Grid and Electric Vehicles

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!!!!!!!!!

> > 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.

> > > > 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!

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

Sorry, Bozo, but heat pumps AREN'T stirling engines.

> > 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.

> > > 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.

> 
> 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 BRAIN-DEAD IDIOTS such as yourself, so they will NOT put all of their eggs into the renewable basket. Hawaii might be the exception, however.

> 
> -- 
> Bozo Bill Slowman, Sydney

Bozo's Sewage Sweeper

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.

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

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 

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.

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

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

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 

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.

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