GHung wrote:I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.
To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.
Yonnipun wrote:I wonder why even talk about nuclear when there is no solution to the nuclear waste problem.
Exactly. Nuclear also has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.GHung wrote:I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.
To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.
kublikhan wrote: Nuclear ... has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.
kublikhan wrote:Exactly. Nuclear also has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.GHung wrote:I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.
To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.
Umm, that is what dispatchable means vtsnowedin:vtsnowedin wrote:kublikhan wrote:Exactly. Nuclear also has fuel costs, higher decommissioning costs, etc. That is why you can't look at purchase prices alone. Levelized costs are better, but even then apples/oranges comparisons are difficult because of the non dispatchable nature of solar/wind.GHung wrote:I'm not sure how useful these apples/oranges comparisons are. A nuclear plant requires a large crew 24/7/365. The medium to large solar installations in my area are monitored remotely and require no on-site personnel. They get cleaned and inspected once or twice a year. I spoke to a couple of guys at a site on a friend's farm last spring and that's all they do; contract to clean and inspect large solar arrays.
To run at near full capacity, nuke plants need complex load balancing schemes or (wait for it) some form of storage like pumped hydro. PV plants can use the same storage. Electrons don't care how they are produced or where they get parked to wait for their chance to do work.
A nuclear power plant can be throttled up or down withing a range as needed by the grid and on a fairly quick response time. No it is not running 100 percent all the time but it is giving you the amount of power you need when you need it not just when the sun shines or the wind blows.
Levelized CostsBecause load must be balanced on a continuous basis, generating units with the capability to vary output to follow demand (dispatchable technologies) generally have more value to a system than less flexible units (non-dispatchable technologies), or than units using intermittent resource to operate. The LCOE values for dispatchable and non-dispatchable technologies are listed separately in the tables, because comparing them must be done carefully.
In conclusion, this report suggests that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the entire global human population. There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today. Inevitably, this leads to the conclusion that the existing renewable energy sectors and the EV technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution. It is recommended that some thought be given to this and what that something else might be.
In conclusion, this report suggests that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the entire global human population. There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today. Inevitably, this leads to the conclusion that the existing renewable energy sectors and the EV technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution. It is recommended that some thought be given to this and what that something else might be.
Pops wrote:The biggest mistake we make is looking at the future through the lens of the present. Say, thinking that since the average rich-worlder today drives 15,000 miles a year to choose from 57 varieties of deodorant that the success or failure of our society is gauged by the preservation if not increase of such statistics.
The post-fossil world will be as different from today as today is from the pre-fossil world: that is my trope. I hope we can ride the fossils down to a soft, renewable landing. I would be happy to know that my great grandkids (not to mention myself) will have lights and some radio, if not refrigeration.
Mustard wrote:Wind energy fails because Betz's law. Engines only work by damaging themselves. Engines require external energy or pressure to work, and wind is uncompressed, so it can never work.
Pretend a gas turbine has a eroi of 10 at 30x pressure. A wind turbine has a eroi of 1:3 because it's doing the same thing without pressure. If you accept fossil fuel eroi you must accept renewable eroi, because it's doing the same thing just worse.
That's why all the arguments for renewables are self defeating because your proposing the same thing but lower pressure. It's air pushing on air. The air pushing on the turbine is the same as the air causing friction. There is no pressure to rescue this relationship. In a gas turbine all the gas is pressurized to go in the same direction so no drag. In a wind turbine there's no pressure. It's air pushing on air.
Solar has the same problem. The very act of collecting solar energy is due to weakening the bonds that hold the panel together. The reason photosynthesis works in nature is that it doesn't actually matter. It's just nutrients (eg phosphate, nitrate) being supplied as external energy so their bond energy can be used. These nutrients form on their own non-deterministically, ie, you can't force their production.
The mass of fertilizer in a plant root system, about 10kg or 1% volume, is greater than the dry mass of a plant. The plant is merely a product of chemical bond energy transfer at a 10/1 loss to the original mass. It doesn't generate any energy, it consumes it from the chemical bonds of the surrounding area. Photosynthesis is merely a way to consume the provided energy.
Engines require a gradient to work. You can't just use disorganized natural energy to create energy. It's air pushing on air or electrons pushing on electrons. It has no structure and can't result in anything.
Solar panels break chemical bonds to form other ones and are therefore a perpetual motion machine
That is why many of the biggest aluminum smelters are in Quebec where hydro power cost just two cents per KWH.theluckycountry wrote:A
According to Alcoa, the world’s largest producer of aluminium, the best smelters use about 13 kilowatt hours (46.8 megajoules) of electrical energy to produce one kilogram of aluminium; the worldwide average is closer to 15 kWh/kg (54 MJ/kg).
http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2011/07/15/ ... aluminium/
vtsnowedin wrote:
That is why many of the biggest aluminum smelters are in Quebec where hydro power cost just two cents per KWH.
Aluminum Mining in Canada:
Most aluminum mining in Canada is found in Quebec, where producers follow world-class environmental standards outlined by the Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining initiative.
theluckycountry wrote:vtsnowedin wrote:
That is why many of the biggest aluminum smelters are in Quebec where hydro power cost just two cents per KWH.
This is an example of Solution Bias whereby a person makes an assumption based on their beliefs.Aluminum Mining in Canada:
Most aluminum mining in Canada is found in Quebec, where producers follow world-class environmental standards outlined by the Mining Association of Canada’s Towards Sustainable Mining initiative.
https://www.canadaaction.ca/aluminum-mi ... nada-facts
As you can see, the reason why many of the biggest aluminum smelters are in Quebec is because the aluminium is mined in Quebec. It's just a coincidence that the cheap power is there. Down here they find the aluminium, open a mine, build a coal power station and smelter nearby, and typically build a port to ship the product.
This is the case with most mines, it's a Hell of a lot cheaper to refine the ores onsite that to transport mega tons of what will end up as tailings to another location. I have seen this principle in play from open cut sand mines to underground mines. It's the model, the only one that makes the operation viable. Coal mines and oil 'mines' etc are different because nearly 100% of the mined material becomes product.
Return to Peak oil studies, reports & models
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests