Burning natural gas releases less CO2 per kilowatt hour generated that burning coal - a bit more than half as much (490 gm per kW.hr versus 820).
It's not compatible with slowing down anthropogenic global warming.
John Larkin isn't worried about anthropogenic global warming, but less gullible people take it seriously.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
: 0MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.
but thinks that it is some way off.
l and maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in the world. .
-could-solve
ave been uncooperative about this, they're going to be reduced the hard way .
ut use the words "Wind power" with them. Same with the issues of wind powe r, but you used the name 'Nuclear".
e ever seen. They talk about using nuclear for desalinization because nucl ear produces energy. Duh! So does every other type of electrical generati on. It even talks about producing hydrogen for autos even though we have n o hydrogen cars, no hydrogen infrastructure and no proposed plans for putti ng any of this in place. I believe the hydrogen future is safely in the pa st.
oised to be the backup storage energy technology of choice for all the inte rmittent renewables. This stuff with massive batteries made out of conflict minerals is idiotic. Same goes for all this other junk with hydro reservoi rs.
The hydrogen fuel cell advocates go quiet when you ask them how much of the power you use to generate the hydrogen in the first place can be recovered from the fuel cells.
It's about a factor three less than you can get out of a battery system.
The Australian advocates want to liquify most of the hydrogen generated and ship it off to Japan and South Korea in tankers. Neither country is a grea t place for solar farms.
The Australian domestic market is going to rely on batteries and pumped hyd roelectric storage, but the hydrogen freaks gloss over this.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Win's got a battery back-up.
Most people rely on over-the-grid averaging to deal with intermittent high loads, but Fred loves his unrealistic extreme examples.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
Fuel cells have been "poised" since 1838.
-- John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc lunatic fringe electronics
W shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away.
o
What's wrong with gas turbines as intermittent backup? The main cost of ga s turbines is the fuel. I would expect the cost of using them intermittent ly would be close to proportional to their use. Reducing the carbon footpr int of gas turbines by not using them 80% of the time would be enormous.
- the UK isn't big enough for this to work, but it has links to France, Ire land and the Netherlands and there's a new one under construction to Norway .
reak-down from time to time and big fast-start gas turbines don't cost all that much to sustain in a ready-to-go state.
ot of difference to amount of stored power you need - a recent MIT study we nt into that.
Ok, so it's not a terrible idea to use the gas as a backup for renewables. I know it really goes against the grain for a lot of people. Of course th ey just don't want to consider that we need to reduce our carbon footprint.
-- Rick C. ++- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging ++- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
$3/Watt is expensive, even including installations. You can get panels for less than $1/W, micro-inverter for couple hundreds perhaps.
e:
10MW shortly, and 12MW isn't much further away., but thinks that it is some way off.
ll and maintain. Ocean environments are the harshest in the world. .
r-could-solve
have been uncooperative about this, they're going to be reduced the hard wa y.
but use the words "Wind power" with them. Same with the issues of wind pow er, but you used the name 'Nuclear".
ve ever seen. They talk about using nuclear for desalinization because nuc lear produces energy. Duh! So does every other type of electrical generat ion. It even talks about producing hydrogen for autos even though we have no hydrogen cars, no hydrogen infrastructure and no proposed plans for putt ing any of this in place. I believe the hydrogen future is safely in the p ast.
poised to be the backup storage energy technology of choice for all the int ermittent renewables. This stuff with massive batteries made out of conflic t minerals is idiotic. Same goes for all this other junk with hydro reservo irs.
So what.
There's always a point where a new technology isn't quite ready for mass us e.
Some technologies are never going to get there - often because something be tter shows up - but the history of when earlier proponents have been over-o ptimistic says nothing about the current situation, and John Larkin never s eems to know enough about the current situation to have anything useful to say.
I spent half my career hearing people say that ink jet printers weren't qui te ready yet, and the other half with an Epson Stylus ink-jet printer sitti ng next to my home computer.
The fun bit was a job interview close to the cross-over point with the Camb ridge crew who had worked up the technology they sold to Epson. I didn't ge t the job, but I bought the printer the following year.
I'd done a little work on a less practical version of the approach in Brigh ton, England, a few years earlier (and told my bosses that that particular implementation wasn't going to work) so I had a pretty exact idea of what w as going on.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
5G will radiate all the battery energy from your cellphone extra quick, THAT'S why it's hard to sell. Neighborhood nukes are possible.
There is a long history of fears we've moved past. Fear of fire, of witches, of falling off the edge of the world...
For fire, it's STILL scary, but we have fire-safety codes... hard to follow, but more-or-less comforting.
Nonsense.
I live in an area with very good wind power potential.
A quick check of available information indicates that near me the velocity at 950hPa is currently 20kt. Over the next week it will vary between 0kt and 35kt. And that's far from extreme here.
The wind direction is from all directions of the compass.
Oh, those points are the same over the sea, except that the wind speed variation is higher.
Being a pilot that has made hundred of "forced" landings on grass, I am *extremely* well aware of wind shear.
The wind speed at grass root level is *far* from zero.
There is more energy available on the top of a hill than in a valley. While that's not strictly altitude AMSL, altitude is still an useful proxy.
Go out and patent the idea - if you can. Hint: you are new to the topic and are unaware of what other people have thought of and rejected!
If you only consider unrealistic conditions, anything is possible.
Here the wind comes from all directions, with no more than a bias from the SW.
Read the reference I gave.
Provide a practical mechanism for harvesting it.
Go on, have a look at it.
The problem then becomes one of accountancy.
If you use a source for 1 day per year, then to an accountant it looks 365 times more expensive per unit than if you use it all the time.
It might be cheaper to turn off the power for a day, and pay any fine.
Yes, that is a perverse stupid calculation. But (in many different fields) such calculations have been, are being, and will be made.
Bloody tosspots.
And the cost of sufficient storage capacity.
The dickweed free-market accountants/economists *choose* to neglect having sufficient storage here.
Yes, but to an accountant it becomes economically too expensive.
Stupid attitude? Of course; what's new.
The problem is the accountancy and economics. Especially when you consider time, and "externalities", and "the tragedy of the commons". Regrettably they are strong influences :(
Page 266 deals with roughness length and roughness classes. Unfortunately, the diagrams are truncated.
A better diagram is e.g. in
Indeed, and so they are.
They are also truncated in the pdf. Looking at the position of the curves and the central labels, the truncation doesn't look too serious.
That's a theoretical calculation for one circumstance.
Unsurprisingly it doesn't match the behaviour we were taught to counter when landing.
Piotr Wyderski wrote in news:qpetv9$1mng$ snipped-for-privacy@gioia.aioe.org:
Back up can be done with water towers. Kinetic energy does a lot of work, so using soem cheap or free energy to pump water up into a tower is just like a battery. Towers take up space too, and when used, the water has to have a place to get dispensed into.
Rick C wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@googlegroups.com:
Read your bible. "Lay waste, the Earth..."
So... *we* let it all rot as long as *we* do not rot. We are sinners, after all.
But we are (supposed to be) trying to be better than that.
You know... edify the church and all that *rot*.
UK already has 10MW turbines...
-- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Not quite yet. Your link wants to install cookies, but if you by-pass the top level you can get to
which says the 10MW version will be ready for installation from 2021.
That is, it's going to be available shortly, as I posted.
-- Bill Sloman, Sydney
all
lot
ent
That problem exists today, regardless of the nature of the power generation . Demand varies and there will always be a peak over the course of the yea r or 10 years or 100 years. Which of these do you plan to support and whic h will you adopt plans to curtail usage (rolling blackouts, etc.)?
This is very clear evidence that you aren't really trying to discuss the is sue. You have taken a position and will try to defend it through any means of illogic or dissemination.
Lousy prigs.
-- Rick C. +++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging +++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
That's a good example of the pot calling the kettle black.
ns
st all
a lot
went
tion. Demand varies and there will always be a peak over the course of the year or 10 years or 100 years. Which of these do you plan to support and which will you adopt plans to curtail usage (rolling blackouts, etc.)?
e issue. You have taken a position and will try to defend it through any m eans of illogic or dissemination.
Actually, you are proving my point. You offer no evidence at all. You are just back peddling.
So do you have any evidence about how the intermittent demand issue is diff erent for renewable than for other electricity sources? I know it is diffe rent for nuclear since nuclear is not so good at adjusting to varying loads and the capital costs are ginormous so insanely expensive to leave offline .
The cost of providing gas turbines for intermittent energy generation is th e same no matter what energy source they are backing up.
-- Rick C. ---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging ---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
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.