinetic energy. He can barely reach the flush handle, much less understand its physics.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

Where? Trader4 won't actually know.

The US has grown quite a few of them since Love Canal. The free market loves to exploit un-monitored externalities, but the nuclear industry grew up in a world where people had started paying attention to externalities, and imposed sensible regulations.

The fact that one technology - burning fossil carbon for fuel - has created a large scale problem that is getting steadily worse, is scarcely an argument for letting the nuclear industry cheap-skate it's way into different disaster.

The nice thing about wind energy and solar power is that they don't have the same kinds of built-in disasters. Trader4 is too stupid to have figured this out.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

it

expensive technologies.

lt around the world. The US is unique, because we let radical obstructionis ts block it. The same obstructionists who say the world is being doomed by CO2. How hypocritical and stupid is that?

Nuclear is only economically competitive with fossil fuels if you consider the cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and ignore the cost of turning fai rly harmless uranium ores into hazardous, radioactive waste.

Nuclear is not being built to a significant extent anywhere in the world ot her than possibly china. Nuclear power plants are becoming prohibitively e xpensive everywhere. I believe I've already posted from facts on the issue s the EU has had building two new reactors if the EPR design. Both are hug ely over budget and absurdly behind schedule. Even as they approached a da te for final testing and starting full scale operation the schedule continu ed to increase by doubling the remaining time every few months. It's like a backgammon game.

Here in the US we had a reactor project go belly up taking down the Westing house nuclear company with it. What kind of technology takes out one of th e longest lived companies promoting it because of the massive budget and sc hedule overruns that everyone has come to expect?

Nuclear has simply become too expensive and uncertain to plan commercially. What company is going to commit construction of new facilities when start ing with any reasonable schedule and budget they can expect it to be blown by factors of 2 to 4?

Oh yeah, the utilities. They know they can always force their customers to pay for it no matter how expensive it gets, even if it never produces any power. Well... except for in South Carolina where they are requiring the u tility to give back the money they've been collecting for some years to pay for the failed project. I seem to recall the result of all this was the s ale of the utility to another larger utility company. They aren't taking a ny responsibility for the problem it appears. So there may end up being no one to pay the bills.

--
  Rick C. 

  ++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

Both two EPRs in China are now on-line. Two in Europe is expected to be on-line next year.

Things started to go bad after Tsernobyl, when a lot new reactor projects were canceled. After this many nuclear engineers and constructors have retired or moved to other businesses. Very few new young engineers were interested in the business. Also the licensing authorities were scaled down, only those remained that had to oversee old reactors.

With the recent renewed interest in nuclear energy, the tradition of nuclear power plant building was lost and new generation had to be trained and mew design done. Also new licensing authorities become more security critical and started to demand huge byrocrasy. Especially a huge paper trail was required for everything, apparently thinking that the paper trail itself would enhance security.

The problems of getting a project licensed and the NIMBY effect meant that new projects could be built on old sites, where the population supporting new projects and hence new work.

All this problems with new reactors meant that the power output from a single unit had to made as large as possible, instead of making two medium size units. A single very big installation is more or less a prototype.

A better approach would be building a series of small units and then duplicate the design. This would mean that he same red tape could be used for each identical unit (at least in the same country and licensing authority). Also with a series of smaller units, the first could be in production bringing revenue, while the next one(s) are still under construction.

The only small unit construction actually built that I know about is the Admiral Lomonosov floating power plant.

formatting link
with two KLT-40S nuclear icebreaker reactors. Unfortunately those reactors are a bit small (2x35 MWe), so it usable only for low load sites.

Reply to
upsidedown

Google broken down under? There are about 50 under construction around the world with another 50 in the planning stages.

BS. If CO2 is going to screw the world, is already creating weather calamities like the proponents claim, them we should be going all out on nuclear right now. Nuclear generates 20% of US power. Solar, after all the talk and two decades of doing, generates 1.6%. Those are the facts.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

Look at what I said in context. DL was proposing water storage in TANKS to store tidal energy. How many MW does the US generate using that?

You making much money with all that Tesla spamming?

Reply to
Whoey Louie

t it

of

ly expensive technologies.

uilt around the world. The US is unique, because we let radical obstruction ists block it. The same obstructionists who say the world is being doomed b y CO2. How hypocritical and stupid is that?

r the cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and ignore the cost of turning f airly harmless uranium ores into hazardous, radioactive waste.

The operators of the 50 nuclear plants under construction around the world apparently disagree.

other than possibly china.

That's a lie.

Nuclear power plants are becoming prohibitively expensive everywhere. I b elieve I've already posted from facts on the issues the EU has had building two new reactors if the EPR design. Both are hugely over budget and absur dly behind schedule. Even as they approached a date for final testing and starting full scale operation the schedule continued to increase by doublin g the remaining time every few months. It's like a backgammon game.

nghouse nuclear company with it. What kind of technology takes out one of the longest lived companies promoting it because of the massive budget and schedule overruns that everyone has come to expect?

y. What company is going to commit construction of new facilities when sta rting with any reasonable schedule and budget they can expect it to be blow n by factors of 2 to 4?

Ask the owners of the 50 under construction right now, with another 50 in the planning stages. And right now, even with the US sitting on our asses with nuclear for forty years, 20% of our power comes from nuclear. AFter two decades of talk, massive subsidies, and lots of actual deployment , how much US power comes from solar? A whopping 1.6%

to pay for it no matter how expensive it gets,

About this, you're complaining? Without the govt forcing utilities to pay outrageous prices for solar, without the govt handing out taxpayer money in subsidies, there would be no solar and you think that's just wonde rful.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

Whoey Louie wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:

Zero, you retarded dumbfuck. It is NEW technology, dipshit.

And you are a goddamned social retard as well.

Reply to
DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno

:

ugh

nd

f
.

p,

inetic

y sea

but

hat it

t of

erly expensive technologies.

built around the world.

So post the list. It will expose the fact that you can't actually use googl e, and draw absurd conclusions from stuff you don't actually understand.

loves to exploit un-monitored externalities, but the nuclear industry grew up in a world where people had started paying attention to externalities, a nd imposed sensible regulations.

w hypocritical and stupid is that?

ated a large scale problem that is getting steadily worse, is scarcely an a rgument for letting the nuclear industry cheap-skate it's way into differen t disaster.

Actually we should all be going all out on wind and solar cells - which is pretty much what is happening - because you can put up a wind farm or a sol ar farm a lot faster than you can put up a nuclear plant, and because there are whole lot of them working right now you can be pretty confident that a ll them will work.

Twenty of France's fifty nuclear reactors aren't working at the moment beca use they were built with steel castings that didn't turn out to be up to th e job.

ts.

Actually, it is 19% and declining.

Renewables - wind and solar - are 8% and rising rapidly. Solar cells halved in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economically attr active.

If they push up from 1% to 10% of the world market, the price will almost c ertainly halve again, and make them even more economically attractive.

formatting link

The fact that the Koch brothers, who bought the Republican Party when they funded the Tea Party movement, make most of their money out of the business of selling fossil carbon as fuel, does seem to discourage a sensible attit ude to renewable energy sources in the current government (not that the cur rent administration has sensible attitudes to anything except staying in po wer, and they miss the bit about persuading people that they ought to stay in power).

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

That wasn't what I was talking about.

Elon Musk saw chance to get some cheap publicity by bunging together a bunch of his car batteries. It worked, and seems to have earned a lot of money. There are better solutions

formatting link

The largest installed and working example is about half the size of the Tesla battery in South Australia.

A 200MW 800MW.hour example should have started working in China by now, which would have twice the power and store six times as much energy.

formatting link

Tesla is just one of the competitors - the fact that one their batteries are working in South Australia is obvious to people who live in Australia, so it does get more publicity than it might deserve.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

:

hat it

t of

erly expensive technologies.

built around the world. The US is unique, because we let radical obstructi onists block it. The same obstructionists who say the world is being doomed by CO2. How hypocritical and stupid is that?

der the cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and ignore the cost of turning fairly harmless uranium ores into hazardous, radioactive waste.

d

It the plants are under construction, they don't have operators.

There may be fifty projected nuclear plants around the world, but it's more likely that Trader4 has seen the same projected plant mentioned in fifty d ifferent contexts. He's not the most discriminating reader.

d other than possibly china.

Trader4 thinks that each one of his delusions is an indisputable fact, so a nybody who points out that he's got something wrong has to be lying. Krw ma kes the same mistake.

believe I've already posted from facts on the issues the EU has had buildi ng two new reactors if the EPR design. Both are hugely over budget and abs urdly behind schedule. Even as they approached a date for final testing an d starting full scale operation the schedule continued to increase by doubl ing the remaining time every few months. It's like a backgammon game.

tinghouse nuclear company with it. What kind of technology takes out one o f the longest lived companies promoting it because of the massive budget an d schedule overruns that everyone has come to expect?

lly. What company is going to commit construction of new facilities when s tarting with any reasonable schedule and budget they can expect it to be bl own by factors of 2 to 4?

Granting Trader4's intellectual competence, this is most likely fifty refer ences to the same project, with fifty more referring to it's planning stage .

He isn't going to post any links to these reactors under construction, beca use he thinks he can get away with making the bald assertion.

nt,

Actually, 19% of US electricity generation comes from nuclear plants and th e proportion is dropping. Renewables - wind and solar are currently 8% and rising rapidly.

China started manufacturing solar cells on ten times the previous scale a f ew years ago, which halved the unit price, making them economically competi tive in lot of places.

When they generate 10% of the world electricity, as opposed to current 1%, they will manufactured in even higher volume, most likely at half the curre nt price.

s to pay for it no matter how expensive it gets,

pay outrageous prices for solar, without the govt handing out taxpayer money in subsidies, there would be no solar and you think that's just wonde rful.

That stopped happening a few years ago when China upped the scale of manufa cture and halved the unit price. The current Australian government wants to keep the miners (that paid for its election campaign) happy, but no amount of arm twisting will persuade the electricity generators to invest in anyt hing but wind and solar. Coal-fired stations are getting shut down all over the place and nobody is building new ones.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Reply to
Bill Sloman

acts.

19% vs what I said, 20%. What a nit to pick, stupid lib. It would be 40% if all the tree huggers got out of the way. That's why there are 50 nuclea r plants under construction around the world, but only 2 here. BTW, have you figured out how to use Google yet?

ed in price a few years ago, and suddenly became a lot more economically at tractive.

certainly halve again, and make them even more economically attractive.

y funded the Tea Party movement,

Another lie and I don't see you bitching about George Soros or Tom Steyer u sing their money to "buy" the Democratic Party.

Reply to
Whoey Louie

On Sunday, August 18, 2019 at 4:38:24 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@downunder.com wrot e:

built around the world. The US is unique, because we let radical obstructio nists block it. The same obstructionists who say the world is being doomed by CO2. How hypocritical and stupid is that?

er the cost of adding CO2 to the atmosphere and ignore the cost of turning fairly harmless uranium ores into hazardous, radioactive waste.

other than possibly china.

Yes, you seem to be helping make my point. There are hundreds of nuclear p ower plants in the world. You are pointing out there are two new ones and will be two more.. we just don't know when. Clearly nuclear is not what an yone would call "competitive and viable". I guess it's like saying flip ph ones are "competitive and viable". Yeah, someone, somewhere still makes th em, but they are few and far between.

believe I've already posted from facts on the issues the EU has had buildi ng two new reactors if the EPR design. Both are hugely over budget and abs urdly behind schedule. Even as they approached a date for final testing an d starting full scale operation the schedule continued to increase by doubl ing the remaining time every few months. It's like a backgammon game.

inghouse nuclear company with it. What kind of technology takes out one of the longest lived companies promoting it because of the massive budget and schedule overruns that everyone has come to expect?

ly. What company is going to commit construction of new facilities when st arting with any reasonable schedule and budget they can expect it to be blo wn by factors of 2 to 4?

Again, you seem to be helping prove my point.

Still more support for my point even though it isn't really valid, rather a figment of your fertile imagination.

Still more support for my statement.

You talk like every rector is a total start from scratch regarding approval s. It's not. That is why very few are considering thorium molten salt rea ctors, they WOULD be a start from scratch and cost billions to get through the approval process.

Great idea, but it doesn't matter what you think. It matters what the buil ders of nuke plants think.

Mostly they think it's too expensive and risky to get the plants built in a safe manner and are building other types of power plants.

--
  Rick C. 

  --- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Rick C

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.