|
Post by David B. Benson on Jul 27, 2022 7:14:26 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Oct 4, 2022 2:49:25 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 15, 2022 12:35:37 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Nov 2, 2022 6:52:04 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 24, 2022 13:33:13 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Dec 31, 2022 8:52:20 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jan 4, 2023 13:32:12 GMT 9.5
Net Zero Isn't Possible Without Nuclear The Editors/Bloomberg 30 Dec 2022 Washington Post This remarkable opinion piece is available, with insightful commentary by Valerie Gardner of Nucleation Capital, here: nucleationcapital.com/net-zero-needs-nuclear/
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Jan 7, 2023 4:57:20 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Feb 16, 2023 6:23:15 GMT 9.5
Curtailment is not the enemy 2023 Feb 15 PV Magazine www.pv-magazine.com/2023/02/15/curtailment-is-not-the-enemy/This strange article states that 10%—40% overbuilding of solar and wind results in a 100% renewable power grid. Presumably there is (unstated) storage. Even then, of course, long duration lulls and clouds cannot be tolerated, despite the implication of the article. Might usually work in Switzerland.
|
|
|
Post by huon on Feb 25, 2023 10:40:46 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Mar 14, 2023 17:46:54 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Mar 15, 2023 10:49:32 GMT 9.5
With Heat From Heat Pumps, U.S. Energy Requirements Could Plummet By 50% Michael Barnard 2023 Mar 14 CleanTechnica
Heat pumps are about 3 times as efficient.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 12, 2023 5:35:30 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Apr 14, 2023 1:11:17 GMT 9.5
One major issue that is almost pathologically ignored by renewables enthusiasts is how to get power from wind and solar generators to the end user. Musk is saying we need 30 TW of wind and solar plus batteries. He ignores the transmission issue entirely. 30TW several times today’s global electric grids capacity. That is like rebuilding all electric grids, built at great cost and effort over the last few centuries, several times over - in the span of mere decades!!
1. What will this cost 2. Who will pay for it 3. How much steel, copper, aluminium and other metals, not to mention fossil fuels, are required to build, operate and maintain this future behemoth grid?
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 14, 2023 1:55:38 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Apr 14, 2023 18:02:24 GMT 9.5
Not really the right thread though. My concerns are on a global scale - powering the world is about more than putting up enough wind and solar, it has to be connected to a grid. Delivered when and where it is needed and spatial and temporal mismatch must be resolved at local, regional and national level at every second, minute, hout, day, year heck decade. If we need to 5x global electric transmission infrastructure to make a wind and solar powered world then that is a huge red flag and a total non starter for renewable energy. And 5x may be a severe underestimate. See Devanney’s paper. Most of the renewable energy is dumped to make a predominant wind and solar grid. But you need the grid capacity to dump loads as well. We could well be looking at 10x electric grid capacity. Which is firmly in the “ forget about it” category.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Apr 29, 2023 6:37:50 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by cyrilr on Apr 30, 2023 18:18:58 GMT 9.5
Decent analysis, except for the claim of lower global primary energy consumption by 2050. Considering tech development (more server farms etc.) and the general growth in affluence and population, we absolutely have to plan for a lot more Global primary energy consumption, not less. Yes, electrifying everything we can will bring efficiency improvements, but that isn’t nearly as big as the increase in demand from new tech, affluence and population growth. Heck over a billion people have little or no access to electricity at all!
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 10, 2023 3:50:34 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on May 21, 2023 12:31:36 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Jun 4, 2023 12:37:57 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Sept 21, 2023 9:51:38 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 23, 2023 12:46:22 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 1, 2023 4:02:42 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by huon on Dec 3, 2023 13:35:07 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 4, 2023 3:48:41 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 4, 2023 7:17:02 GMT 9.5
Consider the Korean APR 1400 PWR as a successful and highly replicated, conservative, nuclear power plant which has been exported: Economic Evaluation of Long-term Operation of NPPs in Korea Kihyun Lee et al. 2015 Oct 29–30 Trans. Korean Nuc Soc. Autumn Meeting www.kns.org/files/pre_paper/34/15A-435이기현.pdfFrom Table III, 6% discount and 30 years extended operation, with 90% capacity factor (achievable these days despite refueling), and as conversion of 0.00077 US$/Won, an LCOE of $0.027/kWh. So run as baseload, compare (Slide 9, previous post) to PV-battery hybrid @ $0.030/kWh, obtainable for the intermediate load in sunny locations. But if run as intermediate load follower @ 60% capacity factor, again from Table III, an LCOE of $0.039/kWh shows that the hybrid is to be preferred when there is enough sun. So excepting Sweden and other cloudy places, it appears that an appropriate mix of PV-battery hybrids (~30%) and APR 1400s (~70%) is most economic for typical electric power applications when completely ignoring the effects of the introduction of electric cars and also new applications of electric power when the cost is extremely low. Of course I have ignored all the other generator and storage possibilities in the above. Feel free to make your own prognostications of future electric power demand daily variations.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Dec 5, 2023 19:16:40 GMT 9.5
Consider the Korean APR 1400 PWR... an LCOE of $0.027/kWh. So run as baseload, compare... to PV-battery hybrid @ $0.030/kWh Thank you for spelling out a comparison of nuclear electricity with and without PV-battery hybrid. I question the figure of 0.030 $/kWh for baseload generation by PV firmed by batteries. I guess the capital cost for a battery is about 300 $/kWh capacity. To achieve $0.030 per kWh cycled, would require the battery to be fully cycled 10,000 times – the number of days in ~30 years. Even that is neglecting the capital discount, the cost of the PV farm and the transmission lines connecting it to the grid. And amortisation should be factored in as well – how many times can such a battery be cycled before it needs to be replaced? Forget the batteries! The PV operator could hire a heat store from the nuclear plant operator for much less cost.
|
|
|
Post by David B. Benson on Dec 6, 2023 3:52:44 GMT 9.5
Consider the Korean APR 1400 PWR... an LCOE of $0.027/kWh. So run as baseload, compare... to PV-battery hybrid @ $0.030/kWh Thank you for spelling out a comparison of nuclear electricity with and without PV-battery hybrid. I question the figure of 0.030 $/kWh for baseload generation by PV firmed by batteries. … Forget the batteries! The PV operator could hire a heat store from the nuclear plant operator for much less cost. The notion ‘battery’ includes any suitable storage, which might be so-called long term storage for which see the thread by that name. Just heat isn’t suitable as that requires a Rankine cycle (usually) turbine and generator @ a miserable ~30% efficiency. One possible is a flow battery en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_batteryand I can attest to its virtues as we have a small one here, see reference 57, which has eliminated even the flickers on the grid occasioned by summer lightning strikes. While a vanadium flow battery will certainly last at least the 25 years obtainable by the solar PV panels, vanadium is in short supply and the substance is not to be idly handled. There are other flow battery technologies; see the thread on battery concepts. In any case, I know of nobody proposing to power their portion of a grid solely from solar power plus a store.
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Dec 6, 2023 9:49:46 GMT 9.5
Ah, so the PV+batteries achieving .03 $/kWh was purely "notional"? I would say that "fictional" is more accurate. Yet the concept of 100% RE+batteries is routinely chanted off worldwide, with passion that you'd expect from preachers and uncritical acceptance you'd expect of the faithful. What is hidden by the passion is the fact that such systems rely heavily on fossil gas for firming. Major exporters of fossil gas such as UAE and Australia enthusiastically recently embraced tripling renewable energy worldwide. You can see why. Heat stores have always been practical stores for intermittent generators. When used alone with RE, their thermal efficiencies have been limited by low top temperature, and thermal losses between periods of draining and reheating. When shared with a steam-driven generator (such as a NPP), the top temperature can be maintained by the bigger brother, diverting heat to it whenever the RE injects power into the grid. Westinghouse is promoting the A300 NPP with a 1.2 GWh, ten-hour storage for an Alaskan installation to firm wind generation nearby. Westinghouse is also proposing a longer lived storage (200+ h) of hot water driving an sCO2 cycle. Such long-term storage is necessary for any RE system to contribute power significantly across the seasons. Without storage, it is theoretically impossible for random generators to provide on-demand power. Loud voices insist that gas is only a transition fuel, until it does become theoretically possible. Yes, and pigs might fly.
|
|