OT: 'Photon Farming' in California

[Tom Gardner]

On 14/08/19 10:14, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 14/08/2019 1:12 am, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 5:25:29 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 13/08/2019 5:06 pm, Rick C wrote:

Nuclear isn't "bad" (except for the waste issue) it's just expensive.
The North Anna reactor Dominion has received approval for will cost
$19 billion!  That's $0.06 per kW just for the capital without
counting the interest, operation, refueling, etc... and not counting
the cost of waste handling.

How much are you willing to pay for using nuclear?

Then you seem to ignore the potential for storing energy to make
renewable energy available 24/7.  The UK has at least 1400 MW of
pumped storage hydro for a country that uses about 30 or 40 GW peak.
Obviously it can't be so expensive.

When used for peak management, it only needs to be cheaper than the
alternative, which is typically gas powered generation.

It's not just the power that matters, it's the energy, and you can't
just build pumped storage anywhere you feel like it - there needs to be
a practical way of storing large quantities of water at two
significantly different levels, or there needs to be a place near the
sea where sea water can be stored at a significantly higher than sea level.

And yet there seems to be quite a bit of it used in the UK.  Maybe they aren't
so backwards after all. 


I can only find reference to four, all in the mountainous parts of Scotland and
Wales. Their storage capacity is limited. They get pumped at night, using
electricity from coal or nuclear.

Correct.

The difference between kW and kWh was pointed out to Rick C.
A couple of hours before he posted his message above, he
responded to that kW/kWh message, not denying his error but
trying to swivel the conversation onto an irrelevant point.

Draw your own conclusion.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 13/08/2019 11:36 pm, Bill Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, August 13, 2019 at 4:49:53 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 4/08/2019 1:44 am, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 14:40:47 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:

Worth a try!

https://tinyurl.com/y67eltrh

What will we do with gigawatts of power that peaks mid-day, only
on good days?

I'm waiting for the day when solar routines displaces all the
fossil fuel generation, and owners discover that when all the
remaining generation has a zero marginal cost of generation, the
market price collapses.

At the same time the greenies will finally realise that they
cannot build any more solar farms, because there's no use for the
power they generate, but the zero-carbon future still hasn't been
reached, because of all the fossil fuel generation during the large
part of day when solar doesn't produce.

Then the politicians will discover that nuclear power isn't so bad
after all.

Actually, Malcom Turnbull set the Snowy 2 pumped storage scheme
going, rather than going nuclear.

They're not alternatives. Snowy is energy limited - it cannot run
continuously, because its water supply is not great enough. Instead,
it's used to supply power during peak times. The existing pumping
station pumps at night, when the vast bulk of the power supply is from
coal, and generates during peak times. Snowy 2 would do the same.
Neither would pump during the say unless solar depressed prices to below
overnight rates, and any input from wind at night is incidental.

Of course, there are many people who believe that Snowy 2 is part of a
renewable solution, and politicians do not go out their way to disabuse
them.

He's gone, but the politicians who replaced him still seem to think
that Snow 2 is a good idea.

https://www.snowyhydro.com.au/our-scheme/snowy20/about-snowy-2-0-2/

The people in South Australia that bought Elon Musk's 100MW 129
MW.hour battery were politicians too. It is a fairly obvious solution
to the problem.

It provides a rapid response, but is very energy limited. It's unlikely
it would have been justified if the penetration of solar in South
Australia hadn't reduced the rotational inertia in the system.

It is also charged mainly overnight, from coal.

Sylvia.

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-08-13, Sylvia Else <sylvia@email.invalid> wrote:

On 4/08/2019 2:44 am, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, August 3, 2019 at 12:41:00 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 17:15:00 +0100, Tom Gardner
spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:

On 03/08/19 16:44, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 3 Aug 2019 14:40:47 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
curd@notformail.com> wrote:

Worth a try!

https://tinyurl.com/y67eltrh

What will we do with gigawatts of power that peaks mid-day, only on
good days?

If you have hills and water, push the water uphill.

Well, we do have some hills sixty miles away from the central valley.
I doubt that mass energy storage is economical; certainly batteries
aren't.

Solar makes little sense; natural gas fracking is in financial trouble
in the US because it has been so successful that there's a glut of
cheap gas. If we have to build NG plants to power us up when the sun
don't shine, may as well run them 24/7.

Except the cost of solar is currently competitive and still dropping. Why pay more for energy from a harmful source? Do you just like to toss money out the window?


It isn't really competitive, it's just benefiting from a market that's
been seriously distorted by political considerations.

Try selling any other commodity on the basis that you'll supply it when
it's convenient to you, and not otherwise.

This seems to work for orchardists.

--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.