Random fact about battery storage

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

------------------------

**If Sylvia is claiming that renewable energy sources are LESS
sustainable than (say) coal fired power nukes, etc, then she needs to
prove that claim.

She did not make that claim.Her claim was that current available
resources on a battery type not sufficient to meet some future likely
extreme demand.


**Here is Sylvia's claim:

"I'm all for sustainable power generation, but it's important to realise
technologies that look sustainable may not actually be when one
considers the resources need to construct them, and considering that all
forms of generation have to be constructed over and over because they
don't last forever."



Now that's fine as far it goes, but Sylvia APPEARS to be condemning
renewables (by stating the fact that they consume resources - nothing
new there), but she fails miserably to balance her claim with how much
non-renewables consume, both in construction AND operation,

** What a bonkers thing to complain about.

In reality, resources like Lithium are just as non-renewable as coal, gas and oil. They all can be entirely used up at some stage.

OTOH, and as I already pointed out, one "old school" storage technology excels as it uses gravity to store energy. A truly inexhaustible resource.



...... Phil

 

[Trevor Wilson]

On 20/12/2017 3:42 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

------------------------


**If Sylvia is claiming that renewable energy sources are LESS
sustainable than (say) coal fired power nukes, etc, then she needs to
prove that claim.

She did not make that claim.Her claim was that current available
resources on a battery type not sufficient to meet some future likely
extreme demand.


**Here is Sylvia's claim:

"I'm all for sustainable power generation, but it's important to realise
technologies that look sustainable may not actually be when one
considers the resources need to construct them, and considering that all
forms of generation have to be constructed over and over because they
don't last forever."



Now that's fine as far it goes, but Sylvia APPEARS to be condemning
renewables (by stating the fact that they consume resources - nothing
new there), but she fails miserably to balance her claim with how much
non-renewables consume, both in construction AND operation,


** What a bonkers thing to complain about.

**Entirely reasonable.

In reality, resources like Lithium are just as non-renewable as coal, gas and oil. They all can be entirely used up at some stage.

**And I draw your attention to these words (by Sylvia):

"I'm all for sustainable power GENERATION..." Note my emphasis.

Again, Sylvia is appearing to deride renewable energy, without backing
her claim with any data or detail.

OTOH, and as I already pointed out, one "old school" storage technology excels as it uses gravity to store energy. A truly inexhaustible resource.

**Well, except for those pesky droughts, of course. But yes, nothing
wrong with pumped water storage. Proven technology. Nothing to to do
with Sylvia's claim, as I quote above though.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2017-12-19, Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> wrote:

On 20/12/2017 10:20 AM, Phil Allison wrote:

**If Sylvia is claiming that renewable energy sources are LESS
sustainable than (say) coal fired power nukes, etc, then she needs to
prove that claim.

If, OTOH, she is claiming that renewable energy sources cause some
pollution, then that fact is hardly news.

Without support or clarification of her claims, they may be summarily
disregarded.

It's unclear what she was claiming, she said someting about current world
production of lithium cells, and how many Australia would need to
operate during darkness if it got all its power from PV,

That a bit like saying such and such bus has traveled the equivalent
distance to the moon an back, it's trivia, not a suggestion on how to
get to the moon.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

 

[Phil Allison]

Trevor Wilson wrote:

--------------------------

**If Sylvia is claiming that renewable energy sources are LESS
sustainable than (say) coal fired power nukes, etc, then she needs to
prove that claim.

She did not make that claim.Her claim was that current available
resources on a battery type not sufficient to meet some future likely
extreme demand.


**Here is Sylvia's claim:

"I'm all for sustainable power generation, but it's important to realise
technologies that look sustainable may not actually be when one
considers the resources need to construct them, and considering that all
forms of generation have to be constructed over and over because they
don't last forever."



Now that's fine as far it goes, but Sylvia APPEARS to be condemning
renewables (by stating the fact that they consume resources - nothing
new there), but she fails miserably to balance her claim with how much
non-renewables consume, both in construction AND operation,


** What a bonkers thing to complain about.

**Entirely reasonable.

** Completely INSANE !!!

In reality, resources like Lithium are just as non-renewable as coal, gas and oil. They all can be entirely used up at some stage.

**And I draw your attention to these words (by Sylvia):

"I'm all for sustainable power GENERATION..." Note my emphasis.

Again, Sylvia is appearing to deride renewable energy, without backing
her claim with any data or detail.

** You ignored my point so I WIN.

FYI:

Saying the same IDIOT thing over and over explains nothing.

IMO " sustainable power generation " = "renewable energy".

Can't have the former without the latter.

OTOH, and as I already pointed out, one "old school" storage technology excels as it uses gravity to store energy. A truly inexhaustible resource.

**Well, except for those pesky droughts, of course.

** Pumped hydro storage does not rely on rainfall, cos the same water goes up and down, over and over.

When salt water is used, the dam can be immediately filled by pumping soon as it is ready.

Time for you to read the Wiki links I posted.


..... Phil

 

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:

--------------------------


**If Sylvia is claiming that renewable energy sources are LESS
sustainable than (say) coal fired power nukes, etc, then she
needs to prove that claim.

She did not make that claim.Her claim was that current available
resources on a battery type not sufficient to meet some future
likely extreme demand.


**Here is Sylvia's claim:

"I'm all for sustainable power generation, but it's important to
realise technologies that look sustainable may not actually be
when one considers the resources need to construct them, and
considering that all forms of generation have to be constructed
over and over because they don't last forever."



Now that's fine as far it goes, but Sylvia APPEARS to be condemning
renewables (by stating the fact that they consume resources -
nothing new there), but she fails miserably to balance her claim
with how much non-renewables consume, both in construction AND
operation,


** What a bonkers thing to complain about.

**Entirely reasonable.


** Completely INSANE !!!



In reality, resources like Lithium are just as non-renewable as
coal, gas and oil. They all can be entirely used up at some stage.

**And I draw your attention to these words (by Sylvia):

"I'm all for sustainable power GENERATION..." Note my emphasis.

Again, Sylvia is appearing to deride renewable energy, without
backing her claim with any data or detail.


** You ignored my point so I WIN.

FYI:

Saying the same IDIOT thing over and over explains nothing.

IMO " sustainable power generation " = "renewable energy".

Can't have the former without the latter.



OTOH, and as I already pointed out, one "old school" storage
technology excels as it uses gravity to store energy. A truly
inexhaustible resource.

**Well, except for those pesky droughts, of course.



** Pumped hydro storage does not rely on rainfall, cos the same water
goes up and down, over and over.

It's a good thing water doesn't evaporate!
--
Shaun.

"Humans will have advanced a long, long way when religious belief has a cozy
little classification in the DSM*."
David Melville (in r.a.s.f1)
(*Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders)

When salt water is used, the dam can be immediately filled by pumping
soon as it is ready.

Time for you to read the Wiki links I posted.


.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

~misfit~ wrote:

-----------------

It's a good thing water doesn't evaporate!

** In many places, like the east coast of Australia, the evaporation and rainfall figures are fairly similar - about a metre or so annually.

By your logic, no dam is worth building cos it will always be nearly empty.

Care to explain why this is not the actual case ?



..... Phil

 

[news16]

On Tue, 19 Dec 2017 20:42:46 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Now that's fine as far it goes, but Sylvia APPEARS to be condemning
renewables (by stating the fact that they consume resources - nothing
new there), but she fails miserably to balance her claim with how much
non-renewables consume, both in construction AND operation,


** What a bonkers thing to complain about.

In reality, resources like Lithium are just as non-renewable as coal,
gas and oil. They all can be entirely used up at some stage.

Nope. Fundamentally no. Hint, you are comparing an ELEMENT with a large
molecule conglomeration composed of many elements.

 

[news16]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 03:32:43 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

~misfit~ wrote:

-----------------


It's a good thing water doesn't evaporate!



** In many places, like the east coast of Australia, the evaporation and
rainfall figures are fairly similar - about a metre or so annually.

By your logic, no dam is worth building cos it will always be nearly
empty.

Care to explain why this is not the actual case ?

Because all the DAMs I know of have some river feeding water into them.
The worst case would have to be Mangrove Mtn Dm which has almost zilch
catchment and really gets its water pumped in from Wyong & Hunter Rivers.

.... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

news16 wrote:

-----------------

~misfit~ wrote:

-----------------


It's a good thing water doesn't evaporate!



** In many places, like the east coast of Australia, the evaporation and
rainfall figures are fairly similar - about a metre or so annually.

By your logic, no dam is worth building cos it will always be nearly
empty.

Care to explain why this is not the actual case ?


Because all the DAMs I know of have some river feeding water into them.

** Who asked you ???

River flow is not essential to give a dam a *catchment area* several times its own size - making the annual increase in water level way more than the evaporation loss. This negates the effect of even long droughts.

Long as water is not drawn off for other purposes.



..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

news16 wrote:

---------------

Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Now that's fine as far it goes, but Sylvia APPEARS to be condemning
renewables (by stating the fact that they consume resources - nothing
new there), but she fails miserably to balance her claim with how much
non-renewables consume, both in construction AND operation,


** What a bonkers thing to complain about.

In reality, resources like Lithium are just as non-renewable as coal,
gas and oil. They all can be entirely used up at some stage.


Nope. Fundamentally no. Hint, you are comparing an ELEMENT with a large
molecule conglomeration composed of many elements.

** You REALLY need to lay off the skunkweed.




...... Phil

 

[news16]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 04:19:07 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

news16 wrote:

---------------
Phil Allison wrote:

Trevor Wilson wrote:


Now that's fine as far it goes, but Sylvia APPEARS to be condemning
renewables (by stating the fact that they consume resources -
nothing new there), but she fails miserably to balance her claim
with how much non-renewables consume, both in construction AND
operation,


** What a bonkers thing to complain about.

In reality, resources like Lithium are just as non-renewable as coal,
gas and oil. They all can be entirely used up at some stage.


Nope. Fundamentally no. Hint, you are comparing an ELEMENT with a large
molecule conglomeration composed of many elements.



** You REALLY need to lay off the skunkweed.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice. Just in case "skunkweed" is
confusing your understanding; within the known laws of science, Lithium
can not be, in any practical way, created or destroyed, but is easily
recycled. Not so with cosl, oil and quiet a few other things.

..... Phil

 

[news16]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 04:14:25 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

news16 wrote:

-----------------


~misfit~ wrote:

-----------------


It's a good thing water doesn't evaporate!



** In many places, like the east coast of Australia, the evaporation
and rainfall figures are fairly similar - about a metre or so
annually.

By your logic, no dam is worth building cos it will always be nearly
empty.

Care to explain why this is not the actual case ?


Because all the DAMs I know of have some river feeding water into them.


** Who asked you ???

River flow is not essential to give a dam a *catchment area* several
times its own size - making the annual increase in water level way more
than the evaporation loss. This negates the effect of even long
droughts.

So it works in the Dead Sea, the Sahra Desert, and similar places.

Long as water is not drawn off for other purposes.

In any case, pumped hydro is only economically feasible when you continue
to have surplus coal fired power stations, which Australia is running out
of.

.... Phil

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2017-12-20, news16 <news16@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 04:14:25 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

news16 wrote:

-----------------


~misfit~ wrote:

-----------------


It's a good thing water doesn't evaporate!



** In many places, like the east coast of Australia, the evaporation
and rainfall figures are fairly similar - about a metre or so
annually.

By your logic, no dam is worth building cos it will always be nearly
empty.

Care to explain why this is not the actual case ?


Because all the DAMs I know of have some river feeding water into them.


** Who asked you ???

River flow is not essential to give a dam a *catchment area* several
times its own size - making the annual increase in water level way more
than the evaporation loss. This negates the effect of even long
droughts.

So it works in the Dead Sea, the Sahra Desert, and similar places.

Long as water is not drawn off for other purposes.

In any case, pumped hydro is only economically feasible when you continue
to have surplus coal fired power stations, which Australia is running out
of.

it works if you have surplus power on the grid.
it could be from wind for example.

--
This email has not been checked by half-arsed antivirus software

 

[Phil Allison]

news16 wrote:

----------------------

Phil Allison wrote:



** What a bonkers thing to complain about.

In reality, resources like Lithium are just as non-renewable as coal,
gas and oil. They all can be entirely used up at some stage.


Nope. Fundamentally no. Hint, you are comparing an ELEMENT with a large
molecule conglomeration composed of many elements.



** You REALLY need to lay off the skunkweed.


Perhaps you should heed your own advice. Just in case "skunkweed" is
confusing your understanding; within the known laws of science, Lithium
can not be, in any practical way, created or destroyed,

** So it can be all used with none left to make any more of what it makes.

but is easily recycled.

** Still makes it a LIMITED resource.

Once the only source is recycled, you have hit a brick wall for more uses.


..... Phil

..... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

news16 wrote:

-----------------

** In many places, like the east coast of Australia, the evaporation
and rainfall figures are fairly similar - about a metre or so
annually.

By your logic, no dam is worth building cos it will always be nearly
empty.

Care to explain why this is not the actual case ?


Because all the DAMs I know of have some river feeding water into them.


** Who asked you ???

River flow is not essential to give a dam a *catchment area* several
times its own size - making the annual increase in water level way more
than the evaporation loss. This negates the effect of even long
droughts.


So it works in the Dead Sea, the Sahra Desert, and similar places.

** It works in most places that have some rain - fuckhead.

Long as water is not drawn off for other purposes.


In any case, pumped hydro is only economically feasible when you continue
to have surplus coal fired power stations,

** Totally stupid bollocks.

You are still smoking that vile weed I see.



..... Phil


which Australia is running out

of.

.... Phil

 

[news16]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:06:16 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

news16 wrote:

----------------------
Phil Allison wrote:



** What a bonkers thing to complain about.

In reality, resources like Lithium are just as non-renewable as
coal,
gas and oil. They all can be entirely used up at some stage.


Nope. Fundamentally no. Hint, you are comparing an ELEMENT with a
large molecule conglomeration composed of many elements.



** You REALLY need to lay off the skunkweed.


Perhaps you should heed your own advice. Just in case "skunkweed" is
confusing your understanding; within the known laws of science, Lithium
can not be, in any practical way, created or destroyed,


** So it can be all used with none left to make any more of what it
makes.

You and Sylvia should get married. you both have the habit of advancing
extreme limits as some kind of point of argument.

I'll chuck in that it a physical impossibility to use up every source of
the element Lithium, until we start using batteries to launch space
freighter shipping those batteries. There isn't enough space on earth to
store all the batteries,even if they become the new housing building
component.

As I've mentioned previously in this thread, there are plenty of other
sources for Lithium not yet under "mining".

Of course when we do start to use it all up, the world is going to become
a population limited place.
>

 

[news16]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 00:05:39 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:

So it works in the Dead Sea, the Sahra Desert, and similar places.

Long as water is not drawn off for other purposes.

In any case, pumped hydro is only economically feasible when you
continue to have surplus coal fired power stations, which Australia is
running out of.

it works if you have surplus power on the grid. it could be from wind
for example.

Generally no argument, but the issue then become is it better(more
resilient) to have localised generation like wind power/solar(PV,Thermal)
with other battery systems, or to go massive centralised hydro, which is
like putting all our eggs in one basket.

 

[news16]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 16:10:44 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

news16 wrote:

-----------------




** In many places, like the east coast of Australia, the
evaporation and rainfall figures are fairly similar - about a
metre or so annually.

By your logic, no dam is worth building cos it will always be
nearly empty.

Care to explain why this is not the actual case ?


Because all the DAMs I know of have some river feeding water into
them.


** Who asked you ???

River flow is not essential to give a dam a *catchment area* several
times its own size - making the annual increase in water level way
more than the evaporation loss. This negates the effect of even long
droughts.


So it works in the Dead Sea, the Sahra Desert, and similar places.


** It works in most places that have some rain - fuckhead.


Long as water is not drawn off for other purposes.


In any case, pumped hydro is only economically feasible when you
continue to have surplus coal fired power stations,



** Totally stupid bollocks.
You are still smoking that vile weed I see.

Wow, you're really on a hiding to nothing.
Of course, you can always list the other magical power sources to counter
my argument.

 

[Phil Allison]

news16 wrote:

----------------

** What a bonkers thing to complain about.

In reality, resources like Lithium are just as non-renewable as
coal,
gas and oil. They all can be entirely used up at some stage.


Nope. Fundamentally no. Hint, you are comparing an ELEMENT with a
large molecule conglomeration composed of many elements.



** You REALLY need to lay off the skunkweed.


Perhaps you should heed your own advice. Just in case "skunkweed" is
confusing your understanding; within the known laws of science, Lithium
can not be, in any practical way, created or destroyed,


** So it can be all used with none left to make any more of what it
makes.


I'll chuck in that it a physical impossibility to use up every source of
the element Lithium,

** But it IS possible to use up every readily available source.

Makes it a NON renewable resource.

You steaming great FUCKWIT !!!



...... Phil

 

[Phil Allison]

news16 wrote:

----------------

In any case, pumped hydro is only economically feasible when you
continue to have surplus coal fired power stations,



** Totally stupid bollocks.
You are still smoking that vile weed I see.


Wow, you're really on a hiding to nothing.

** In reality - I have beaten you to a pulp several time already.

Of course, you can always list the other magical power sources to counter
my argument.

** Pumped hydro goes perfectly with any intermittent source of power that is available to the pumping station.

Shame how that is way over you totally fucked head.


..... Phil