Range clock - Disconnect it!

Page 10 of 12  
max wrote:

Huh? I think he makes a valid point -- facilities must be designed for peak demand, not average demand.
--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That analysis uses the accounting of debiting peak load deficits against a wind generator is intellectually dishonest. The correct way is to credit a wind generator's output against a conventional plant's fuel consumption.
One watt-hour provided from wind is one watt-hour not required of coal.
Now, if we really really want to persist in that sort of thinking, one might imagine a magical future where somehow the impossible happens and we contravene the laws of thermodynamics by using our wind energy to excite an energy storing oscillator.
But that's impossible, unfortunately, so we could never imagine B-field storage (apropos of which results were recently published of a new apparently b-field-quench resistant (quench-proof?) ceramic superconductor) , nor Ke storage, nor hydrogen storage nor water resevoir storage schema for load leveling. oh, wait.
That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants, and because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
max wrote:

Hi, If we talk about energy saving, how about we start driving smaller vehicles. No monster SUV like Hummer or big gas guzzler V8, V10 engines. Why we need a Hummer going grocery shopping?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You need to get out more.

Nope.
Nope, because conventional plants cant have their load changed quickly.

Wrong, because you cant change the coal plant's output that quickly.

Wrong again.

Pity about what that does to the economics of wind power thats already hopeless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
max wrote: ...

The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of.
Also, I didn't say wind "requires" more fossil and it can replace a fraction of peak demand.
My point was (and still is) that one cannot build a 100(say) MWe wind farm and expect to get 100 MWe from it in the same sense one can build an equivalent 100 MWe of conventional (fossil or nuclear) generation. Hence, the idea many promote that simply building wind farms eliminates the need for conventional generation is imo even more intellectually dishonest.
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You need to get out more.
There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage by pumping water up at time of excess supply from the baseload coal generators and return that power to the system at times of excess demand by letting the water down again. Like the Australian Snowy system that is primarily a storage system for the entire SE Australian grid and generates only a minor part of its output from a single fall of water.

Correct.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:
...

I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage. They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are (a) no hills, (b) no surface water.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you were, you wouldnt have made that stupid claim you clearly did make.

Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.
Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.
AND it aint the only one either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:
...

...
No, I simply don't equate pumped storage w/ electricity storage -- they're separate forms...one _uses_ the (temporarily) excess power to refill the power supply, the other would be a storage of the electric power itself to be used later.

Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains. There would have to be even more currently nonexistent transmission lines built to supply the power to somewhere there is sufficient elevation difference and water to complete the system and that ain't within anywhere close. CO has elevation but very little excess water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have minimal elevations. Catch-22.
Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea, that _STILL_ is an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the wind farm system which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.

Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still ain't the same thing...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yep.
Then you are just plain wrong. That is precisely what they are.

Nope.
They are BOTH storage of electrical power to be used later.

You never said anything about the US High Plains in that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"

Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"

No one ever said it was.

Not when its already in place to allow constant loads on coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.

Wrong, as always when its already in place to allow constant loads on coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.

Corse it is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:

Well, except it isn't...

Except it isn't...

Except it isn't...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It is in some areas, so that stupid claim you made that "we as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of" is just plain wrong.
And that one I listed has wind farms too.

It is in some areas, so that stupid claim you made that "we as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of" is just plain wrong.
And that one I listed has wind farms too.

Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that stupid claim either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
You are!
No, YOU are!
nope. You are!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

the High Plains where there are (a) no hills,

There's pumped storage and there's pumped storage. The kind we usually hear about involve pumping lots of water to an elevated reservoir, and I can see how it might not be a great choice in areas with little water. On the other hand, there is compressed air energy storage, and last I knew, there was air just about everywhere. Not a real widespread technology at the moment, but there is a 110-MW system in Alabama that's been commercial since 1991.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
dpb wrote:

Google "Ludington pumped storage"

--
The e-mail address in our reply-to line is reversed in an attempt to
minimize spam. Our true address is of the form snipped-for-privacy@prodigy.net.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Green is primarily about renewable resources and power nukes aint.
We dont even use breeder reactors for nuke power generation.

Nope. Infanticide would be very green using that test and you wont find too many spruiking infanticide as being very green.

And they hate nukes, so they aint green at all.

Just because wind generation isnt as green as it might be doesnt make nukes green.

Thats not what green is about, thats about how viable a particular technology is.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:

If the "greens" have any serious ideas of affecting CO2, we'll find out shortly as the present 20+ license applications pending at the NRC wend their way thru...
I suspect we'll find they're still only obstructionists at heart... :(
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Nope, they are completely irrelevant to the success or otherwise of those applications.

Or that they just mindlessly hate nukes.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod Speed wrote:
...

Not in any reasonable sense--to make up for the generation lost by switching away from combustion it's going to take more than your definition of green; hence, nuclear will be a major contributor to the reduction in greenhouse gases, specifically CO, if there is going to be any significant reduction (or even maintaining nearly the present level) as there simply aren't going to be enough alternative generation sources available in time.
You can say it isn't green if you want, but it's a nonfunctional definition for accomplishing anything.
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Its not my definition, its the generally accepted use of that term.

Sure, but that doesnt mean that the US system will have a clue on that basic stuff.

It doesnt have to be called green to be able to accomplish something useful.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.