Chalo
100 TW
A commercially viable, working thorium cycle reactor is amazing good news. A Chinese nuclear cargo ship is terrifying news.
-
Howdy! we're looking for donations to finish custom knowledgebase software for this forum. Please see our Funding drive thread
Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear
- Thread starter Hillhater
- Start date
Hillhater
100 TW
. I posted this in the Alternative Energy forum, but thought it was relavent here also…..
A new method of comparing the full costs of different grid generation options that allows for the intermittent character of wind and solar, +the storage needed to enable continuity of supply, and additional infrastructure requirements..
Based on data from Germany and Texas.
Levelised Full System Cost of Electricity (LFSCOE) vs LCOE
papers.ssrn.com
However, this is still not the full comparason as they are still using a common life expectancy of 30 years, when we know that coal and Nuclear will last much longer, whilst wind and batteries will be lucky to survive 20 years without major repairs or total replacement !
A new method of comparing the full costs of different grid generation options that allows for the intermittent character of wind and solar, +the storage needed to enable continuity of supply, and additional infrastructure requirements..
Based on data from Germany and Texas.
Levelised Full System Cost of Electricity (LFSCOE) vs LCOE
Levelized Full System Costs of Electricity
Different electricity generating technologies are often compared using the Levelized Costs of Electricity (LCOE), which summarize different ratios of fixed to vpapers.ssrn.com
However, this is still not the full comparason as they are still using a common life expectancy of 30 years, when we know that coal and Nuclear will last much longer, whilst wind and batteries will be lucky to survive 20 years without major repairs or total replacement !
Hillhater
100 TW
Err ?…. You may want to check your maths ..!
i figure you might need ten of those containers….…..
or just one of the 200-300 MWSMRs.
but yes, i see the point , …a far more sensible option
Chalo
100 TW
Crushing it, surely.
Nikola’s Milton Needs Long Prison Term as Deterrent, US Argues
Nikola Corp. founder Trevor Milton should serve about a decade in prison for misleading investors about the future of the electric truck maker, US prosecutors said.
www.bloomberg.com
This looks like a great example of somebody on the wrong side of an issue (TheBeastie) creating a fanciful narrative to obfuscate the truth. But who knows, maybe it isn't what it looks exactly like.
Hillhater
100 TW
The LCOE is useful to compare GENERATION costs up to a point , but makes some major assumptions for key factors like operational life and efficiencies/ capacity factors etc .
Some versions have recognised that some systems are intermittent and unpredictable , but have only made token attempts ar making them comparable by the (limited) use of battery storage.
None seem to accept the reality the real situation where fosil fueled generators are the actual back up for shortcomings of wind and solar.
For battery back up to be effective for most possible W& S shortages, the capacity would have to be huge and effectively financially impractical
Also whilst some LCOE models make allowances for modifications to infrastructure ..transmission and distribution etc,..it is very obvious from current proposals in Australia, that those allowances are hugely underestimated. Trillions of $$s are needed to rebuild grid networks for the introduction of remote RE generation, and Add in the essential FCAS infrastructire to maintain stability as rotational plant is retired.
Much of this is still not factored into this LFCOE model either !
Some versions have recognised that some systems are intermittent and unpredictable , but have only made token attempts ar making them comparable by the (limited) use of battery storage.
None seem to accept the reality the real situation where fosil fueled generators are the actual back up for shortcomings of wind and solar.
For battery back up to be effective for most possible W& S shortages, the capacity would have to be huge and effectively financially impractical
Also whilst some LCOE models make allowances for modifications to infrastructure ..transmission and distribution etc,..it is very obvious from current proposals in Australia, that those allowances are hugely underestimated. Trillions of $$s are needed to rebuild grid networks for the introduction of remote RE generation, and Add in the essential FCAS infrastructire to maintain stability as rotational plant is retired.
Much of this is still not factored into this LFCOE model either !
Last edited:
TheBeastie:
I decided to leave the post there anyway because it was my post and maybe some else good can come from it, I also considered it as a bit of a troll move just to generate some discussion.
: And I decided to delete it. :
It's not wise to post shit.
JackFlorey
100 kW
So you think solar+storage does not take into account the need for solar backup? Hmm.
In addition, one of the reasons that many utilities are switching to solar for new generation is manpower. Labor is expensive, unreliable and prone to things like strikes. Solar and storage have minimal manpower requirements compared to, say, nuclear, which needs huge amounts of manpower for security, operations, maintenance, safety etc.
Hillhater
100 TW
Exactly, … because it is inpossible to know how much backup is needed !
….only a continuous generator of the same capacity can do that…. EG:.. Germany.
Most LCOE calcs that include battery back up, only factor in 4 or 8 hours ..a token gesture !
Hillhater
100 TW
Definitely….but that is all reflected in those LCOE calculations.
However, that simply means that the cost/MWh from the generator is higher…..but, it does not mean that the LFSCOE cost is higher , after all the external costs are included for Wind and Solar, before it reaches the consumer. !
So , that is why Wind and Solar are attractive to the operators of a generation business, but it does not mean the consumer get a good deal.
Voltron
1 MW
Seems like a good deal for these consumers...
www.yahoo.com
Tiny island makes history using only wind and solar power for 28 days straight: ‘We need to continue to implement renewable energies’
Before the power plant opened in 2014, the island used thousands of tons of imported diesel fuel each year for energy.
JackFlorey
100 kW
Yep. Pumped hydro is a great complement to intermittent renewables.
Hillhater
100 TW
Maybe.. maybe not !…
detailed data is not available, because the costs are subsidised by the Spanish government,…
…but experts have estimated the cost of generation is over €1000/MWh
..and the system is yet to provide more than 50+% of the islands annual electricity demand due to wind variability and lack of sufficient storage !
28days of high winds is not a full year .
Diesel Driven: World’s First “Net-Zero” Wind Power/Pumped Hydro System A Dismal Failure
The climate/RE cult’s latest mantra “net-zero”, apparently means wind and solar connected to batteries or pumped hydro. The notion has it that wind and solar’s hopeless intermittency can be overcom…
stopthesethings.com
Voltron
1 MW
You keep making the argument that renewables are more expensive than fossil fuels, but you never include the long term costs of the pollution from continuing to use the fossil fuels.
Hillhater
100 TW
Which might be what exactly ?
..compared to the cost of having unplanned , and unpredicted, electricity supply failures and blackout situations ?
Which might be what exactly ?
Hillhater
100 TW
Ever had a true full blackout ?…not just local, but regeonal or even statewide ?
..only then do you realise how much you depend on a reliable electricty supply.
Whilst most people can rig up temporary lighting, maybe even keep their fridge on for a few days, unless you are a full prepper, fuel for generators would be unavailable as gas pumps wont work,
utility back up generators for hospitals etc only have a limited amount of fuel available.
airtravel & airports cannot operate with communications and control systems down
Most solar systems wont work with out grid voltage,…even if there is any sun !
Utilities like town water, sewerage, and gas, all depend on an electricity supply.
cellphone networks and internet lines wont function, so communications are limited
electronic payment systems are disabled,
store fridge/ freezers cut off
stores sell out of essentials ..water, milk ,flour, canned foods, etc
It very quickly becomes a state of emergency and possible social dissorder
Then there is the small problem of doing a “Black startup” on a primarily Wind/solar grid !
Our whole society has developed around a cheap, available, and reliable energy supply via the grid.
Last edited:
Voltron
1 MW
And if a couple of billion people have to become climate refugees, or die in massive heat waves, or starve in crop and fish die offs, well, at least we had cheap electricity for a while there.
And in the future, if the worlds most populous country has to spend all it's electricity on air-conditioning to stay alive, with no money left for anything else, it's in the future. They're figure it out by then, right?
And in the future, if the worlds most populous country has to spend all it's electricity on air-conditioning to stay alive, with no money left for anything else, it's in the future. They're figure it out by then, right?
Hillhater
100 TW
.What you fail to accept is that the climate will continue to change, as it always has, no matter how we generate electricity or power or vehicles.
CNN !
People will become “climate refugees” because they have been told they can find a cooler climate somewhere else.
Or they could learn to live in warmer climates as many other countries do
www.worldatlas.com
maybe take a few lessons from Libya where 55+C is not uncommon.
India had “air conditioning”.. (Punkah: The Hand Operated Ceiling Fans of Colonial India), before they had electricity. !
And when will we see this “cheap electricity” ?
Every country / state that have replaced fossil energy with RE has experienced dramatically INCREASED electricity costs!
CNN !
People will become “climate refugees” because they have been told they can find a cooler climate somewhere else.
Or they could learn to live in warmer climates as many other countries do
The 10 Hottest Countries In The World
The following figures were calculated by taking the collective average of the annual temperatures between 1991 and 2020.
www.worldatlas.com
India had “air conditioning”.. (Punkah: The Hand Operated Ceiling Fans of Colonial India), before they had electricity. !
And when will we see this “cheap electricity” ?
Every country / state that have replaced fossil energy with RE has experienced dramatically INCREASED electricity costs!
Last edited:
JackFlorey
100 kW
Nope. It will change far faster as we add greenhouse gases. This has been demonstrated, and is simple science.
They will become climate refugees as:
1) Their countries become too hot to survive in. Humans cannot survive wet bulb temperatures above 95F. Again, science.
2) Their countries experience drought due to higher average temperatures, making it difficult or impossible to maintain their water supplies and sources of food.
3) Their countries are lost to sea level rise and erosion as ice retreats. (i.e. Nuatambu and Mararo)
We are already seeing them. They will get far, far worse as time goes on. Sticking your head in the sand and denying science will not make them go away.
Voltron
1 MW
CNN is fine, as it's the same articles as quoted other places, but without a paywall.
But are you really suggesting that India should go back to hand operated fans as their temperature surges to unlivable levels, so that you can keep getting your cheap electricity and not be inconvenienced?
And I'll state it again, and you'll probably ignore it again, but electricity that's cheap in the short term, with severe long term costs, is a fools bargain, paid for real suffering by those least responsible for the problems.
But are you really suggesting that India should go back to hand operated fans as their temperature surges to unlivable levels, so that you can keep getting your cheap electricity and not be inconvenienced?
And I'll state it again, and you'll probably ignore it again, but electricity that's cheap in the short term, with severe long term costs, is a fools bargain, paid for real suffering by those least responsible for the problems.
Voltron
1 MW
Hillhater
100 TW
Please site examples.
Anyone who believes climate science is simple , is fooling themselves.
all of those situations are just speculation of possible outcomes of significant climate change, which has yet to be realised Anf could well result from the planets natural climate cycles…( i hope we can agree that the planet has been both hotter and colder in the past with accompanying floods, droughts, and variations in sea levels ?)
Populations , Civilisations, etc have flourished and suffered, relocated and rebuit as their environment has changed, .
There is no reason for that not to continue,…
..but it is foolish to think that humans can control the Planets climate by manipulating a tiny fraction of one trace gas in the atmosphere.
There is NO science that proves that theory is possible,.….…
….. but many examples to show predictions based on those theorys are invalid.
Hillhater
100 TW
Ahh ?….so are you now agreeing that fossil fuel/Nuclear generated electricity is cheaper than Wind and Solar generation ?
Remember, nothing is a “forever” solution, Fossil fuels are are cheap, effective and reliable source of energy currently.
We certainly need to find an alternative , but it must be just as reliable and effective whilst remaining affordable.
Unfortunately Wind and Solar are none of those, and their further intervention into our utility supplies could not only result in an unreliable power system, but also lead to economic upheaval.
so i just propose we should retain the current prooven systems until our real scientists develop some other viable alternative.
Chalo
100 TW
I'm pretty sure he's taking about the extreme high costs of externalities in the case of fossil fuels. When you account for those, fossil energy is probably the most expensive kind currently used. It's most likely even more expensive than nuclear fission after accounting for millennia of waste storage and security.
JackFlorey
100 kW
Sure.
The instrumental temperature record proves the Earth is warming up. Temperature: Instrumental Records | EARTH 103: Earth in the Future
We know that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases. This can be confirmed in a high school science lab. Simple measurements demonstrate that CO2 is a greenhouse gas contrary to claim in online blogs The Greenhouse Effect Experiment and Lesson for Kids https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsos.192075
If the warming of the Earth was caused by, say, the Sun getting warmer, the entire Earth (including the upper atmosphere) would get warmer. If the warming of the Earth was caused by more greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere, then the lower atmosphere would get warmer, and the upper atmosphere would get colder since there is less re-radiated longwave radiation to warm it. And in fact that is what we see. NASA Satellites See Upper Atmosphere Cooling and Contracting Due to Climate Change - NASA
A second way to verify that is to actually look at the outgoing longwave radiation via satellite. We have done so and have confirmed that it is dropping. Again if the sun was warming the planet that would increase, not decrease. Trends in spectrally resolved outgoing longwave radiation from 10 years of satellite measurements - npj Climate and Atmospheric Science
The only people who think climate science is simple are the people who think that the sun is responsible for all changes in climate - which is a popular climate change denial approach. "It's the sun, stupid!" It's the Sun, Stupid (The End of Global Warming) - Civitas Institute
I just listed a few places where it has already been realized. The Western drought is another example. Even if everything stayed exactly the same in terms of precipitation, warmer temperatures will cause more drought due to faster evaporation and less snow left on mountains for summer water supplies.
It's no longer a question of "what happens when climate change warms the Earth?" We now know it's happening. We know that it has already caused droughts, flooding and stronger storms. The only remaining question is how quickly it will get worse.
Unfortunately for people like you, we now have hard data that shows we have done just that. The amount of science you have to deny to claim that 1) we are not releasing CO2 2) we are not warming and/or 3) the two have nothing to do with each other is massive, and getting more massive every year. Pretty soon you'll be in flat Earther territory.
Similar threads
