The future of the world?

The Finland project is running billions over budget and years behind. And not going to happen any time soon if at all. As for Japan. Quote Problems in stabilizing the Fukushima I nuclear plant had hardened attitudes to nuclear power. As of June 2011, "more than 80 percent of Japanese now say they are anti-nuclear and distrust government information on radiation".[11][12][13] As of October 2011, there have been electricity shortages, but Japan survived the summer without the extensive blackouts that had been predicted.[14][15][16] An energy white paper, approved by the Japanese Cabinet in October 2011, says "public confidence in safety of nuclear power was greatly damaged" by the Fukushima disaster, and calls for a reduction in the nation?s reliance on nuclear power.[17] Many of Japan's nuclear plants have been closed, or their operation has been suspended for safety inspections. The last of Japan's 50 reactors (Tomari-3) went offline for maintenance on May 5, 2012.,[18] leaving Japan completely without nuclear-produced electrical power for the first time since 1970. Despite protests, on 1 July 2012 unit 3 of the ?i Nuclear Power Plant was restarted.[19] As of September 2012, ?i units 3 and 4 are Japan's only operating nuclear power plants, although the city and prefecture of Osaka have requested they be shut down.[20]

formatting link

Reply to
harry
Loading thread data ...

Why do you think that?

Reply to
harry

Reply to
harry

You made it up!

Reply to
harry

Exactly my point.

But TurNiPs reference to steam locomotives is his usual ignorant crap.

Reply to
harry

Shhh. They don't like facts here. Only heresay is allowed.

Reply to
harry

Was that heresy or hearsay?

Reply to
polygonum

Thanks for making my point by agreeing that they can't be turned up when you need them. Not *dispatchable*, you see.

Reply to
Tim Streater

No point in making it up when there are sources available to the general public.

Reply to
The Other Mike

Hence the better use of the term 'availability'

Intermittent renewables have highly variable and more (or less) unpredictable 'availability' which affects not just a single example but the whole national capacity of that technology simultaneously.

Thts is it is extremely unlikely that all coal/nuclear/gas powered power stations would be unavailable on any given day. Its about a once in 5000 years chance.

The chance that (essentially) all wind power will be unavailable on any given day is guaranteed at least 10 times a year. The chances that all solar power will be unavailable is *guaranteed* every night.

Which is why the cost of so doing is proportionately much higher.

This is neatly expressed in the basic engineering principle that benefit from a technology derives from its average output, but most of the cost derives from catering for extreme conditions.

Intermittent renewables have a very low mean to peak capability, and so incur far more expense per average unit generated. In terms of peaks, they need fat cables running long distances to handle the high levels, which mostly are underutilised. In terms of troughs they need 100% backup by some other technology, which is also otherwise highly underutilised.

This is a gross and inefficient use of scarce resources.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You must mean Ferrybridge. A national treasure.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Indeed. and in fact in the days of steam railways,. it was a sign of an incompetent crew in the cab. Unless they are unexpectedly signalled to a stop in a high speed or uphill part of the track.

But surely chucking energy away is what 'green' technology is all about?

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

well it can be, by chucking energy away, harry.

You can't have it both ways.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

More lies.

He didn't.

It is a mistake to judge other people by your own standards, harry.

25% capacity per hour slew rate is typical of big steam plant. Nuclear or coal. CCGT is a bit fastert but that's because the steam plant is actually smaller.
Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

No, it wasnt' your point.

You point was that safety valves were the only way to regulate a steam locomotive. In fact they were rarely used at all.

Although even then you changed the goalpost from 'cant be done' to 'is inefficient to do' as if that actually made your point. It doesn't of course.

In the context of nuclear, since the raw fuel cost is peanuts, throwing energy away is in any case not a huge or costly matter.

Not that it happens.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

IN the small world of harry's mind, there is no discrimination between them.

They are just Bad Words you bandy about to 'poo-poo' other people who know more than you.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

You might think that, but harry couldn't possibly comment.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

That gave me a good laugh!

Reply to
polygonum

ut changing loads as you'll have enough.

What happens to the suplus power in yuor car battery when you're not using it ?

Reply to
whisky-dave

formatting link

Large wind turbines require a large amount of energy to operate. Other elec tricity plants generally use their own electricity, and the difference betw een the amount they generate and the amount delivered to the grid is readil y determined. Wind plants, however, use electricity from the grid, which do es not appear to be accounted for in their output figures. At the facility in Searsburg, Vermont, for example, it is apparently not even metered and i s completely unknown [click here].* The manufacturers of large turbines -- for example, Vestas, GE, and NEG Micon -- do not include electricity consum ption in the specifications they provide.

Reply to
whisky-dave

HomeOwnersHub website 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.