Grid and Electric Vehicles...

[Dean Hoffman]

A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn\'t mention trucks.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained>

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:13:11 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:

A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn\'t mention trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained

I\'m not a fan of watching videos for information. Care to give an overview of what I might find?

Talking about running a vacuum cleaner for 24 hours a day is not a particularly useful reference point. I don\'t know how much power a vacuum cleaner uses.

The 30% higher load number is also not very useful, because the important part of the added load is timing. The average auto is driven around 40 miles a day, which is around 10 kWh. I get my charge from a 120V, 15A outlet. That would be around 10 hours each night. That\'s a more relevant description for people who don\'t have EVs. People who do have EVs don\'t need to be educated.

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:13:11 PM UTC+10, Dean Hoffman wrote:

A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn\'t mention trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained

The 30% extra load on the grid is apparently worked out from current gasoline sales so it presumably includes trucks. It has been coming up for years so it is probably reliable.

The US grid went up from 355 billion kiloWatt.hours in 1950 to 3801 in 2000, about 5% per year, so 30% is about six years of that kind of growth. It\'s going to take longer than that to move everybody over to electric vehicles, so it\'s not something to get excited about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Dean Hoffman]

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:36:20 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:13:11 PM UTC+10, Dean Hoffman wrote:
A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn\'t mention trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained
The 30% extra load on the grid is apparently worked out from current gasoline sales so it presumably includes trucks. It has been coming up for years so it is probably reliable.

The US grid went up from 355 billion kiloWatt.hours in 1950 to 3801 in 2000, about 5% per year, so 30% is about six years of that kind of growth. It\'s going to take longer than that to move everybody over to electric vehicles, so it\'s not something to get excited about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

The narrator used a bit over 13,000 miles per year for his starting point. I\'ve been seeing articles claiming something like 25% of the U.S. workforce will be work from home so that should help.

 

[Don Y]

On 9/1/2023 3:13 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn\'t mention trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained

But you don\'t leave your car on a charger for 24 hours as
you likely drive it to work, errands, etc. It\'s only
when you are *done* using it that you\'d \"retire it\"
to the charger.

So, you\'d be home, using electrical loads that would have been
off while you were at work (TVs, stove, lighting, HVAC, etc.)
and have to complete the recharge before you next needed
the vehicle (\"Am I *in* for the evening?\")

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 7:49:39 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:36:20 AM UTC-5, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:13:11 PM UTC+10, Dean Hoffman wrote:
A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn\'t mention trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained
The 30% extra load on the grid is apparently worked out from current gasoline sales so it presumably includes trucks. It has been coming up for years so it is probably reliable.

The US grid went up from 355 billion kiloWatt.hours in 1950 to 3801 in 2000, about 5% per year, so 30% is about six years of that kind of growth. It\'s going to take longer than that to move everybody over to electric vehicles, so it\'s not something to get excited about.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
The narrator used a bit over 13,000 miles per year for his starting point.. I\'ve been seeing articles claiming something like 25% of the U.S. workforce will be work from home so that should help.

I think the work from home number is dropping. Companies didn\'t have much choice during the pandemic, but they are backing away from the telecommute thing now.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:19:27 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:

On 9/1/2023 3:13 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn\'t mention trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained
But you don\'t leave your car on a charger for 24 hours as
you likely drive it to work, errands, etc. It\'s only
when you are *done* using it that you\'d \"retire it\"
to the charger.

So, you\'d be home, using electrical loads that would have been
off while you were at work (TVs, stove, lighting, HVAC, etc.)
and have to complete the recharge before you next needed
the vehicle (\"Am I *in* for the evening?\")

What are you trying to say? Why not just come out and say it?

It\'s always the ones who don\'t have an EV who don\'t understand them or how they charge.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Ricky]

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:40:54 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:

On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:01:25 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:23:00 AM UTC-5, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:48?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:37:51?AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
snip
The first calculation this guy does is wrong. He uses some silly figure (33.7 kWh/gallon of gas) to calculate the total amount of energy needed to power all passenger cars in a year. But that\'s the wrong calculation and the 33.7 kWh is the total energy in the gasoline, taking into account none of the efficiency issues of gas cars. Here\'s how you do the actual calculation.

230 million cars (his number)
* 13,500 miles/(car year)
/ 4 miles/kWh
= 0.776 trillion kWh/ year, not 1.2 trillion
With annual 776 TWh energy consumption and 8760 hours in a year, the
average power is 89 GW, which could be produced with less than 100
additional nuclear reactors. That would be two new nuclear reactors in
each US state.

No, you can\'t have any new power generation, until you\'ve used all the power generation you have, now!
Yes, you are right, there are already EVs charged from existing power
plants , thus new generating capacity is needed only for future
EVs.

I used the nuclear reactors as an example since they have a quite
similar power (1-1.6 GW) each, so it easy to think how many reactors
will be needed if all cars are electric. Thus it can be calculated how
much uranium is needed for the cards or how much coal is needed if
coal fired power plants are solely used.
Why do people have to be told over and over again, about the demand curve??? There is somewhere around 1/2 of the total generation capability, available through the 24 hour demand cycle.
At least in Scandinavia the day/night consumption variation is only
about 20 %. Only on very cold winter days the consumption can be twice
the summer time consumption. While EV charging can be moved to the
night to even out the demand, you can not postpone it several months
to a low consumption season .
They have a term for generating capacity that can be brought online quickly, it\'s called \"Dispatchable\". Loads are mostly \"Right Now\" loads, having to be supplied at the time they are turned on. But... charging EVs is mostly a very flexible load, which can often be scheduled any time over the next two or three days. We don\'t have a term for such a flexible load, but it\'s the load equivalent of \"Dispatchable\" generation, and means we don\'t need to build a single kW of generation to charge all 230 million EVs, other than the relatively few which need charging en route.
What does \'quickly\' mean ? For gas turbines it is seconds, for coal
fired and nuclear it is several hours or a day.

With unreliable renewable sources (such as wind and solar) the
installed nominal capacity needs to be 3-10 times i.e. 270 to 900 GW
to produce that average power.

Except that the EV ***IS*** the storage that allows the use of renewable power.
If your EV battery capacity is so large and you drive so little that
the battery needs charging only once in a week or two you can rely
completely on renewables. Long high pressure periods areas and the
wind power is out. Long cloudy periods and the solar energy is out.
Both can be out simultaneously, thus you may need some other sources
to ride through several days.u

Winter can get miserable in the U.S. Nothing like a good blizzard to give the weather people something to discuss.
There is an article here talking about a nuke plant that\'s supposed to replace a coal powered one. It will be delayed two years because Russia invaded Ukraine. The goal now is to have these plant working in 2030. Construction was supposed to have started in 2023.
https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2022-12-14/the-opening-of-terrapowers-nuclear-plant-in-kemmerer-will-be-delayed-by-two-years
The biggest problem with nuclear power (other than disposing of the spent fuel) is getting them built. They talk about \"planning\" for 7 years construction, but how long was it from someone saying, \"We are going to build a nuclear plant\", to having the license in hand to start construction? In general, US nuclear takes around twenty years from concept to fuel loading. That\'s simply too long to work into a plan to power this country. In 20 years, all the cars on the road will be EVs!

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
This does not need to be the case if they transition from one-of-a-kind custom designs to smaller modular reactors.

That may be true, but it will be a decade or two before they have enough experience with them to reach that point. By then, we will have so much renewable energy, with storage, providing power much cheaper than nuclear, that the \"new\" nuclear industry will be stillborn.

The big problem with such technologies, is that they have enormous momentum and take too long to adapt to the present, ever changing landscape.

It\'s not your father\'s energy sector anymore.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 1:37:27 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:59:56 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:10:49 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:43:07 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:37:51 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:19:27 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 9/1/2023 3:13 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn\'t mention trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained
But you don\'t leave your car on a charger for 24 hours as
you likely drive it to work, errands, etc. It\'s only
when you are *done* using it that you\'d \"retire it\"
to the charger.

So, you\'d be home, using electrical loads that would have been
off while you were at work (TVs, stove, lighting, HVAC, etc.)
and have to complete the recharge before you next needed
the vehicle (\"Am I *in* for the evening?\")
What are you trying to say? Why not just come out and say it?

It\'s always the ones who don\'t have an EV who don\'t understand them or how they charge.

I added this comment to the video:

You ignore the fact that the Woke crowd is hell-bent on shutting down ALL fossil-fueled power plants.

Of course he did. It\'s not just the Woke crowd, but everybody who understands that anthropogenic global warming is seriously damaging our environment who wants to see all fossil-fueled power plants shut down.

Hey, that IS the Woke crowd.

That is your deluded opinion. \"Woke\" is usually taken to mean people who base their opinions on what is currently fashionable, and lots of people took climate change seriously long before it got fashionable/

snipped the usual reaction to a typo

Solar and wind can\'t replace this production because they are unreliable and require huge amounts of land.

They aren\'t unreliable, merely intermittent, and while 1% of the planet\'s land area is a huge amount of land it\'s not a problem to find enough of it, particularly when you can grow crops and graze animals between the solar panels. Wind turbines are even less of a problem. Sewage Sweeper doesn\'t really seem to believe in grid storage. There isn\'t enough of it yet, but is is getting bought and installed.

Same difference, Bozo. You can\'t SCHEDULE the wind or the sun.

The sun is extremely predictable - clouds less so - but you can design your system to cope. You probably couldn\'t, but you are an idiot.

Are you REALLY this DUMB, Bozo? REALLY??? Tell me, HOW are you going to schedule CLOUD COVER such that it doesn\'t coincide with power demands???? Cloud cover can persist for WEEKS, you IDIOT!!!!!!!!!

In specific areas, You don\'t put solar farms there.

Yes, land use IS a problem, Bozo, especially if you want to locate generation close to population centers.

That\'s what high voltage transmission lines are designed to cope with. You need to learn about them.

LOL! You were the idiot that claimed we could just INCREASE the voltage on these lines to increase power transmission!! You are FUCKING CLUELESS what the issues are involving the planning, funding, design, regulation and construction of HV power transmission lines.

Some times you can, with taller towers and longer insulators. The problems of getting approval for new high voltage power lines shown up regularly in our newspapers. It takes time to sort them out - and intervention from higher levels of government in some cases - but it does happen and it has been happening for as long as I can remember

Also, it is not just that they want us to switch our cars to electric, they want ALL of our energy use to be electric: no gas furnaces, air conditioners, water heaters, stoves, ovens, etc. This WILL impact the peak usage of electricity.

Air conditioners are electric anyway. Running air-conditioner backwards (reverse cycle air-conditioning, which is what I\'ve got) replaces gas furnaces. Using a heat pump to warm your hot water is less popular (though it would save you money). Around here stoves are mostly electric, and induction hobs are replacing gas rings on cook-tops.

Hey Bozo, another example of your shot-from-the-hip mentality; you better do your homework. Yes, there ARE gas a/c units.

Einstein invented and patented the basic idea. It works but it isn\'t very efficient.

Electric heat pumps stop working below around 0 C and require resistive heating for colder temps.

They don\'t. The thermodynamics become less favourable, but Stirling engines work down to very low temperatures.

The FUCK THEY DON\'T! \"Less favorable\" means that resistive heating is more energy efficient, or in other words they DON\'T FUCKING WORK!

\"Less favourable\" doesn\'t extend to making resistive heaters more energy efficient. The resistive loses in the motors driving the pumps becomes part of the heat that the customer is buying, but only part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

Sorry,, but heat pumps AREN\'T Stirling engines.

Stirling engines are heat pumps, and are routinely used to liquifiy gases like hydrogen and helium. You may have studied thermodynamics as part of you undergraduate course (as I did) but it doesn\'t seem to have stayed with you.

The power for those resistive heaters comes from GAS generators, so TWICE as much gas is used to heat the SAME area than if gas furnaces were used from the get-go.

The power for those imagined resistive heaters comes from imaginary gas generators. so Sewage Sweeper is engaged in his usual argument by deluded assertion.

No, Bozo, the power comes from REAL gas generators - it DOESN\'T come from imaginary renewables.

There\'s nothing imaginary about renewables, They are producing a significant amount of utility power, and the proportion is rising rapidly.

None of it will make as much difference as moving over to electric vehicles, and getting more grid generating capacity has never been a problem in the past - in the US it went up but 5% per year every year from 1950 to 2000 without anybody making any fuss about it.

LOL! You can FORGET that growth IF they start shutting down fossil plants, IDIOT!!

They are shutting fossil plants rapidly in Australia and investing a lot in cheaper renewable generation - solar farms and wind-farms. You do make fatuous assertions.

Which is EXACTLY what I am saying - \"cheaper\" renewables AREN\'T cheaper when you include the cost of backing them up with fossil-powered plants.

You don\'t backed them up with fossil-powered plants but rather with grid-scale storage. And they are still cheaper even after you figure that in.

If the US utilities were controlled by half-wits like you, they might not invest in getting more of their energy from cheaper renewable sources, but this doesn\'t seem to be true.

Well, the US utilities AREN\'T controlled by <snipped usual insult> so they will NOT put all of their eggs into the renewable basket. Hawaii might be the exception, however.

What makes you think that - beyond your usual irrational faith in your demented delusions?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 9:07:49 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:40:54 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:01:25 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:23:00 AM UTC-5, upsid....@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:48?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:37:51?AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
snip
The first calculation this guy does is wrong. He uses some silly figure (33.7 kWh/gallon of gas) to calculate the total amount of energy needed to power all passenger cars in a year. But that\'s the wrong calculation and the 33.7 kWh is the total energy in the gasoline, taking into account none of the efficiency issues of gas cars. Here\'s how you do the actual calculation.

230 million cars (his number)
* 13,500 miles/(car year)
/ 4 miles/kWh
= 0.776 trillion kWh/ year, not 1.2 trillion
With annual 776 TWh energy consumption and 8760 hours in a year, the
average power is 89 GW, which could be produced with less than 100
additional nuclear reactors. That would be two new nuclear reactors in
each US state.

No, you can\'t have any new power generation, until you\'ve used all the power generation you have, now!
Yes, you are right, there are already EVs charged from existing power
plants , thus new generating capacity is needed only for future
EVs.

I used the nuclear reactors as an example since they have a quite
similar power (1-1.6 GW) each, so it easy to think how many reactors
will be needed if all cars are electric. Thus it can be calculated how
much uranium is needed for the cards or how much coal is needed if
coal fired power plants are solely used.
Why do people have to be told over and over again, about the demand curve??? There is somewhere around 1/2 of the total generation capability, available through the 24 hour demand cycle.
At least in Scandinavia the day/night consumption variation is only
about 20 %. Only on very cold winter days the consumption can be twice
the summer time consumption. While EV charging can be moved to the
night to even out the demand, you can not postpone it several months
to a low consumption season .
They have a term for generating capacity that can be brought online quickly, it\'s called \"Dispatchable\". Loads are mostly \"Right Now\" loads, having to be supplied at the time they are turned on. But... charging EVs is mostly a very flexible load, which can often be scheduled any time over the next two or three days. We don\'t have a term for such a flexible load, but it\'s the load equivalent of \"Dispatchable\" generation, and means we don\'t need to build a single kW of generation to charge all 230 million EVs, other than the relatively few which need charging en route.
What does \'quickly\' mean ? For gas turbines it is seconds, for coal
fired and nuclear it is several hours or a day.

With unreliable renewable sources (such as wind and solar) the
installed nominal capacity needs to be 3-10 times i.e. 270 to 900 GW
to produce that average power.

Except that the EV ***IS*** the storage that allows the use of renewable power.
If your EV battery capacity is so large and you drive so little that
the battery needs charging only once in a week or two you can rely
completely on renewables. Long high pressure periods areas and the
wind power is out. Long cloudy periods and the solar energy is out.
Both can be out simultaneously, thus you may need some other sources
to ride through several days.u

Winter can get miserable in the U.S. Nothing like a good blizzard to give the weather people something to discuss.
There is an article here talking about a nuke plant that\'s supposed to replace a coal powered one. It will be delayed two years because Russia invaded Ukraine. The goal now is to have these plant working in 2030. Construction was supposed to have started in 2023.
https://www.wyomingpublicmedia.org/natural-resources-energy/2022-12-14/the-opening-of-terrapowers-nuclear-plant-in-kemmerer-will-be-delayed-by-two-years
The biggest problem with nuclear power (other than disposing of the spent fuel) is getting them built. They talk about \"planning\" for 7 years construction, but how long was it from someone saying, \"We are going to build a nuclear plant\", to having the license in hand to start construction? In general, US nuclear takes around twenty years from concept to fuel loading. That\'s simply too long to work into a plan to power this country. In 20 years, all the cars on the road will be EVs!

--

Rick C.

+++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
This does not need to be the case if they transition from one-of-a-kind custom designs to smaller modular reactors.
That may be true, but it will be a decade or two before they have enough experience with them to reach that point. By then, we will have so much renewable energy, with storage, providing power much cheaper than nuclear, that the \"new\" nuclear industry will be stillborn.

The big problem with such technologies, is that they have enormous momentum and take too long to adapt to the present, ever changing landscape.

It\'s not your father\'s energy sector anymore.

--

Rick C.

---- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

Renewables = Unreliable

This is a truth that will NEVER change. It is OK to have it as PART of the energy mix, but not the ONLY supply. Modular nuclear generators can be placed near the load, eliminating the costly and lengthy process of installing transmission lines (and, NO Bozo, you can\'t just jack up the voltage on existing lines!). The smart play by ALL involved is to embrace this truth because you are not going to win converts with rolling blackouts. Even nat gas generators are preferable to this.

 

[Flyguy]

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:04:38 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 1:37:27 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:59:56 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:10:49 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:43:07 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:37:51 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:19:27 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 9/1/2023 3:13 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
A roughly 16 minute video on the added load of using EVs instead of fossil fueled vehicles in the U.S. One comment is the load at home would be about like running a vacuum cleaner 24 hours per day. The guy is talking about a 30% higher load if all cars are EVs. He didn\'t mention trucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dfyG6FXsUU&ab_channel=EngineeringExplained
But you don\'t leave your car on a charger for 24 hours as
you likely drive it to work, errands, etc. It\'s only
when you are *done* using it that you\'d \"retire it\"
to the charger.

So, you\'d be home, using electrical loads that would have been
off while you were at work (TVs, stove, lighting, HVAC, etc..)
and have to complete the recharge before you next needed
the vehicle (\"Am I *in* for the evening?\")
What are you trying to say? Why not just come out and say it?

It\'s always the ones who don\'t have an EV who don\'t understand them or how they charge.

I added this comment to the video:

You ignore the fact that the Woke crowd is hell-bent on shutting down ALL fossil-fueled power plants.

Of course he did. It\'s not just the Woke crowd, but everybody who understands that anthropogenic global warming is seriously damaging our environment who wants to see all fossil-fueled power plants shut down.

Hey, that IS the Woke crowd.

That is your deluded opinion. \"Woke\" is usually taken to mean people who base their opinions on what is currently fashionable, and lots of people took climate change seriously long before it got fashionable/

snipped the usual reaction to a typo

Solar and wind can\'t replace this production because they are unreliable and require huge amounts of land.

They aren\'t unreliable, merely intermittent, and while 1% of the planet\'s land area is a huge amount of land it\'s not a problem to find enough of it, particularly when you can grow crops and graze animals between the solar panels. Wind turbines are even less of a problem. Sewage Sweeper doesn\'t really seem to believe in grid storage. There isn\'t enough of it yet, but is is getting bought and installed.

Same difference, Bozo. You can\'t SCHEDULE the wind or the sun.

The sun is extremely predictable - clouds less so - but you can design your system to cope. You probably couldn\'t, but you are an idiot.

Are you REALLY this DUMB, Bozo? REALLY??? Tell me, HOW are you going to schedule CLOUD COVER such that it doesn\'t coincide with power demands???? Cloud cover can persist for WEEKS, you IDIOT!!!!!!!!!
In specific areas, You don\'t put solar farms there.
Yes, land use IS a problem, Bozo, especially if you want to locate generation close to population centers.

That\'s what high voltage transmission lines are designed to cope with.. You need to learn about them.

LOL! You were the idiot that claimed we could just INCREASE the voltage on these lines to increase power transmission!! You are FUCKING CLUELESS what the issues are involving the planning, funding, design, regulation and construction of HV power transmission lines.
Some times you can, with taller towers and longer insulators. The problems of getting approval for new high voltage power lines shown up regularly in our newspapers. It takes time to sort them out - and intervention from higher levels of government in some cases - but it does happen and it has been happening for as long as I can remember
Also, it is not just that they want us to switch our cars to electric, they want ALL of our energy use to be electric: no gas furnaces, air conditioners, water heaters, stoves, ovens, etc. This WILL impact the peak usage of electricity.

Air conditioners are electric anyway. Running air-conditioner backwards (reverse cycle air-conditioning, which is what I\'ve got) replaces gas furnaces. Using a heat pump to warm your hot water is less popular (though it would save you money). Around here stoves are mostly electric, and induction hobs are replacing gas rings on cook-tops.

Hey Bozo, another example of your shot-from-the-hip mentality; you better do your homework. Yes, there ARE gas a/c units.

Einstein invented and patented the basic idea. It works but it isn\'t very efficient.

Electric heat pumps stop working below around 0 C and require resistive heating for colder temps.

They don\'t. The thermodynamics become less favourable, but Stirling engines work down to very low temperatures.

The FUCK THEY DON\'T! \"Less favorable\" means that resistive heating is more energy efficient, or in other words they DON\'T FUCKING WORK!
\"Less favourable\" doesn\'t extend to making resistive heaters more energy efficient. The resistive loses in the motors driving the pumps becomes part of the heat that the customer is buying, but only part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stirling_engine

Sorry,, but heat pumps AREN\'T Stirling engines.

Stirling engines are heat pumps, and are routinely used to liquifiy gases like hydrogen and helium. You may have studied thermodynamics as part of you undergraduate course (as I did) but it doesn\'t seem to have stayed with you.
The power for those resistive heaters comes from GAS generators, so TWICE as much gas is used to heat the SAME area than if gas furnaces were used from the get-go.

The power for those imagined resistive heaters comes from imaginary gas generators. so Sewage Sweeper is engaged in his usual argument by deluded assertion.

No, Bozo, the power comes from REAL gas generators - it DOESN\'T come from imaginary renewables.
There\'s nothing imaginary about renewables, They are producing a significant amount of utility power, and the proportion is rising rapidly.
None of it will make as much difference as moving over to electric vehicles, and getting more grid generating capacity has never been a problem in the past - in the US it went up but 5% per year every year from 1950 to 2000 without anybody making any fuss about it.

LOL! You can FORGET that growth IF they start shutting down fossil plants, IDIOT!!

They are shutting fossil plants rapidly in Australia and investing a lot in cheaper renewable generation - solar farms and wind-farms. You do make fatuous assertions.

Which is EXACTLY what I am saying - \"cheaper\" renewables AREN\'T cheaper when you include the cost of backing them up with fossil-powered plants.
You don\'t backed them up with fossil-powered plants but rather with grid-scale storage. And they are still cheaper even after you figure that in.
If the US utilities were controlled by half-wits like you, they might not invest in getting more of their energy from cheaper renewable sources, but this doesn\'t seem to be true.

Well, the US utilities AREN\'T controlled by <snipped usual insult> so they will NOT put all of their eggs into the renewable basket. Hawaii might be the exception, however.

What makes you think that - beyond your usual irrational faith in your demented delusions?

That they aren\'t controlled by BRAIN-DEAD IDIOTS such as yourself? Simple: because I follow what they are planning.

--
Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney

Bozo\'s Sewage Sweeper

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:45:37 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 9:07:49 PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:40:54 PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:01:25 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:50:24 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:23:00 AM UTC-5, upsid....@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Ricky = <gnuarm.del....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:48?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Ricky <gnuarm.del....@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:37:51?AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

<snip>

> Renewables = Unreliable

Argument by implausible assertion.

> This is a truth that will NEVER change.

It\'s not true, and never was, like all of your misleading over-simplifications.

>It is OK to have it as PART of the energy mix, but not the ONLY supply.

If you back it up with adequate energy storage and reasonable amount of averaging over large areas, renewables will be able to work fine. Your brain has been stuff full of climate change denial propaganda, designed to keep the fossil carbon extraction industry profitable for as long as possible, so you couldn\'t possibly see this.

> Modular nuclear generators can be placed near the load, eliminating the costly and lengthy process of installing transmission lines (and, you can\'t just jack up the voltage on existing lines!).

Except that sometimes you can. Modular nuclear reactors aren\'t items of commerce yet, and probably never will be - the power they produce seems to be just as expensive as that produced by regular nuclear reactors, and nowhere near as cheap as that produced by renewable sources (even if you can\'t bring yourself to accept this).

> The smart play by ALL involved is to embrace this truth because you are not going to win converts with rolling blackouts. Even natural gas generators are preferable to this.

What \"rolling blackouts\"? This is argument by asserting the existence of imaginary disasters, while ignoring the real disasters that climate change is inflecting on us.

Sewage Sweeper is consistently demented. Embracing a truth that doesn\'t happen to be true isn\'t any kind of \"smart play\". It\'s actually just being persistently deluded.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:49:23 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:

On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:04:38 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, September 5, 2023 at 1:37:27 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 10:59:56 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 3:10:49 PM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 9:43:07 PM UTC-7, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 1:37:51 AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37 AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 8:19:27 AM UTC-4, Don Y wrote:
On 9/1/2023 3:13 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:

<snip>

Well, the US utilities AREN\'T controlled by <snipped usual insult> so they will NOT put all of their eggs into the renewable basket. Hawaii might be the exception, however.

What makes you think that - beyond your usual irrational faith in your demented delusions?

snip>, Simple: because I follow what they are planning.

Yet more argument by implausible assertion.
If you could follow what they were planning you\'d be able to post a link to their commercial in-confidence forward planning - which they\'d be mad to expose to a loose-lipped half-wit like you, who could be relied on to misunderstand the data as supporting his deluded expectation.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[server]

On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 21:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:45:37?AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 9:07:49?PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:40:54?PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:01:25?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:50:24?AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:23:00?AM UTC-5, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Ricky = <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:48?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:37:51?AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

snip

Renewables = Unreliable

Argument by implausible assertion.

The real question id, how much does it cost to make a mix of
unreliable sources into a combined reliable source.

This is a truth that will NEVER change.

It\'s not true, and never was, like all of your misleading over-simplifications.

It is OK to have it as PART of the energy mix, but not the ONLY supply.

Wind turbines have a typical capacity factor of 20 to 40 %, while
solar panels are at 10-20 % thus wind power must be installed 2.5 to 5
times the nameplate power to produce annually the same average power
as a constantly running power plant. for solar, the nameplate power
must be 5 to 10 times as large. Some renewal proponents use the cost
of nameplate power, but in reality 2.5 to 10 nominal nameplate power
is required to generate the same amount of annual energy.

If you back it up with adequate energy storage

While battery storage may be adequate for a few hours break in
renewable productiob, but the cost and size would be huge to handle
days, weeks or even moths break in production.

Clearly some alternatives must be used to handle long breaks.
Hydroelectric dams are one alternative, but drowning a lot of villages
might not be too popular . Growing and burning biomass is one
option, but apparently some greenies also object to this. Making,
storing and burning hydrogen might be an option. All of these options
cost a lot of money.

> and reasonable amount of averaging over large areas, renewables will be able to work fine.

High pressure areas can be nearly the size of a continent and wind
power is out in this area.Of course power lines could be used to send
power into this area. However not very practical with current
technology. Reasonably priced room temperature super conductive cables
would be required, but no such wonders exist today.


> Your brain has been stuff full of climate change denial propaganda, designed to keep the fossil carbon extraction industry profitable for as long as possible, so you couldn\'t possibly see this.

Why do you search for this kind of conspiracy theories when there are
still real technical and economical problems with various renewable
sources.

Modular nuclear generators can be placed near the load, eliminating the costly and lengthy process of installing transmission lines (and, you can\'t just jack up the voltage on existing lines!).

Except that sometimes you can. Modular nuclear reactors aren\'t items of commerce yet, and probably never will be - the power they produce seems to be just as expensive as that produced by regular nuclear reactors, and nowhere near as cheap as that produced by renewable sources (even if you can\'t bring yourself to accept this).

Big nuclear reactors need an active emergency cooling system and hence
you avoid building such reactors near large cities. The emergency
cooling systems failed in Fukushima, because all the emergency diesels
became wet due to the tsunami.

In big reactors about 40 % of the reactor thermal power is used for
electricity, 60 % is lost in the sea or air.

Those smaller modular reactors do not need active emergency cooling,
passive emergency cooling is sufficient, thus it can be built closer
to cities.The shorter distances make it possible to use the extra heat
for district heating and/or cooling.

The smart play by ALL involved is to embrace this truth because you are not going to win converts with rolling blackouts. Even natural gas generators are preferable to this.

What \"rolling blackouts\"? This is argument by asserting the existence of imaginary disasters, while ignoring the real disasters that climate change is inflecting on us.

The risk for rolling blackouts increases, if some renewable is out for
a longer period than expected.

>Sewage Sweeper is consistently demented. Embracing a truth that doesn\'t happen to be true isn\'t any kind of \"smart play\". It\'s actually just being persistently deluded.

A well functioning energy system can have a lot of wind and solar as
well as hydro, but nuclear will feed for the base loaf. A large number
of fast starting NG/LNG gas turbines is nice to have to keep the
network stable in all conditions.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:49:58 AM UTC+10, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 21:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:45:37?AM UTC+10, Flyguy wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 9:07:49?PM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2023 at 11:40:54?PM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:01:25?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 10:50:24?AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 8:23:00?AM UTC-5, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 02:55:47 -0700 (PDT), Ricky = <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2023 at 4:19:48?AM UTC-4, upsid....@downunder.com wrote:
On Fri, 1 Sep 2023 09:10:03 -0700 (PDT), Ricky <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 11:37:51?AM UTC-4, Flyguy wrote:
On Friday, September 1, 2023 at 6:17:37?AM UTC-7, Ricky wrote:

snip

Renewables = Unreliable

Argument by implausible assertion.
The real question id, how much does it cost to make a mix of
unreliable sources into a combined reliable source.

This is a truth that will NEVER change.

It\'s not true, and never was, like all of your misleading over-simplifications.

It is OK to have it as PART of the energy mix, but not the ONLY supply.

Wind turbines have a typical capacity factor of 20 to 40 %, while
solar panels are at 10-20 % thus wind power must be installed 2.5 to 5
times the nameplate power to produce annually the same average power
as a constantly running power plant. for solar, the nameplate power
must be 5 to 10 times as large. Some renewal proponents use the cost
of nameplate power, but in reality 2.5 to 10 nominal nameplate power
is required to generate the same amount of annual energy.

That is figured into the cost of the power. The Australian electricity generating companies have done the sums and they are investing heavily in renewable and, wouldn\'t invest in new fossil carbon powered plants even when the previous administration (which was in the pocket of the mining industry) pressured them to do it.

If you back it up with adequate energy storage.

While battery storage may be adequate for a few hours break in renewable production, but the cost and size would be huge to handle days, weeks or even months break in production.

Pumped hydro storage tends to be bigger and more expensive. It\'s still not going to provide weeks or months of storage, but there\'s no sane suggestion that we\'d need that much.

https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/snowy-20/about/

It\'s got a lot more expensive than when it was first mooted - it\'s now going to cost $12 billion, rather than the $2 billion first talked about.

> Clearly some alternatives must be used to handle long breaks.

If they are ever going to happen. If the sun doesn\'t rise we\'ve got a more serious problem to cope with.

> Hydroelectric dams are one alternative, but drowning a lot of villages might not be too popular .

Not a problem we\'ve run into.

> Growing and burning biomass is one option, but apparently some greenies also object to this.

Cite? Most \"greenie lunacies\" seem to be invented by the climate change denial movement.

>Making, storing and burning hydrogen might be an option.

The local venture capitalists seem to be mad keen on it. Of course you only get back 25% of the energy you invest in creating the hydrogen. Batteries and pumped storage give back about 85%

> All of these options cost a lot of money.

Of course they do,

and reasonable amount of averaging over large areas, renewables will be able to work fine.

High pressure areas can be nearly the size of a continent and wind power is out in this area.

Twaddle. Australia is a continent, and we tend to have couple lined up across the continent all the time. And the wind just blows in different directions as they move over. It doesn\'t stop.

> Of course power lines could be used to send power into this area. However not very practical with current technology. Reasonably priced room temperature super conductive cables would be required, but no such wonders exist today.

The local hydrogen generating venture capitalists were contemplating an undersea cable from Northern Australia to Singapore.

Nord Link is the current record holder at 625 km, but that scheme cotemplated a 4,500 km undersea cable. No super-conductors involved.

Your brain has been stuff full of climate change denial propaganda, designed to keep the fossil carbon extraction industry profitable for as long as possible, so you couldn\'t possibly see this.
Why do you search for this kind of conspiracy theories when there are still real technical and economical problems with various renewable sources.

Climate change denial propaganda isn\'t any kind of conspiracy theory. It\'s a well-documented commercial activity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchants_of_Doubt

Modular nuclear generators can be placed near the load, eliminating the costly and lengthy process of installing transmission lines (and, you can\'t just jack up the voltage on existing lines!).

Except that sometimes you can. Modular nuclear reactors aren\'t items of commerce yet, and probably never will be - the power they produce seems to be just as expensive as that produced by regular nuclear reactors, and nowhere near as cheap as that produced by renewable sources (even if you can\'t bring yourself to accept this).

Big nuclear reactors need an active emergency cooling system and hence you avoid building such reactors near large cities. The emergency cooling systems failed in Fukushima, because all the emergency diesels became wet due to the tsunami.

Something unexpected always happens.

> In big reactors about 40 % of the reactor thermal power is used for electricity, 60 % is lost in the sea or air.

Of course it is. They generate heat, and some of that heat gets converted to electricity. The usual thermodynamic restrictions apply.

Those smaller modular reactors do not need active emergency cooling, passive emergency cooling is sufficient, thus it can be built closer
to cities.The shorter distances make it possible to use the extra heat for district heating and/or cooling.

But it is still decidedly expensive heat.

The smart play by ALL involved is to embrace this truth because you are not going to win converts with rolling blackouts. Even natural gas generators are preferable to this.

What \"rolling blackouts\"? This is argument by asserting the existence of imaginary disasters, while ignoring the real disasters that climate change is inflecting on us.

The risk for rolling blackouts increases, if some renewable is out for a longer period than expected.

Or any other generating source.

Sewage Sweeper is consistently demented. Embracing a truth that doesn\'t happen to be true isn\'t any kind of \"smart play\". It\'s actually just being persistently deluded.

A well functioning energy system can have a lot of wind and solar as well as hydro, but nuclear will feed for the base load.

Only if it gets a lot cheaper. And it would be nice if somebody worked out a way of storing nuclear waste safely for a couple of hundred thousand years that looked safe to enough people to be allowed to be put into action. One of my undergraduate friends - Lou Vance, now dead - was part of the team that worked out such a scheme, but it has never been put into action.


> A large number of fast starting NG/LNG gas turbines is nice to have to keep the network stable in all conditions.

Run them on hydrogen and everybody would happy - but they soak up a three times as many kilowatt hours for every kilowatt hour they deliver as batteries and pumped storage. It\'s not cheap insurance, and hydrogen forms explosive mixtures with air over a very wide range of concentrations, so you don\'t want the reservoir too close to built-up areas.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Ricky]

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:49:58 AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:

On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 21:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

Except that sometimes you can. Modular nuclear reactors aren\'t items of commerce yet, and probably never will be - the power they produce seems to be just as expensive as that produced by regular nuclear reactors, and nowhere near as cheap as that produced by renewable sources (even if you can\'t bring yourself to accept this).
Big nuclear reactors need an active emergency cooling system and hence
you avoid building such reactors near large cities. The emergency
cooling systems failed in Fukushima, because all the emergency diesels
became wet due to the tsunami.

In big reactors about 40 % of the reactor thermal power is used for
electricity, 60 % is lost in the sea or air.

Those smaller modular reactors do not need active emergency cooling,
passive emergency cooling is sufficient, thus it can be built closer
to cities.The shorter distances make it possible to use the extra heat
for district heating and/or cooling.

Ok, once we have small, modular reactors ready to be sited, we can discuss them. But, until they are actually available and not just an idea on a Wikipedia page, we can ignore them as options for now.

If you want to discuss \"the future\", we can talk about $0.01 per kWh batteries and total renewable energy costs (including storage) of $0.10 per kWh.

--

Rick C.

---+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
---+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

 

[server]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 08:52:01 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

Of course power lines could be used to send power into this area. However not very practical with current technology. Reasonably priced room temperature super conductive cables would be required, but no such wonders exist today.

The local hydrogen generating venture capitalists were contemplating an undersea cable from Northern Australia to Singapore.

Nord Link is the current record holder at 625 km, but that scheme cotemplated a 4,500 km undersea cable. No super-conductors involved.

A 1 m long 1 mm2 copper wire has a resistance of 17 mOhm, thus 1 km
has 17 ohm resistance and the total loop resistance 4500 km (x2) cable
is 150 kOhm. Running the ordinary 1 A/mm2 current density through the
loop and 150 KV is lost. Using 0,5 A/mm2 current density the total
voltage loss will drop to 75 kV, which would be bearable for a 1000 kV
system.

If you would like to run 1 GW through the system, the current needs to
be 1000 A, so each cable needs to have a 2000 mm2 cross section at 0.5
A/mm2 (50 mm diameter)

The copper density is 9 kg/dm3 thus 18 kg/m or 160000 toms for the
whole system. Assuming 5 euros/kg, the total cost of raw copper would
be 800 million euros. Making HV cables of it would multiply the price
several times.

 

[server]

On Thu, 7 Sep 2023 09:03:32 -0700 (PDT), Ricky
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:

On Thursday, September 7, 2023 at 10:49:58?AM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
On Wed, 6 Sep 2023 21:29:49 -0700 (PDT), Anthony William Sloman
bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

Except that sometimes you can. Modular nuclear reactors aren\'t items of commerce yet, and probably never will be - the power they produce seems to be just as expensive as that produced by regular nuclear reactors, and nowhere near as cheap as that produced by renewable sources (even if you can\'t bring yourself to accept this).
Big nuclear reactors need an active emergency cooling system and hence
you avoid building such reactors near large cities. The emergency
cooling systems failed in Fukushima, because all the emergency diesels
became wet due to the tsunami.

In big reactors about 40 % of the reactor thermal power is used for
electricity, 60 % is lost in the sea or air.

Those smaller modular reactors do not need active emergency cooling,
passive emergency cooling is sufficient, thus it can be built closer
to cities.The shorter distances make it possible to use the extra heat
for district heating and/or cooling.

Ok, once we have small, modular reactors ready to be sited, we can discuss them. But, until they are actually available and not just an idea on a Wikipedia page, we can ignore them as options for now.

Actually two KLT-40 icebreaker reactors are mounted on the Academik
Lomonosov barge, which is currently parked at some town on a Siberian
river.

>If you want to discuss \"the future\", we can talk about $0.01 per kWh batteries and total renewable energy costs (including storage) of $0.10 per kWh.

 

[Ralph Mowery]

In article <33dmfi5fh5t6l10jmcfqd3rh82u1k6cg7c@4ax.com>,
upsidedown@downunder.com says...

A 1 m long 1 mm2 copper wire has a resistance of 17 mOhm, thus 1 km
has 17 ohm resistance and the total loop resistance 4500 km (x2) cable
is 150 kOhm. Running the ordinary 1 A/mm2 current density through the
loop and 150 KV is lost. Using 0,5 A/mm2 current density the total
voltage loss will drop to 75 kV, which would be bearable for a 1000 kV
system.

If you would like to run 1 GW through the system, the current needs to
be 1000 A, so each cable needs to have a 2000 mm2 cross section at 0.5
A/mm2 (50 mm diameter)

The copper density is 9 kg/dm3 thus 18 kg/m or 160000 toms for the
whole system. Assuming 5 euros/kg, the total cost of raw copper would
be 800 million euros. Making HV cables of it would multiply the price
several times.

There is a lot off math involved there.

I do not know how it will change things but if 60 HZ or some other AC
frequency is used on very long wires the lines act like a radio
frequency transmission line and other factors may need to be added in.

 

[Ricky]

On Friday, September 8, 2023 at 12:38:54 PM UTC-4, Ralph Mowery wrote:

In article <33dmfi5fh5t6l10jm...@4ax.com>,
upsid...@downunder.com says...

A 1 m long 1 mm2 copper wire has a resistance of 17 mOhm, thus 1 km
has 17 ohm resistance and the total loop resistance 4500 km (x2) cable
is 150 kOhm. Running the ordinary 1 A/mm2 current density through the
loop and 150 KV is lost. Using 0,5 A/mm2 current density the total
voltage loss will drop to 75 kV, which would be bearable for a 1000 kV
system.

If you would like to run 1 GW through the system, the current needs to
be 1000 A, so each cable needs to have a 2000 mm2 cross section at 0.5
A/mm2 (50 mm diameter)

The copper density is 9 kg/dm3 thus 18 kg/m or 160000 toms for the
whole system. Assuming 5 euros/kg, the total cost of raw copper would
be 800 million euros. Making HV cables of it would multiply the price
several times.



There is a lot off math involved there.

I do not know how it will change things but if 60 HZ or some other AC
frequency is used on very long wires the lines act like a radio
frequency transmission line and other factors may need to be added in.

It\'s not that the wires become radio antenna. Rather there is an effect called the skin effect, where the current is concentrated near the surface of the conductor. The work around, is to split the single fat cable into multiple smaller diameter cables. If you look at high voltage power lines, you will often see each of the three phase conductors spread by triangular spacers with three wires. The three smaller wires carry more current than a single wire with the same copper, because of the skin effect.

--

Rick C.

--+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209