Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

On 4/07/2024 9:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:

Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.

>
It isn't even cheaper then.
Some of us have run the numbers...
>
Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but that ignores
- the shorter lifetime of the windmill
- the capacity factor of the windmill
- the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.

>
But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes.
>

It is not massive.
In fact its trivial.

We've needed that kind of repository for some seventy years now, and the late Lou Vance, one of my friends from my time as an undergraduate, spent most of his post-Ph.D. in Australia's CSIRO Synroc project.
https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc-facility
We've got the technology. but we still haven't got any repository.

How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last?
Will they ever be returned to Green Field
Who will pay for it?
 

Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to make a silk purse out of a pigs ear...

>
It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk purse.
>
If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an option.
>

Of course it is
More lies
 

"The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with special control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core without shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual PWR reactor to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases markedly as it progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is considerable scope for running a fleet of reactors in load-following mode. European Utility Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new reactor designs must be capable of load-following between 50 and 100% of capacity with a rate of change of electric output of 3-5% per minute. The economic consequences are mainly due to diminished load factor of a capital-intensive plant."
>

Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make best use of capital when you have any hydro.

So we are going to spend squillions to develop new tech which will still most of the flaws of what we've got now?  Grow up.

Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this

https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/
It's a start-up, founded by Bill Gates, which is looking for venture capital.
https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-announces-830-million-secured-in-2022/
I'd wait until somebody from the Linux community got interested.

Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and battery storage is even more flexible.
>
You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

 Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional turbines.

Ignorant nonsense. Battery-inverter combination are quite fast enough to do it very well, and the first big battery anywhere
https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/
surprised everybody by making a lot more money out of providing short term - cycle to cycle - grid stabilisation services than it did out of buying power from the grid when it was cheap and selling it back to grid when it wasn't. The longer-term buffer service still made quite enough money that the Australian electricity distribution companies are investing a lot of capital in buying and installing more of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station
is the hydro-power version of that, and with 175 hours capacity it's huge. It's also coming on a lot more slowly than had been hoped.
Buying loads of lithium ion batteries and wiring them up is much more predictable process than digging tunnels though rock.

It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up overnight, or wind grid operational in a flat calm.

If it were big enough, it would. In practice, part of the industrial electricity market is flexible and you seem to be able to negotiate your way through the occasional period of flat calm.

And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it.

Not that you can cite any such published claim.

Consumers do instead,

More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go along.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
--
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com