Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables

On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote:

On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote:
 

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

 
Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the
sun.

Are you aware of the mechanics involved ?

I take it from the fact you suggested it you aren't.