store the water incidentally store a lot of energy, the fool here is Cursi tor Doom.
ower, and no accepted sites for new hydro.
exported 29% of that in 2015.
only form of grid scale power storage. In Australia we've been frequently reminded that South Australia bought 128 MW.hours of battery storage from E lon Musk.
een talked about enough before.
The South Australian battery is working fine. What makes it "not very pract ical" - apart from NT's compulsion to pontificate.
ning out Lithium in batteries for his electric cars, and could deliver in less than 100 days. Somebody is probably building a vanadium redox battery production line somewhere - most likely in China - but they don't seem to n eed new investors at this point, so we don't get to hear about it.
s as if the miners are now supplying the increased demand.
age power consumption, and enough energy storage - pumped hydro and batteri es are the current market leaders - you could rely on intermittent renewabl e sources.
lot of practice in tooling up to satisfy new demand.
NT's compulsion to pontificate about stuff he hasn't got a clue about is te dious and unhelpful.
Typical NT. No suggestion how distant that future might be. In reality, it probably depends on when we get production lines for grid scale storage batteries, and my guess is that they are being built right now.
It's a fairly obvious market, and the fact that there aren't a lot of people touting for money to build them suggests that the investors are already locked in.
The market seems to be expanding at 50% per year
formatting link
and it seems unlikely that venture capitalists haven't noticed.
Really? the UK does have several high voltage links to France, and has had for many years.
It's now got one to the Netherlands, and the link to Norway should be in operation sometime next year. There are planned links to Ireland and Iceland.
I posted a link that listed them earlier in this thread, but NT doesn't seem to have looked at it.
More contentless pontification. When somebody says "The only question is wh en" the only response worth making is one that ties down down the timing mo re specifically.
generators completely. In the end this will be not just cleaner, but cheap er than nuclear and fossil fuels.
o it's neighbors. I know there are power lines to France, but the total ca pacity is still pretty small.
might feel offended. Heck, I guess I shouldn't leave out the Danes and th e Germans. We had a Dane come to our badminton for a while. The guy was g reat. He could play circles around us literally. I think his name as Jasp er.
ountry? France is nearer & France can connect to them.
r average power consumption, and enough energy storage - pumped hydro and b atteries are the current market leaders - you could rely on intermittent re newable sources.
a had lot of practice in tooling up to satisfy new demand.
.
ost of not just building new capacity of other types, but below the cost of USING existing fossil fuel generating capacity. The added cost of providi ng backup storage is steadily decreasing as well. It is just a matter of t ime until the two combined are competitive with other generating capacity. The direction of the economic comparisons and the end result are not in di spute. The only question is when.
, costs would go up greatly.
o have produced a rather good mess in the UK energy system where nearly any problem brings down large sections of the grid there.
ry being installed. Not only was it deemed a good expenditure of money, it has mostly been paid for by savings.
It cost about $A90 million, and earns about half that every year for provid ing short term power factor correction for the grid. It is also used to buy up grid output when power is cheap, and sell it back to the grid when powe r is expensive - you lose about 15% of the power in the process but the hig h to low grid price difference is more than big enough to cover this.
formatting link
nd-contract-markets
shows an example day from NSW with the low at about $60 per kW.hours, with two two hour high demand periods at $120 per kW.hour and a peak at $220 pe r kW.hour.
They are only allowed to use about half the battery capacity to exploit thi s, and only make about $A5 million a year from it.
added in 2021. Unlike nuclear these will be installed largely on schedule .
Electric car battery production lines can be speeded up to support the new market.
Vanadium flows cells would do a better job, but the production lines for th em still seem to be under construction - vanadium flow cell batteries are b eing installed here and there, but not all that many of them, so far.
You do not seem to understand the concept of capacity factor in unreliable energy sources.
Assume a wind turbine generator is rated for 3 MW output.
Attach a rotor with a specific diameter (and sufficiently high tower) so that the generator is capable of delivering for full 3 MW output at say 10 m/s wind speed.
Assume the wind blows exactly at 10 m/s all day (and night) the whole year, the energy produced would be 3 MW x 365 x 24 h or 26280 MWh or about 26 GWh.
However, the wind doesn't blow at that speed all year round. While sometimes the wind blows stronger and much more mechanical power would be available, but you still can't load the generator more than 3 MW, since it would overheat.
At very strong winds say above 20 m/s or above 25 m/s the turbine must be stopped to avoid mechanical damage and production falls to zero.
At speeds below 10 m/s the available mechanical power drops very rapidly, so at 5 m/s you can load the generator only with 0.375 MW.
As long as the wind blows between 10 and 20 m/s, you can load the generator with 3 MW.
In practice only a limited number of hours each year the wind speed remains in this range, for most other hours, the output is significantly less. A capacity factor of 0.3 (33 % or 1/3) is typical for many land based wind turbine installations. This means that only a third of the theoretical annual energy output is available or a single
1 MW turbine with constant 10 m/s wind all year could have produced the same annual energy.
To annually produce as much energy using a year as the annual energy consumption is, you would need three times as many turbines as the turbine name plate power would indicate.
The rotor size should be selected according to prevailing winds, so if the wind blows on some sites mainly between 5 and 10 m/s a much larger rotor should be selected to give 3MW already at 5 n/s, but a much larger rotor usually forces closing down the turbine at say 15 m/s.
Oops.
In third world countries load shedding is a daily thing with rolling blackouts when the generation capacity doesn't fulfill the demand,
Unless corrective actions are taken to handle deficiencies in unreliable renewables, this situation could also occur in the UK.
In practice, this would require that each family have an UPS. The question is, is this sensible for the national economy.
The 1400 MW North Sea link from Norway to England is under construction and should be commissioned in 2021.
ost of not just building new capacity of other types, but below the cost of USING existing fossil fuel generating capacity. The added cost of providi ng backup storage is steadily decreasing as well. It is just a matter of t ime until the two combined are competitive with other generating capacity. The direction of the economic comparisons and the end result are not in di spute. The only question is when.
, costs would go up greatly.
o have produced a rather good mess in the UK energy system where nearly any problem brings down large sections of the grid there.
Lol, the national grid doesn't follow my ideas.
ry being installed. Not only was it deemed a good expenditure of money, it has mostly been paid for by savings.
added in 2021. Unlike nuclear these will be installed largely on schedule .
Great. Not enough to permit high levels of renewables to run the grid thoug h. 129MWh won't even run the grid for an hour.
The idea that 3x 1MW wind gens at 33% capacity would get you 1MW output all the time would be laughable. And that is what the grid needs, not merely a n average output that matches average consumption.
Variable pitch rotors help.
cticed to that extent
Yes, and it canes productivity and safety. It is not a sensible idea for us . It's only sensible in places where that would be an affordable improvemen t on the even less they have.
A UPS is one approach. Another is demand management of stored energy applia nces such as freezers, fridges, immersion heaters and electric space heatin g plus time shifting of easily moved loads such as washing machines & dishw ashers. While these can be done, the cost of implementation makes it not cu rrently worth it. I expect in time it will become worthwhile, but now is pr emature.
cant problems too.
Yup. National security is an issue that neeeds considering too when relying on external countries.
cost of not just building new capacity of other types, but below the cost of USING existing fossil fuel generating capacity. The added cost of provi ding backup storage is steadily decreasing as well. It is just a matter of time until the two combined are competitive with other generating capacity . The direction of the economic comparisons and the end result are not in dispute. The only question is when.
id, costs would go up greatly.
to have produced a rather good mess in the UK energy system where nearly a ny problem brings down large sections of the grid there.
tery being installed. Not only was it deemed a good expenditure of money, it has mostly been paid for by savings.
be added in 2021. Unlike nuclear these will be installed largely on schedu le.
ugh. 129MWh won't even run the grid for an hour.
What's your point? I think everyone here knows the present backup is not s ufficient to support the renewable generation capacity we will have in a de cade which is when we will need large amounts of backup. At this point the renewables don't need any backup other than what is presently available.
Do you have anything to add to the conversation other than stating the obvi ous?
--
Rick C.
+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
cost of not just building new capacity of other types, but below the cost of USING existing fossil fuel generating capacity. The added cost of provi ding backup storage is steadily decreasing as well. It is just a matter of time until the two combined are competitive with other generating capacity . The direction of the economic comparisons and the end result are not in dispute. The only question is when.
id, costs would go up greatly.
to have produced a rather good mess in the UK energy system where nearly a ny problem brings down large sections of the grid there.
How could they. They don't ever seem to get spelled out in enough detail to let anybody "follow" them.
tery being installed. Not only was it deemed a good expenditure of money, it has mostly been paid for by savings.
be added in 2021. Unlike nuclear these will be installed largely on schedu le.
ugh. 129MWh won't even run the grid for an hour.
It would run the South Australian grid for three minutes at maximum demand, and ten minutes at minimum demand.
I've posted the data, which you obviously didn't read.
South Australia has a lot of fast-start gas turbine capacity, as well as li nks to adjacent Australian states, and about half that 129 MW.hours is rese rved for very short term phase and amplitude stabilisation to smooth transi tions between the various power sources on offer. The other half is used to store power bought when the spot price on the grid is low to be sold back when the spot price is higher.
The example which I managed to dig out was for NSW (where I live) as oppose d to South Australia (where my parent grew up) gave a price of about $A60 p er kW.hour for the low demand periods - about 19 hours of the day - and $A1
20 per kW.hour for some fours hours of high demand with a brief peak of abo ut $220 per kW.hour.
This spread is more than enough to cover the 15% loss involved in storing t he power and only getting 85% of it back.
It's not there to keep the grid running on its own, as should be blindingly obvious to everybody - even a half-wit like you.
he cost of not just building new capacity of other types, but below the cos t of USING existing fossil fuel generating capacity. The added cost of pro viding backup storage is steadily decreasing as well. It is just a matter of time until the two combined are competitive with other generating capaci ty. The direction of the economic comparisons and the end result are not i n dispute. The only question is when.
did, costs would go up greatly.
ms to have produced a rather good mess in the UK energy system where nearly any problem brings down large sections of the grid there.
attery being installed. Not only was it deemed a good expenditure of money , it has mostly been paid for by savings.
o be added in 2021. Unlike nuclear these will be installed largely on sche dule.
hough. 129MWh won't even run the grid for an hour.
sufficient to support the renewable generation capacity we will have in a decade which is when we will need large amounts of backup. At this point t he renewables don't need any backup other than what is presently available.
vious?
NT is a pretentious clown who wants to make his voice heard even though he has nothing to say. When he did post stuff with any actual content he got c aned for being a gullible twit, so he has learned to leave out the content.
The process of training him to shut up is taking longer.
He reminds me of the cartoon character, 'Foghorn Leghorn' who is ranting that he doesn't need to be told to shut up, because he knew when to shut up. 'Yosemite Sam' the other character yells "Shut up, hutting up!"
I rarely read anything he posts about anything. but many threads have more posts with his name on them than everyone else combined. I doubt that anyone on Earth really cares about his opinions.
As opposed to NT who wastes bandwidth with empty rhetoric, apparently designed to make us think that he's clever, but with too little content to be convincing.
It's essentially what he accuses me of doing, which is entertainingly symmetrical.
Michael Terrell claims rarely to read what I post, but has a firm idea about what people who might read them might think about the content.
I don't know who is currently the most frequent poster on sci.electronics.design but John Larkin was definitely the most frequent poster when I last looked.
Michael has a few other silly ideas that he like to ventilate - his dislike of John McCain comes to mind - but this is an unmoderated group, and he's part of the furniture.
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.