ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 24th September 2019, 10:58 AM   #41
Dr.Sid
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,098
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
But I wouldn't be willing to charge and discharge my battery for nothing in return.

Of course you would get something in return. Money. You might even get money for charging the car at some times during the day.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:09 AM   #42
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,524
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
Of course you would get something in return. Money. You might even get money for charging the car at some times during the day.
If you're not giving me enough money to compensate for the additional wear on my battery, then I'm still operating at a loss in your scheme.

And if you are paying me the full cost, then like Zig says, you could simplify things by cutting out the middleman and just buying a battery of your own. Why even bother trying to set up a system that depends on my battery?
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 01:02 PM   #43
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,155
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
It's also a complete fantasy to build new reactors - the necessary engineering and skill just isn't there. All recent attempts to build a new reactor have run into ridiculous cost and time overruns.
Because Luddites protest and wail and moan about them. I can understand; it must suck to realize that you've been on the wrong side of this issue since the 1970s.

Look, you have three choices: Atomic energy, coal energy, or natural gas energy. Or of course you could harness the power of a unicorn's farts. In the midst of this existential crisis, I am a bit disappointed how many supposed environmentalists are fantasizing about that fourth option.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 01:16 PM   #44
Galaxie
Critical Thinker
 
Galaxie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 448
Has any progress been made on large-scale saltwater batteries? I see Aquion Energy is back from bankruptcy and making batteries again, but I can't find any numbers as far as cost/efficiency/etc.
Galaxie is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 01:19 PM   #45
jadebox
Graduate Poster
 
jadebox's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,607
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
And if you are paying me the full cost, then like Zig says, you could simplify things by cutting out the middleman and just buying a battery of your own. Why even bother trying to set up a system that depends on my battery?
Renting an existing battery in your car would cost the power company less than buying a battery and building the infrastructure for storing it. So the power companies could afford to pay or reward you for the time using your battery and both you and them would benefit.

The battery in my i3 is warrantied for eight years. My car is four years old and the battery is still providing better range than advertised when it was new. So battery degradation isn't a big concern.

If I had the opportunity to charge my car for free at work or even for less than I pay for electricity at home, I would love it. Not only would I save money, but it would be like getting a 25% increase in range for free.

Last edited by jadebox; 24th September 2019 at 01:29 PM.
jadebox is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 01:27 PM   #46
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
Renting an existing battery in your car would cost the power company less than buying a battery and building the infrastructure for storing it.
You've got to build the infrastructure to place all those car chargers all over the place. That's likely to be more expensive because it's so distributed, and because it has to be built well over capacity since you don't know exactly who will be parked where and when. In contrast, there's much less infrastructure to build if you locate your storage next to your generation.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 01:47 PM   #47
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,524
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You've got to build the infrastructure to place all those car chargers all over the place. That's likely to be more expensive because it's so distributed, and because it has to be built well over capacity since you don't know exactly who will be parked where and when. In contrast, there's much less infrastructure to build if you locate your storage next to your generation.
If you're lucky, the car companies and consumers will pay for that infrastructure anyway, and you can piggyback on their investment without having to put in any extra funds of your own.

If you're really lucky, the government will *make* the car companies and consumers build that infrastructure for you, at their expense.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 01:50 PM   #48
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,762
This is a rarely interesting conversation.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 01:53 PM   #49
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,524
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
This is a rarely interesting conversation.
I'm using it to store my surplus energy.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 01:54 PM   #50
catsmate
No longer the 1
 
catsmate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 21,339
Originally Posted by jadebox View Post
The article mentions using discarded electric vehicle batteries as grid storage. But "non-discared" EV batteries are also being used for grid storage.
It's generally more efficient to reduce older lithium batteries for their cobalt and other materials than second-use them.
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.
catsmate is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 02:05 PM   #51
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,694
Originally Posted by BowlOfRed View Post
Grand Coulee study is 76%, but that is just for the facility, not for transport into or out of.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...8&postcount=11

Thanks for that but I find the information contradictory and maybe a bit rubbery. If you add up those "assumed" efficiencies you get a 66% overall without the electric motor efficiency being taken into account, which would lower it even further.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 02:12 PM   #52
Dr.Sid
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,098
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Thanks for that but I find the information contradictory and maybe a bit rubbery. If you add up those "assumed" efficiencies you get a 66% overall without the electric motor efficiency being taken into account, which would lower it even further.
But as I said, even 10% would be better then 0. Those 66% is free energy (not counting cost of the facility).
I am very skeptical about pumped water though. It needs 2 reservoirs, close to each other, with huge altitude difference. I have never seen any plan where these would make for substantial fraction of generated power.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 02:25 PM   #53
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,502
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
You've got to build the infrastructure to place all those car chargers all over the place. That's likely to be more expensive because it's so distributed, and because it has to be built well over capacity since you don't know exactly who will be parked where and when. In contrast, there's much less infrastructure to build if you locate your storage next to your generation.
But that infrastructure has transportation benefits as well, so the cost is not solely justified by providing access to energy storage.

I would like to see that sort of investment in infrastructure, but not to supplement energy storage. That just sounds creepy and weird.

I could see using my own car battery to cover my own energy needs at home during a low power situation or during blackouts, but not contributing to the grid as a whole. I would feel more in control of that situation and would have the comport of saying "Nope, let's just shut her down for a bit. I need to drive somewhere tomorrow." or "Yeah, I'd rather watch Matlock tonight than go to work tomorrow anyway." My battery for my home, I'm good with that.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 02:27 PM   #54
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,502
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Seriously, this idea of pumping water back uphill, while not completely barmy, is a pipe dream in terms of providing reliable backup power for our energy needs. There simply is just not enough water, and not enough places to store it. Hydro-electric power currently provides only 6.1% of our energy needs. The idea that it can provide 100% or so (as it would need to on cloudy, windless days) is delusional.
I'm hoping someone can point to that day on the calendar where it was cloudy and windless across the vast majority of the United States. I keep hearing it mentioned, but I don't recall it.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 02:35 PM   #55
Mikemcc
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,799
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
By definition, it is only feasible upstream from a hydro-electric dam.



The whole point of power storage is to get over the problem that with renewables you have problems generating electricity on cloudy, windless days. But the power you could generate by having water pumped upstream during times of peak generation from wind and solar isn't nearly enough and it isn't reliable.

And let's face it, the whole purpose of this exercise is to try like hell to pretend there's no need to build nuclear power plants.
Erm, not really. In the UK Cruachan and Festiniog both use natural lakes as the lower reservoir.
Mikemcc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 02:45 PM   #56
Mikemcc
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 1,799
Dalhousie University have been working with Tesla and have developed a new Li-ion battery that could help:

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-semi...-mile-battery/
Mikemcc is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 02:51 PM   #57
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 44,851
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
But that infrastructure has transportation benefits as well, so the cost is not solely justified by providing access to energy storage.
There isn't a lot of transportation benefit to be had by charging stations at employers' locations. Most EV's have enough range to not need charging at work. And in fact this idea requires that, since you can't draw on a battery that's mostly run down already. If you're trying to shift loads to daytime and away from nighttime (for example, if you've got a lot of solar), it might make some sense to use charging stations at employers. But in that scenario, the purpose of the shift is to charge batteries during those hours, not to draw from them.

I can even see in such a scenario that you could do opportunistic charging: slow or stop charging if demand on the grid is high, resume when it drops, and so give a bit of discount on the rate. But that doesn't add extra wear on the batteries. Once you want to add extra wear to my battery, you better be compensating me directly.

Quote:
I could see using my own car battery to cover my own energy needs at home during a low power situation or during blackouts, but not contributing to the grid as a whole. I would feel more in control of that situation and would have the comport of saying "Nope, let's just shut her down for a bit. I need to drive somewhere tomorrow." or "Yeah, I'd rather watch Matlock tonight than go to work tomorrow anyway." My battery for my home, I'm good with that.
I agree.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 03:11 PM   #58
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,694
Originally Posted by Dr.Sid View Post
But as I said, even 10% would be better then 0. Those 66% is free energy (not counting cost of the facility).
I am very skeptical about pumped water though. It needs 2 reservoirs, close to each other, with huge altitude difference. I have never seen any plan where these would make for substantial fraction of generated power.

Oh I agree but the cost and volume of water needed may be prohibitive. For those not technical among us here is a little exercise getting things into something understandable:

1 kilojoule = 0.000 277 777 777 78 kilowatt hour
3600 kilojoule = 1 kilowatt hour

1 cubic metre of water has a mass of 1000 kilograms (1 tonne) and a gravitational
force (weight) of 9800 newtons.

The joule is the amount of energy needed to push with a force of 1 newton for a
distance of 1 metre.

The potential energy of 1 cubic metre of water at an elevation of 1 metre is 9800 x 1
= 9800 joules or 9.8 kilojoules.

A 100 watt light bulb burning for 10 hours consumes 100 x 10 = 1000 watt hours
or 1 kilowatt hour of energy.

3600 / 9.8 = 367

Therefore a 100 watt electric light bulb burning for 10 hrs represents the amount of
energy of 367 tonnes of water at an elevation of 1 metre or 3.67 tonnes of water at
an elevation of 100 metres

If I have made an error here please correct me.

On another topic it's interesting to ponder how much energy we consume in food, given something just less than 10,000 kilojoules is recommended a intake per day.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 03:32 PM   #59
crescent
Illuminator
 
crescent's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 3,234
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There isn't a lot of transportation benefit to be had by charging stations at employers' locations. Most EV's have enough range to not need charging at work. And in fact this idea requires that, since you can't draw on a battery that's mostly run down already. If you're trying to shift loads to daytime and away from nighttime (for example, if you've got a lot of solar), it might make some sense to use charging stations at employers. But in that scenario, the purpose of the shift is to charge batteries during those hours, not to draw from them.
I had an idle daydream the other day where most parking lots get partly covered with solar cells. Employees charge their cars at work - not at home. People shopping at the mall can get some power into the batteries while they shop. Watch an afternoon matinee or a nice baseball game and come out to charged batteries in the car. It would flip the current model of charging at home to be ready to drive to and from work. Instead they charge at work or while otherwise out and about to be ready to charge for the drive to and from home.

That also benefits from the idea that a parking lot is already a pretty ideal place to put solar sells. The cars get some cover - here in Colorado, they would get protection from hail (my friend's car was totaled in a hailstorm that failed to damage the solar panels on her roof, although she did have a very difficult time getting the solar company to come out and remove the panels so the house could be re-shingled and then to get the panels put back up again - all at no cost to her at least). No wildlands get destroyed by parking lot or rooftop solar (unlike wind or solar thermal). Parking lot solar would allow Power to get get captured close to where it would be used. Along with big flat-roofed buildings, parking lots seem the ideal place to put these things with far less incidental damage than would occur elsewhere. Meanwhile the panels on your roof store energy in batteries (possibly at your house itself) for use when you get home and through the night.

Shortfalls would be made up via the distributed nature of the grid (it may be cloudy and windless on a given day in Colorado, but Kansas may still be sunny and it will be a cold day in heck before Wyoming has a day with no wind). That, plus the sort of mass battery storage described in the OP article.

This in turn makes electric cars more attractive, so you've got non-carbon emitting electricity production coupled with non-carbon emitting cars. At that point, renewable energy would really start to put the rubber to the road, so to speak, with little crimp on the average lifestyle.

Last edited by crescent; 24th September 2019 at 03:37 PM.
crescent is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 03:43 PM   #60
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,502
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There isn't a lot of transportation benefit to be had by charging stations at employers' locations.
I disagree. The more chargers the better. It would help with range anxiety if you had to run a few errands at lunch and then forgot that you were in charge of getting the carpool to practice. It would be nice to know that every time you walked out to your car at work it was fully charged, just like every time you walked out to your car in the morning.

Frankly it would be a tipping point for me if I had a commute that was more than 20% of my range one way.

Quote:
Most EV's have enough range to not need charging at work.
But that's the whole point: I could get an i3 or a leaf instead of having to pony up for Tesla if I know I can charge at work. Even if I have a 30 mile commute and often run errands during the day or after work.

Quote:
And in fact this idea requires that, since you can't draw on a battery that's mostly run down already. If you're trying to shift loads to daytime and away from nighttime (for example, if you've got a lot of solar), it might make some sense to use charging stations at employers. But in that scenario, the purpose of the shift is to charge batteries during those hours, not to draw from them.
Yeah, that's another reason I don't like the idea of using my car to support the grid.

Quote:
I can even see in such a scenario that you could do opportunistic charging: slow or stop charging if demand on the grid is high, resume when it drops, and so give a bit of discount on the rate. But that doesn't add extra wear on the batteries. Once you want to add extra wear to my battery, you better be compensating me directly.
Yeah, that is already done in some places where the rates are lower overnight. The car doesn't charge until the rates drop.


Quote:
I agree.
Well, that's no fun at all. Couldn't even bitch about Matlock's seer sucker suit fetish?
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.

Last edited by Dr. Keith; 24th September 2019 at 03:46 PM.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 04:42 PM   #61
Dr.Sid
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Olomouc, Czech Republic
Posts: 2,098
There are several interesting aspects to car battery capacity:

1) small is more ecologic. If you compare 50km battery with 100km battery, the big one costs twice as much and takes twice as much resources. If 50km is enough for you, and you can recharge that overnight, it's better.

2) What if you go further away ? It's mostly about charging time. Kilometers per minute. If you can recharge 50km in 15 minutes, on long trip, you will be recharging the same time with both small and big battery. With 50km battery you will recharge twice as often, but each recharge will take half the time. So small is better, right ?

3) Not so simple ! Charging current can be increased for faster recharge time, but there is limit. You can increase this limit as much as you want by stacking the batteries in parallel (as if you were charging two small batteries at the same time).
In other words, large batteries tend to have better charging times, often twice or more, compared to small batteries. So you will indeed spend less time charging on long trip with large battery.

4) Yet another thing. 50km range is plenty for many. But you have to take into account the fact you don't want to charge the battery to 100%, to improve lifetime. Also the capacity will drop over time, typical estimates are 20% over 5 years. And in winter, the capacity will drop again, can be even 30%. In the end you will need at least double range.

IMHO the EVs have already done it. For many applications they are actually cheaper to buy and run, and the progress in prices and range is incredibly fast. They will dominate soon even without governments interventions.
Dr.Sid is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 10:07 PM   #62
BillC
Bazooka Joe
 
BillC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,947
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
Don't have a detailed study or efficiency, sorry. In the case of the Grand Coulee pumped storage system, the generators and motors are one and the same, as are the pumps and turbines. That probably reduces their energy efficiency, but reduces complexity and initial cost. Cable losses are minimal as the pumped system is immediately next to the main power plant and switching system.
Take 70-75% cycle efficiency for pumped storage. This value has not changed significantly in several decades.

(I've worked in the electricity industry for nearly 30 years.)
BillC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 10:17 PM   #63
BillC
Bazooka Joe
 
BillC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,947
Originally Posted by Mikemcc View Post
Erm, not really. In the UK Cruachan and Festiniog both use natural lakes as the lower reservoir.
So do Foyers (Loch Ness) and Dinorwig (Llyn Peris). Commonly, pumped storage uses a natural and large lower lake, and a natural depression, sometimes originally with a small natural lake, that is enlarged for the upper reservoir.
BillC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 10:34 PM   #64
BillC
Bazooka Joe
 
BillC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 3,947
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
If you're not giving me enough money to compensate for the additional wear on my battery, then I'm still operating at a loss in your scheme.

And if you are paying me the full cost, then like Zig says, you could simplify things by cutting out the middleman and just buying a battery of your own. Why even bother trying to set up a system that depends on my battery?
You will own the charging infrastructure -- the battery, its charging controls, its maintenance, the site (i.e. your home), and the electricity supply, thus relieving the system operator from doing all that.
BillC is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:12 PM   #65
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,244
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Because Luddites protest and wail and moan about them. I can understand; it must suck to realize that you've been on the wrong side of this issue since the 1970s.
absolutely incorrect: there are plenty of places that would love to have nuclear power, but they can't find investors who are willing to bind their money for 60 years+ in an uncertain energy market.
And I'm not even taking about decommissioning issues here.

Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Look, you have three choices: Atomic energy, coal energy, or natural gas energy. Or of course you could harness the power of a unicorn's farts. In the midst of this existential crisis, I am a bit disappointed how many supposed environmentalists are fantasizing about that fourth option.
wrong - there are no single choices, there is only the question of an energy mix: we want to replace the worst polluters with the cleanest alternative; and because innovation changes the energy production field so rapidly, we don't want to bind billions in a few, big long-term projects.

But I am 100% for spending A LOT of money on research and prototyping new kinds of nuclear power systems, and into safe and economical ways to deal with the waste.
In 10-20 years, we will probably have some nuclear power systems that can be scaled up or down easily and which can be mass-produced to be economically viable.
But right here and now, this is simply not an option.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:41 PM   #66
Filippo Lippi
Illuminator
 
Filippo Lippi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,038
I charge my Leaf at work > 80% of the time. It's great.

I'd be quite happy driving that work electricity home and powering my house, but not sure about vehicle to grid. There are some trial projects in the UK, so open to being convinced
__________________
"You may not know anything about the issue but I bet you reckon something.
So why not tell us what you reckon? Let us enjoy the full majesty of your uninformed, ad hoc reckon..."
David Mitchell
Filippo Lippi is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th September 2019, 11:46 PM   #67
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,244
Everything that makes driving cheaper and easier will lead to more cars on the streets.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:20 AM   #68
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Everything that makes driving cheaper and easier will lead to more cars on the streets.
What I've found interesting is the underlying assumption that we have to "drop in" something that let's us continue to live exactly as we do at the moment. If climate change is to be mitigated how we live will have to change.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:47 AM   #69
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,155
Originally Posted by Dr. Keith View Post
I'm hoping someone can point to that day on the calendar where it was cloudy and windless across the vast majority of the United States. I keep hearing it mentioned, but I don't recall it.
Yes, of course, we can just send the energy from where it is abundant to where it is needed! But again, since we are talking about renewables, we are going to need a super-adequate supply. Let's say that the cloudy, windless day (and of course the preceding and succeeding sunless, windless nights) only affects 20% of the country. How much excess capacity do you need elsewhere? On average 25% excess, and that's if you're willing to ignore the possibility of problems elsewhere, the variance in seasonal demand (higher in winter and summer, lower in spring and fall), and the not completely insignificant loss of energy during transmission. In short, you are talking about needing a crap-ton of excess energy just to make sure you can keep the lights on.

This is where coal, natural gas and atomic energy step in. Because the power plant operators can virtually turn up or down the power with a flick of a switch, they provide guaranteed electricity. If the renewables are running at full power, then they can idle, waiting for the inevitable demand.

Coal especially and natural gas are not going to get us to net zero by 2030, so it's pretty much down to nuclear.

But there is one problem. If we (say) pursue the policies of the Green New Deal, and shut down old coal, natural gas and and nuclear power plants, and we don't get to the power levels that the economy needs, guess what's going to happen? Those coal and natural gas plants are going to be what we turn to, because those don't require a lot of lead time, while recommissioning a nuclear power plant would take a miracle.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 12:58 AM   #70
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 17,155
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
absolutely incorrect: there are plenty of places that would love to have nuclear power, but they can't find investors who are willing to bind their money for 60 years+ in an uncertain energy market.
And I'm not even taking about decommissioning issues here.



wrong - there are no single choices, there is only the question of an energy mix: we want to replace the worst polluters with the cleanest alternative; and because innovation changes the energy production field so rapidly, we don't want to bind billions in a few, big long-term projects.

But I am 100% for spending A LOT of money on research and prototyping new kinds of nuclear power systems, and into safe and economical ways to deal with the waste.
In 10-20 years, we will probably have some nuclear power systems that can be scaled up or down easily and which can be mass-produced to be economically viable.
But right here and now, this is simply not an option.
And fortunately we have 10-20 years to fiddle around and find out if we can really power the country with solar and wind and a bit of hydro. Because there's no ticking time bomb.

The problem with this approach is obvious. Suppose we draw closer to 2030 and we still have not gotten our production from renewables to the amount needed. And yes, you can put "needed" in scare quotes if you want, it doesn't matter. What do you think the government is going to do?

a) Declare that we are going to have to put up with rolling brownouts that might cripple the economy or

b) Start opening old coal and natural gas-fired plants.

I know which one my money's on, because it's the same option the Germans chose.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:06 AM   #71
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
And fortunately we have 10-20 years to fiddle around and find out if we can really power the country with solar and wind and a bit of hydro. Because there's no ticking time bomb.



The problem with this approach is obvious. Suppose we draw closer to 2030 and we still have not gotten our production from renewables to the amount needed. And yes, you can put "needed" in scare quotes if you want, it doesn't matter. What do you think the government is going to do?



a) Declare that we are going to have to put up with rolling brownouts that might cripple the economy or



b) Start opening old coal and natural gas-fired plants.



I know which one my money's on, because it's the same option the Germans chose.
We are building a new nuclear power station at the moment. The only way to get that built was for the government to guarantee the owners a set minimum price they will receive for the electricity when it goes on line. And we will be stuck with that for literally decades.

The reason why nuclear power is not used more in the world is really down to the economics, they are incredibly expensive and not cost effective. Therefore they require government funding and that then leaves them subject to the ballot box.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th September 2019, 02:08 AM   #72
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,416
Talking about the UKs next nuclear power station...

BBC News - Hinkley Point C nuclear plant to run 2.9bn over budget
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49823305
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 03:36 PM   #73
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 19,502
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Yes, of course, we can just send the energy from where it is abundant to where it is needed!
Yep that is one of the great things about electricity, line losses are manageable.

Quote:
But again, since we are talking about renewables, we are going to need a super-adequate supply. Let's say that the cloudy, windless day (and of course the preceding and succeeding sunless, windless nights) only affects 20% of the country. How much excess capacity do you need elsewhere? On average 25% excess, and that's if you're willing to ignore the possibility of problems elsewhere, the variance in seasonal demand (higher in winter and summer, lower in spring and fall), and the not completely insignificant loss of energy during transmission. In short, you are talking about needing a crap-ton of excess energy just to make sure you can keep the lights on.
Yep, that is why storage is a big issue.

I'm just glad we got past that mythical cloudy windless day that is on the horizon for the entire country.

Quote:
This is where coal, natural gas and atomic energy step in. Because the power plant operators can virtually turn up or down the power with a flick of a switch, they provide guaranteed electricity. If the renewables are running at full power, then they can idle, waiting for the inevitable demand.
Agreed, the problem is that coal sucks. And atomic energy requires long term investment that is threatened by the development of renewables. So we are likely stuck with natural gas which is not ideal.

I'd rather have a mix of renewables/atomic/natural gas, but our more likely best case is renewables/natural gas/atomic/coal.

By the way, does atomic really have ramp up capabilities? I always heard that they were slow to come online and slow to take off line, but I'm not sure.

Quote:
Coal especially and natural gas are not going to get us to net zero by 2030, so it's pretty much down to nuclear.
It appears that renewables are growing while atomic has not seen a new facility come on line in years. Do you really think any new atomic facilities are currently planned to open prior to 2030? I hope there are some, but I haven't heard of them.

I would love for nuclear to step up to the plate, but it just isn't happening. Blame the democrats, blame the Nimbys, blame Three Mile Island, I don't care. I just don't see them being built in the US today, so I have a hard time seeing them being built tomorrow or next year. Whereas every time I drive on the highway west of me I see large convoys of trucks with parts for wind turbines. I saw this a few years ago, I saw it this summer and I will probably be seeing it for the foreseeable future.

Quote:
But there is one problem. If we (say) pursue the policies of the Green New Deal, and shut down old coal, natural gas and and nuclear power plants, and we don't get to the power levels that the economy needs, guess what's going to happen? Those coal and natural gas plants are going to be what we turn to, because those don't require a lot of lead time, while recommissioning a nuclear power plant would take a miracle.
I agree that putting the cart before the horse is wrong, but that doesn't mean that you can't grow renewables and take the oldest and dirtiest plants off-line as their need is eliminated by renewables with good storage.

Which brings it back around to the topic of the thread: storage is really important.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 26th September 2019, 11:32 PM   #74
McHrozni
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,641
Originally Posted by Thor 2 View Post
Oh I agree but the cost and volume of water needed may be prohibitive. For those not technical among us here is a little exercise getting things into something understandable:

1 kilojoule = 0.000 277 777 777 78 kilowatt hour
3600 kilojoule = 1 kilowatt hour

1 cubic metre of water has a mass of 1000 kilograms (1 tonne) and a gravitational
force (weight) of 9800 newtons.

The joule is the amount of energy needed to push with a force of 1 newton for a
distance of 1 metre.

The potential energy of 1 cubic metre of water at an elevation of 1 metre is 9800 x 1
= 9800 joules or 9.8 kilojoules.

A 100 watt light bulb burning for 10 hours consumes 100 x 10 = 1000 watt hours
or 1 kilowatt hour of energy.

3600 / 9.8 = 367

Therefore a 100 watt electric light bulb burning for 10 hrs represents the amount of
energy of 367 tonnes of water at an elevation of 1 metre or 3.67 tonnes of water at
an elevation of 100 metres

If I have made an error here please correct me.

On another topic it's interesting to ponder how much energy we consume in food, given something just less than 10,000 kilojoules is recommended a intake per day.
The calculation seems correct. Consider the following though:

An olympic swimming pool has a volume of 2,500 m3. If you build a pool ten times longer, five times wider and twice as deep you have a pool of 25,000 m3. The pool is 500x125x4m and such not a major engineering challenge. You put it on a mountain 1,000 m up.

You now have 25 million tons of water at 1,000 m, energy of one ton of water at 1 m is 9.8 kJ (as per your calculation), therefore:
25 x 106 x 103 x 9.8 kJ = 245 x 109 kJ

245 kJ = 68 Wh, we'll add the one billion back in in the next line.

The storage of the facility is 68,000 MWh. If the optimal power output is 600 MW (equivalent to a medium sized nuclear power station) that translates into power storage for 113 hours, or 4,7 days.

That's not nearly enough for seasonal storage but it's above and beyond what you need for daily variation. The facility would probably be better served using larger nominal power output, because you lose power with friction.

The largest problem here is you need to build large retention pools on mountaintops or mountain slopes. I can point out to a few areas where you could get pools of 50 km in length if you needed with other dimentions being equivalent or larger (depth in particular).

Grid-level storage using pumped storage is doable, but you'll destroy an area of considerable natural beauty in the process.

Par for the course for humanity.

McHrozni
__________________
لا إله إلا رجل والعلوم والتكنولوجيا وأنبيائه
McHrozni is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 02:04 PM   #75
Thor 2
Philosopher
 
Thor 2's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Brisbane, Aust.
Posts: 5,694
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
The calculation seems correct. Consider the following though:

An olympic swimming pool has a volume of 2,500 m3. If you build a pool ten times longer, five times wider and twice as deep you have a pool of 25,000 m3. The pool is 500x125x4m and such not a major engineering challenge. You put it on a mountain 1,000 m up.

You now have 25 million tons of water at 1,000 m, energy of one ton of water at 1 m is 9.8 kJ (as per your calculation), therefore:
25 x 106 x 103 x 9.8 kJ = 245 x 109 kJ

245 kJ = 68 Wh, we'll add the one billion back in in the next line.

The storage of the facility is 68,000 MWh. If the optimal power output is 600 MW (equivalent to a medium sized nuclear power station) that translates into power storage for 113 hours, or 4,7 days.

That's not nearly enough for seasonal storage but it's above and beyond what you need for daily variation. The facility would probably be better served using larger nominal power output, because you lose power with friction.

The largest problem here is you need to build large retention pools on mountaintops or mountain slopes. I can point out to a few areas where you could get pools of 50 km in length if you needed with other dimentions being equivalent or larger (depth in particular).

Grid-level storage using pumped storage is doable, but you'll destroy an area of considerable natural beauty in the process.

Par for the course for humanity.

McHrozni

True and not only the natural beauty aspect but the ecological impact angle. I add my voice to this in answer to Dr Sid's comment that the efficiency of the storage method is inconsequential.
__________________
Thinking is a faith hazard.
Thor 2 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 02:14 PM   #76
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,349
Originally Posted by McHrozni View Post
An olympic swimming pool has a volume of 2,500 m3. If you build a pool ten times longer, five times wider and twice as deep you have a pool of 25,000 m3. The pool is 500x125x4m and such not a major engineering challenge. You put it on a mountain 1,000 m up.

You now have 25 million tons of water at 1,000 m, energy of one ton of water at 1 m is 9.8 kJ (as per your calculation), therefore:
Dropped a decimal place? Just the "ten times longer" would get you to 25,000 m3.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 02:35 PM   #77
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,983
Originally Posted by RecoveringYuppy View Post
Dropped a decimal place? Just the "ten times longer" would get you to 25,000 m3.
He did. Please change 25,000 to 250,000 = 500 x 125 x 4.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 02:57 PM   #78
8enotto
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 1,296
Garbage is fuel too. NYC among other major cities will process and use it as fuel to make power.

It has the exhaust run through filters that make for near no solids and more heat recovery.
And the trash becomes ash, with benefits to agriculture.

Put a decent recycling effort in front of the burn and it pays twice. An added benefit of less fuel used in transport to another distant area.
8enotto is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th September 2019, 06:55 PM   #79
rjh01
Gentleman of leisure
Tagger
 
rjh01's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Flying around in the sky
Posts: 24,983
Originally Posted by 8enotto View Post
Garbage is fuel too. NYC among other major cities will process and use it as fuel to make power.

It has the exhaust run through filters that make for near no solids and more heat recovery.
And the trash becomes ash, with benefits to agriculture.

Put a decent recycling effort in front of the burn and it pays twice. An added benefit of less fuel used in transport to another distant area.
Not in my backyard. All those trucks! Besides they make them too big so they import rubbish from elsewhere. And then they emit toxic fumes from burning plastics and other materials. This is expensive to control.
__________________
This signature is for rent.
rjh01 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th September 2019, 05:44 AM   #80
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
 
a_unique_person's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waiting for the pod bay door to open.
Posts: 41,315
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
Which part? As far as I can see, it is false only if you have nuclear power or coal power as a backup. Or if you are willing to go without electricity for periods of time.
Australia is just about to build a big pumped hydro power generator the good thing about them is it is low tech and very simple.
__________________
Continually pushing the boundaries of mediocrity.
Everything is possible, but not everything is probable.
For if a man pretend to me that God hath spoken to him supernaturally, and immediately, and I make doubt of it, I cannot easily perceive what argument he can produce to oblige me to believe it. Hobbes
a_unique_person is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:44 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.