Random fact about battery storage

[news16]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:53:18 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

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.

"
Naah, now you're just digging a bigger hole. "Readily available"; what?
in your back yard. Hint, there is a place of 100 square mile full of it
just there for the mining

Makes it a NON renewable resource.

Basic physics. It will always exist.

You steaming great FUCKWIT !!!
WOT????, Only 3 !!!. disappointed.

 

[news16]

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:59:18 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

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.

Amazing, you keep on deliberatly pointing out how you just don't get the
point. e.g. it makes no sense to run a wind power generator to pump water
to then use the water to generate required power. Unlike your brain, god
doesn't fart 24x365.

PV/Thermal is out as well as they are flat out keeping up with peak
demand when the sun shines, especially on rainy days.

Gas is a non-renewable, like coal.
Nuclear is just another massively expensive and exceedingly dangerous
system.

Wherte is your source?

.... Phil

 

[FMurtz]

news16 wrote:

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.

At least she would know it is an element

 

[FMurtz]

Jasen Betts wrote:

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.

Where do you get enough surplus wind power for this purpose?

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2017-12-21, news16 <news16@woa.com.au> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:59:18 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

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.

Amazing, you keep on deliberatly pointing out how you just don't get the
point. e.g. it makes no sense to run a wind power generator to pump water
to then use the water to generate required power. Unlike your brain, god
doesn't fart 24x365.

It makes no sense not to run the wind turbines just because there's no
demand when they it could be feeding storage.

PV/Thermal is out as well as they are flat out keeping up with peak
demand when the sun shines, especially on rainy days.

what the fuck is that supposed to mean? are you the god of farts
setting a limit on the amount of PV that can be installed?



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

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2017-12-21, FMurtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> wrote:

Jasen Betts wrote:
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.

Where do you get enough surplus wind power for this purpose?

From hypothetical wind farms.

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

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 21/12/2017 9:11 PM, news16 wrote:

On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:59:18 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

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.

Amazing, you keep on deliberatly pointing out how you just don't get the
point. e.g. it makes no sense to run a wind power generator to pump water
to then use the water to generate required power. Unlike your brain, god
doesn't fart 24x365.

PV/Thermal is out as well as they are flat out keeping up with peak
demand when the sun shines, especially on rainy days.

If you build enough PV and wind generation, then there will be times
when production exceeds demand, and you can use it to pump water,
provided you have somewhere to pump it from and somewhere to pump it to.

Unlike with batteries, one can reasonably conceive of pumped storage
systems with sufficient capacity to cover weeks of low production by
other generation. Still costs a lot, though.


> Gas is a non-renewable, like coal.

As indeed are hot-rocks, because they deplete their heat reservoir, and
it takes a long time on human scales to be replenished.

Nuclear is just another massively expensive and exceedingly dangerous
system.

Fusion wouldn't be exceedingly dangerous. If it ever works, and doesn't
required rare materials, it may yet be a large part of the solution.

Sylvia.

 

[news16]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 10:57:39 +0000, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2017-12-21, news16 <news16@woa.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 21:59:18 -0800, Phil Allison wrote:

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.

Amazing, you keep on deliberatly pointing out how you just don't get
the point. e.g. it makes no sense to run a wind power generator to pump
water to then use the water to generate required power. Unlike your
brain, god doesn't fart 24x365.

It makes no sense not to run the wind turbines just because there's no
demand when they it could be feeding storage.

That isn't at issue. The question is how much.

PV/Thermal is out as well as they are flat out keeping up with peak
demand when the sun shines, especially on rainy days.

what the fuck is that supposed to mean? are you the god of farts setting
a limit on the amount of PV that can be installed?

Perhaps if you matched up graphs of insolation and power demands the
penny might drop

 

[news16]

On Thu, 21 Dec 2017 22:05:01 +1100, Sylvia Else wrote:

On 21/12/2017 9:11 PM, news16 wrote:


PV/Thermal is out as well as they are flat out keeping up with peak
demand when the sun shines, especially on rainy days.


If you build enough PV and wind generation,

That is the question, can we?
Like hydro, wind power is limited by the number of sites.
Major PV seems to sterilise the land for other uses.

Unlike with batteries, one can reasonably conceive of pumped storage
systems with sufficient capacity to cover weeks of low production by
other generation. Still costs a lot, though.

Where?

Gas is a non-renewable, like coal.

As indeed are hot-rocks, because they deplete their heat reservoir, and
it takes a long time on human scales to be replenished.

Agreed, but I believe the factor is the engineering at depth to obtain
sufficient core heat available to the system

Nuclear is just another massively expensive and exceedingly dangerous
system.

Fusion wouldn't be exceedingly dangerous. If it ever works, and doesn't
required rare materials, it may yet be a large part of the solution.

They said that about Nuclear at first too. Still waiting. for all its
development, Fusion is still blue sky technology.

Sylvia.

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 21/12/2017 11:56 PM, news16 wrote:
> Major PV seems to sterilise the land for other uses.

That's true, but the total area required isn't that big. A solar array
5km square would generate all the electrical power required in Australia
if the energy could be efficiently stored. There's plenty of room in
Australia, though not necessarily close to where the power is needed
(hence increased cost and power losses).

A somewhat larger array could handle the situation where the energy was
stored but with some losses.

Storage remains the problem. Pumped storage is effective, but one needs
places where a two large bodies of water can be stored, one much higher
than the other, or where the high body is sufficiently close to the sea
to use the sea itself as the low body.

There also needs to be a way of filling the lower body initially and to
handle evaporation losses. This might be a river, or it might involve
pumping water from the sea (the required flow rate is nothing like that
required for operating the station, so the pipes required are smaller).

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

Sylvia Else wrote:

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

On 21/12/2017 11:56 PM, news16 wrote:
Major PV seems to sterilise the land for other uses.

That's true, but the total area required isn't that big. A solar array
5km square would generate all the electrical power required in Australia
if the energy could be efficiently stored. There's plenty of room in
Australia, though not necessarily close to where the power is needed
(hence increased cost and power losses).

A somewhat larger array could handle the situation where the energy was
stored but with some losses.

Storage remains the problem. Pumped storage is effective, but one needs
places where a two large bodies of water can be stored, one much higher
than the other, or where the high body is sufficiently close to the sea
to use the sea itself as the low body.

There also needs to be a way of filling the lower body initially

** Can be the upper one or both.

> and to handle evaporation losses.

** Not significant, rainfall covers it in motr cases even with NO catchment for either dam.

FYI:

This link shows a pumped, salt water hydro plant being planned for South Australia right now.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-leads-again-as-saltwater-pumped-hydro-storage-takes-shape-92608/

Note how the hydro generators and pumps are the SAME machines, installed deep underground. Also, the high dam is only 260m above sea level but about 300m above the machines. Plenty of head.

Response time (standstill to full load) is said to be 150 seconds.

It'll work.


..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/12/2017 2:22 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

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

On 21/12/2017 11:56 PM, news16 wrote:
Major PV seems to sterilise the land for other uses.

That's true, but the total area required isn't that big. A solar array
5km square would generate all the electrical power required in Australia
if the energy could be efficiently stored. There's plenty of room in
Australia, though not necessarily close to where the power is needed
(hence increased cost and power losses).

A somewhat larger array could handle the situation where the energy was
stored but with some losses.

Storage remains the problem. Pumped storage is effective, but one needs
places where a two large bodies of water can be stored, one much higher
than the other, or where the high body is sufficiently close to the sea
to use the sea itself as the low body.

There also needs to be a way of filling the lower body initially


** Can be the upper one or both.

and to handle evaporation losses.

** Not significant, rainfall covers it in motr cases even with NO catchment for either dam.

FYI:

This link shows a pumped, salt water hydro plant being planned for South Australia right now.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-leads-again-as-saltwater-pumped-hydro-storage-takes-shape-92608/

Note how the hydro generators and pumps are the SAME machines, installed deep underground. Also, the high dam is only 260m above sea level but about 300m above the machines. Plenty of head.

It's the net head that counts, which is 260 metres in this case.

The scheme is quite small. The underlying problem is the sheer amount of
water required. With a 260m head, you get only 2550 joules per litre, or
1411 litres per kWh.

For just the daily storage of 3/4 of Australia's total electricity
requirement implies a capacity of 700 million cubic metres - not far
short of 3/4 of a cubic kilometre.

Of course, one wouldn't really put it all in one place, but it shows the
scale of the problem, even before one worries about extended periods of
low PV and wind.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

Stupider than Anyone Else wrote:

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

There also needs to be a way of filling the lower body initially


** Can be the upper one or both.

and to handle evaporation losses.

** Not significant, rainfall covers it in motr cases even with NO catchment for either dam.

FYI:

This link shows a pumped, salt water hydro plant being planned for South Australia right now.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-leads-again-as-saltwater-pumped-hydro-storage-takes-shape-92608/

Note how the hydro generators and pumps are the SAME machines, installed deep underground. Also, the high dam is only 260m above sea level but about 300m above the machines. Plenty of head.

It's the net head that counts, which is 260 metres in this case.

** OK.

The scheme is quite small.

** No - it is just the right size to be commercially viable.

You didn't bother to read the whole article.


..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/12/2017 9:32 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

Stupider than Anyone Else wrote:

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



There also needs to be a way of filling the lower body initially


** Can be the upper one or both.

and to handle evaporation losses.

** Not significant, rainfall covers it in motr cases even with NO catchment for either dam.

FYI:

This link shows a pumped, salt water hydro plant being planned for South Australia right now.

http://reneweconomy.com.au/south-australia-leads-again-as-saltwater-pumped-hydro-storage-takes-shape-92608/

Note how the hydro generators and pumps are the SAME machines, installed deep underground. Also, the high dam is only 260m above sea level but about 300m above the machines. Plenty of head.

It's the net head that counts, which is 260 metres in this case.

** OK.

The scheme is quite small.


** No - it is just the right size to be commercially viable.

You didn't bother to read the whole article.

I did, but commercial viability is not the correct test for large scale
storage capable of handling the worst scenario. That would require a
legal requirement, and government funding. If the market is left to
itself, but not allowed to build fossil fuel generators, then there will
be power cuts.

Sylvia.

 

[Phil Allison]

Stupider than Anyone Else

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

The scheme is quite small.


** No - it is just the right size to be commercially viable.

You didn't bother to read the whole article.


I did,

** But decide to ignore it and change the topic to one you prefer.

Completely wrong to post off topic in a reply.




..... Phil

 

[Sylvia Else]

On 22/12/2017 10:06 PM, Phil Allison wrote:

Stupider than Anyone Else

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



The scheme is quite small.


** No - it is just the right size to be commercially viable.

You didn't bother to read the whole article.


I did,


** But decide to ignore it and change the topic to one you prefer.

Completely wrong to post off topic in a reply.

Might be worth reading my OP to see who was off topic.

Sylvia.

 

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet 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.

You aren't rebutting my logic, you're twisting the narrative in an attempt
to 'win'.

> Care to explain why this is not the actual case ?

Most dams are for water collection, storage and supply. The 'collection'
part means there is a source.

Anyway you've changed this into something it wasn't. My comment was in
response to your statement (which of course you snipped), reinserted below;

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

If there is no input to compensate for evaporation then it wouldn't last
long. Why would you say rainfall isn't needed then reply saying that, on the
East coast rainfall is the same as evaoration?
--
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)

 

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet 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.

Then why say "Pumped hydro storage does not rely on rainfall, cos the same
water goes up and down, over and over."?
--
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)

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

 

[~misfit~]

Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:

Sylvia Else wrote:

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

On 21/12/2017 11:56 PM, news16 wrote:
Major PV seems to sterilise the land for other uses.

That's true, but the total area required isn't that big. A solar
array 5km square would generate all the electrical power required in
Australia if the energy could be efficiently stored. There's plenty
of room in Australia, though not necessarily close to where the
power is needed (hence increased cost and power losses).

A somewhat larger array could handle the situation where the energy
was stored but with some losses.

Storage remains the problem. Pumped storage is effective, but one
needs places where a two large bodies of water can be stored, one
much higher than the other, or where the high body is sufficiently
close to the sea to use the sea itself as the low body.

There also needs to be a way of filling the lower body initially


** Can be the upper one or both.

and to handle evaporation losses.

** Not significant, rainfall covers it in motr cases even with NO
catchment for either dam.

Most cases in Australia? I call bullshit. Put out a large shallow water
storage (like a kiddies paddling pool filled to the top) 'most' places in
Australia and see if rainfall makes up for evaporation. Scale it down if you
like, try a roasting dish...
--
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)

 

[news16]

On Sat, 23 Dec 2017 12:48:29 +1300, ~misfit~ wrote:

Once upon a time on usenet Phil Allison wrote:


** Not significant, rainfall covers it in motr cases even with NO
catchment for either dam.

Most cases in Australia? I call bullshit. Put out a large shallow water
storage (like a kiddies paddling pool filled to the top) 'most' places
in Australia and see if rainfall makes up for evaporation. Scale it down
if you like, try a roasting dish...

Phil goofed off through all his science lessons, and probably a few
other, to miss that vital fact. He's cat cat brain because its water dish
always is full.