Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
chownah
Posts: 7577
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:08 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:44 pm
That gives me a chance to share this scientific paper with a critical reader or two. I don't want to say what I think about it because I don't want to affect your reading of it. Here it is.
Abstract: This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2. Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them.
:reading: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

:popcorn:
Kim
I just thought I'd bump this up to remind everyone about it.
My immediate response was to....to....to.....crush it like the cockroach of an article that it really is but then I didn't want to defame cockroaches......also.....I didn't want to have all the fun and thought I would wait and give someone else first crack at it.

I'll just comment on the first sentence for now:
This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial.
As people became informed about the possible dangers of nuclear power plants as they were designed and constructed at that time they began requiring safer designs and installations. You can call this a "disruption" when it might also be characterized as being "society becoming aware of the possible dangers of nuclear power and demanding better safeguards".
The sentence then goes on to mention the "benefits forgone" because of society becoming aware of the possible dangers of nuclear power....although they don't frame it that way. This abstract doesn't talk about the "disruption" being caused by the need for safety and if they did talk about it then they might have mentioned about how one of the "benefits" which were foregone because of this "disruption" might include hundreds of fukushimas....thousands of corroding tanks (perhaps millions) sitting all around the world containing some of the nastiest substances known to man just waiting to bleed out into the ground, rivers, lakes, oceans all around the world (there is still not a cost allowable method for containing the waste in a manner acceptable to the safety conscious)......high level nearly bomb grade fissionable material attracting terrorists around the world...
More could be said about the rest of the article....I have only commented on the first sentence.
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:07 am

:goodpost:

:thanks:

You've made a good start, chownah. :smile: Perhaps someone else will continue your critique, or start again and go a bit further.

:popcorn:

BTW, I do understand your point about cockroaches. Cockroaches are blameless, unlike the humans who might be compared to them.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by lyndon taylor » Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:16 am

Nuclear power is also incredibly expensive from what I understand.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:23 am

chownah wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:46 am
It appears they are planning on splitting the batteries up into several banks. They are not going dedicate the entire installation to one purpose.
They probably won't do that. With state of the art controls and metering they will just inject what is needed into the grid and monitor it.
I'm told that separating banks used for different purposes is the way it's normally done. That's a battery technology issue. It has to do with usage and re-charging regimes to maximize the life of the batteries. (I know that is the case for lead-acid batteries)

A important question is whether Li-on batteries are the smart, wise, and cost effective battery technology to use for that application. I suspect there are better ones for this type of fixed plant.
Li-on is compact and light weight which makes it good for portable devices and vehicles. There are serious questions about how much lithium is available world wide if countries replace half their gas auto fleet with electric.

Serious people in the solar business think the Tesla power bricks are a bit of a stunt. For a home one can put together conventional deep cycle lead-acid batteries purchased from local sources for quite a bit less than the equivalent in Tesla power bricks.

A key metric for all storage technologies is number of GWh (watt-hours) they can store over their lifetime divided by the tons of carbon released (the cost in carbon emissions) to go from raw materials in the ground to a finished, working battery bank. Plus the carbon emission of operating and maintaining the batteries.

My info is a couple of years old but pumped hydro was the clear winner on costs and emissions. Lead-acid and the newer generation of immersed plate batteries (like lead-acid but with milder liquids) come in second and third.
chownah wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:46 am
This battery has shown without doubt that all of those overblown concerns about the stability of the grid with the use of solar/wind have been laid to rest.
I don't know that "overblown concerns" you are thinking of and what mix of solar/wind and dispatchable power you are speaking of.
. . . The system is not stable with higher penetration levels of solar/wind without sufficient stored power or other means to stabilize it. And even then it's not stable 24/7.
REVISED: With systems like the Tesla bank the grid would not be stable with higher penetration levels of solar/wind without additional similar stabilization plants or other forms of short term stabilization. Even then it's not able to meet demand 24/7 without sufficient backup generation or storage that could supply the grid for several days.

Solar/wind plus a lot more electrical storage plus enough dispatchable generation to cover demands on it's own without help from solar/wind -- those three factors would be one combination that would work.
If you disagree then explain your solution.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:22 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:56 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:23 am
chownah wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:46 am
It appears they are planning on splitting the batteries up into several banks. They are not going dedicate the entire installation to one purpose.
They probably won't do that. With state of the art controls and metering they will just inject what is needed into the grid and monitor it.
I'm told that separating banks used for different purposes is the way it's normally done. That's a battery technology issue. It has to do with usage and re-charging regimes to maximize the life of the batteries. (I know that is the case for lead-acid batteries)

A important question is whether Li-on batteries are the smart, wise, and cost effective battery technology to use for that application. I suspect there are better ones for this type of fixed plant.
Li-on is compact and light weight which makes it good for portable devices and vehicles. There are serious questions about how much lithium is available world wide if countries replace half their gas auto fleet with electric.

Serious people in the solar business think the Tesla power bricks are a bit of a stunt. For a home one can put together conventional deep cycle lead-acid batteries purchased from local sources for quite a bit less than the equivalent in Tesla power bricks.

A key metric for all storage technologies is number of GWh (watt-hours) they can store over their lifetime divided by the tons of carbon released (the cost in carbon emissions) to go from raw materials in the ground to a finished, working battery bank. Plus the carbon emission of operating and maintaining the batteries.

My info is a couple of years old but pumped hydro was the clear winner on costs and emissions. Lead-acid and the newer generation of immersed plate batteries (like lead-acid but with milder liquids) come in second and third.
chownah wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:46 am
This battery has shown without doubt that all of those overblown concerns about the stability of the grid with the use of solar/wind have been laid to rest.
I don't know that "overblown concerns" you are thinking of and what mix of solar/wind and dispatchable power you are speaking of.
The system is not stable with higher penetration levels of solar/wind without sufficient stored power or other means to stabilize it. And even then it's not stable 24/7.

Solar/wind plus a lot more electrical storage plus enough dispatchable generation to cover demands on it's own without help from solar/wind -- those three factors would be one combination that would work.
If you disagree then explain your solution.
Leeuwenhoek2, you have far too many vague, irrelevant and out-of-date statements here - and just plain old guesses - to be taken seriously (I have given in to temptation and helpfully bolded a lot of them), and far too few references. If you want to add to our knowledge rather than subtracting from it, I think you should do some research.

:namaste:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7577
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:09 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:23 am

Serious people in the solar business think the Tesla power bricks are a bit of a stunt. For a home one can put together conventional deep cycle lead-acid batteries purchased from local sources for quite a bit less than the equivalent in Tesla power bricks.
Great! I guess then that the lead acid battery industry must be booming beyond belief.....is it?
chownah

chownah
Posts: 7577
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:40 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:23 am

The system is not stable with higher penetration levels of solar/wind without sufficient stored power or other means to stabilize it. And even then it's not stable 24/7.
This is absolutely preposterous.....wind/solar with enough storage will be stable 24/365. If you disagree then please bring the facts of why....where is the instability going to come into this scenario?.....presently the best system for stabilizing a grid is large lithium ion battery installations like the Tesla Neoen. It stabilizes a grid better than any previous technology ever operated on the grid I think.....I would love to get some information showing that I am wrong as I am always eager to learn more about this stuff and I always recognize that what I have learned might be wrong.
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:11 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:56 am
Leeuwenhoek2, you have far too many vague, irrelevant and out-of-date statements here - and just plain old guesses - to be taken seriously (I have given in to temptation and helpfully bolded a lot of them), and far too few references. If you want to add to our knowledge rather than subtracting from it, I think you should do some research.
I hope the serious reader appreciates that there is research behind my recent posts. I am no dabbler. Just a few years ago I lived off-grid with a renewable electric power system I put together and maintained myself. I've put in the time reading technical literature and technical blogs. Furthermore it's quite unreasonable to ask for references on everything from an unpaid writer. Especially so when the complaining parties do little to no research or citation themselves.

-----------------------------------------------
On a personal note, it looks to me like I'm doing most of the 'heavy lifting' here. I wouldn't 'waste' my time here except to get some feedback (including from 'deniers') with the knowledge that the work may get picked up and used by others.

There is, in my opinion, a serious problem of 'over the top' assertions and proclamation by Buddhist leaders and Buddhist activist or campaigner groups. Tragic because their statements are neither necessary for the goal, ethical or contribute to wise understanding. Instead they tend to increased polarization, to scandal and perhaps understandable denunciation.

It's ironic that Kim Ohara's responses to Leeuwenhoek2 posts are rarely supported by evidence or research; gives little evidence of 'want[ing] to add to our knowledge rather than subtracting from it'; and does little evident work but complains when others don't do more. Kim, it seems is blind to the internal contradictions and behavior. I fail to see the compassion in that.
<Corrected text>

Kim if you really 'want to add to our knowledge rather than subtracting from it' then stop this trolling like behavior and do what you demand from others.
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:58 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:45 am

chownah wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:40 am
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:23 am
The system is not stable with higher penetration levels of solar/wind without sufficient stored power or other means to stabilize it. And even then it's not stable 24/7.
This is absolutely preposterous..
Read the quote again. I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.

chownah wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:40 am
...wind/solar with enough storage will be stable 24/365. If you disagree then please bring the facts of why....where is the instability going to come into this scenario?.....presently the best system for stabilizing a grid is large lithium ion battery installations like the Tesla Neoen. It stabilizes a grid better than any previous technology ever operated on the grid I think.....I would love to get some information showing that I am wrong as I am always eager to learn more about this stuff and I always recognize that what I have learned might be wrong.
** "I would love to get some information showing that I am wrong as I am always eager to learn more about this stuff ".
Me too. I'm frustrated at how hard it is to find. It's partly due I'm lead to believe because there are a number of unknowns including technology not proven at scale. People have told me that they like the way I put together diverse information in useful ways so I thought I'd try on this topic.

With enough storage I can power anything forever. It always been known that we can go %100 solar/wind with enough raw materials and money.

See previous post -- there are trade-off's between the carbon emissions, other environmental impacts, availability of raw materials and costs of such large scale solar/wind which makes nuclear power look much more attractive in the next 50 years. That is why a majority of climate scientists (says James Hansen), general scientists (AAAS poll) and nuclear scientists and engineers favor some level of nuclear power in the mix.

Your other questions have been addressed in recent posts.

Short term stabilization, which is what the articles seem to indicate is the goal, obviously requires much smaller batteries than long term support of large loads for hours or days.

The challenges increase sometimes dramatically with higher and higher levels of solar/wind. The same for replacing larger amounts of fossil powered generation with stored electricity. Currently there are inflection points reported at about %20 penetration and again at about %40 - %45.

The use of inverters or other electronic means of high precision stabilization seems to be a key factor for high precision stabilization. How valuable that extra precision is to the grid? I don't know.

Another is the instantaneous and sustained availability of power. With spinning generators (spinning reserves) the inertia of the rotors act as a flywheel. This is one way the system stabilizes itself without solar or wind. But there can be a gap between the time the flywheel starts to slow down and additional driving power (water, steam, diesel motor) can compensate. Again, with lower levels of solar/wind (less than %20) the existing systems are said to be able to work.

Filling in that gap is where some kind of battery systems shine. On the other hand ... Extra flywheels, capacitors/ultra-capacitors, solar or wind banks held in reserve for that purpose or batteries all could provide the extra instantaneous power. DC booster motors on the generators could take power from batteries or solar/wind bank reserves to fill in the lag if needed.

With conventional generators a % of max power (capacity) is held in reserve for providing stabilization and "load following". Finely tuned modern systems run at about %92 of capacity. I don't know how much additional reserve capacity generators have to hold back in order to stabilize solar/wind power which doesn't supply its own stabilization. That is one of those pieces of data that are hard to find. But the generators complain that they are paid by how many gross MWh they produce, not how much stabilization they provide. So the payment incentives need to be changed.

--------------------------------
** "Presently the best system for stabilizing a grid is large lithium ion battery installations."
It works -- but is a li-on battery required to make it "the best"? Two different questions. When second best is also good enough then do you use cost and other impacts to decide?
I'm saying that what is "best" remains to be seen -- I don't know of a good study that has looked at lithium ion battery vs. other battery technology vs. ultra-capacitors. It works -- but is it the "best"? Best based on what qualities? A previous post reported on the installation in California that provided high quality stabilization using only solar panels.

chownah
Posts: 7577
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:44 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:45 am
chownah wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:40 am
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:23 am
The system is not stable with higher penetration levels of solar/wind without sufficient stored power or other means to stabilize it. And even then it's not stable 24/7.
This is absolutely preposterous..
Read the quote again. I think we are saying the same thing in different ways.
Having looked back at the exchange between us on this issue I can see a few places where our thinking may have diverged. I won't belabor the point by trying to track them down and bring them up for discussion.
What I am saying is that I interpreted what you say here to mean that even with sufficient stored power or other means to stabilize it that the grid would not be stable 24/7.....in other words I took this to mean that you are saying it is impossible to stabilize the grid 24/7 with storage.....i.e. what does "And even then it's not stable 24/7." mean?
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:43 am

The system is not stable with higher penetration levels of solar/wind without sufficient stored power or other means to stabilize it.. And even then it's not stable 24/7.

Solar/wind plus a lot more electrical storage plus enough dispatchable generation to cover demands on it's own without help from solar/wind -- those three factors would be one combination that would work.
If you disagree then explain your solution.

OK. Point taken. On it's own the first paragraph is wrong. The next paragraph corrects it.
I should have written:
  • With systems like the Tesla bank the grid would not be stable with higher penetration levels of solar/wind without additional similar stabilization plants or other forms of short term stabilization. Even then it's not able to meet demand 24/7 without sufficient backup generation or storage that could supply the grid for several days.
Does that correct the problem?

In the first sentence I was thinking in terms of systems like the Tesla project recently installed in Australia. The available information indicated it was mostly dedicated for short term stabilization.

chownah
Posts: 7577
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:42 am

Yes, I agree with your updated version.
chownah

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 5007
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:55 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 1:11 am
There is, in my opinion, a serious problem of 'over the top' assertions and proclamation by Buddhist leaders and Buddhist activist or campaigner groups. Tragic because their statements are neither necessary for the goal, ethical or contribute to wise understanding. Instead they tend to increased polarization, to scandal and perhaps understandable denunciation.
Can you give some examples?
It's ironic that Kim Ohara opinions are rarely supported by evidence or research; gives little evidence of 'want[ing] to add to our knowledge rather than subtracting from it'; and does little evident work but complains when others don't do more. Kim, it seems is blind to the internal contradictions and behavior. I fail to see the compassion in that.

Kim if you really 'want to add to our knowledge rather than subtracting from it' then stop this trolling like behavior and do what you demand from others.
:strawman: as well as rude.
I already do, most of the time. Pick any one page of this thread, or any one page on the "Climate change recent data" thread, and see how many contain no references. If you can find a page on which I post multiple times but don't provide multiple links, show us - and I will duly apologise. If you can't find such a page, I will expect an apology from you.

:coffee:
Kim

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Corrections to recent posts

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Fri Jan 12, 2018 1:57 pm

chownah wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:42 am
Yes, I agree with your updated version.
Chownah, you show once again that virtually everyone's writing can be improved by a critical reader/reviewer. You correctly identified my mistake. I've made the change in the original post.

-------------------------------------
My critique of Kim Ohara's recent post was overbroad. It is more accurate to say that:

. "It's ironic that Kim Ohara's responses to Leeuwenhoek2 posts are rarely supported by evidence or research; "


-------------------------------------
https://www.greentechmedia.com/squared/ ... o-darn-low Xcel reality
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... fessionals projections
https://www.greentechmedia.com/squared/ ... th-in-2017
Wind Energy Still More Expensive Than Nuclear Reactors Halted for Cost Overruns. August 02, 2017
--http://environmentalprogress.org/big-ne ... t-overruns
US Energy Information Administration (EIA) Levelized Cost and Levelized Avoided Cost of New Generation Resources in the Annual Energy Outlook 2017 https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/el ... ration.pdf
100% clean and renewable wind, water, and sunlight (WWS) all-sector energy roadmaps for the 50 United States Jacobson, et al. 2015 ; Energy Environ. Sci., 2015,8, 2093-2117
--http://pubs.rsc.org/-/content/articlela ... c5ee01283j
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar
--http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722.full


http://grist.org/climate-energy/this-yo ... ate-needs/
https://grist.org/article/its-time-to-g ... te-change/
http://www.cnn.com/2013/11/03/world/nuc ... index.html
In 2016: solar provided 1.3% of the world’s electricity(301 GW installed) == Nuclear reactors provided 10% of the world’s electricity


http://environmentalprogress.org/sierra-club
http://www.consumerwatchdog.org/dirty-hands
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-ne ... ean-energy
https://theconversation.com/explainer-b ... -too-89924
https://wwa.climatecentral.org/analyses ... 2017-2018/
http://mashable.com/2018/01/11/frigid-w ... 8ninnxbmqw
-------- By Country
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... n-december
  • Saudi Arabia, the world’s biggest oil exporter, plans to award contracts in December for the construction of its first nuclear-power plants, according to a government official involved with the project. ... The kingdom has received requests from five bidders from China, France, the U.S., South Korea and Russia to perform the engineering, procurement and construction work on two nuclear reactors...
  • Saudi Arabia is seeking to diversify its economy and lessen its dependence on oil sales for most of its official revenue. As part of these reforms, the country wants to meet a larger share of its energy needs from renewables such as solar power and from nuclear plants.
  • Its neighbor the United Arab Emirates plans this year to complete the first of four reactors.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... di-project

-------- Lithium Reserves -------------------------
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... -battery-m
https://seekingalpha.com/article/409461 ... mand-price
https://www.statista.com/statistics/268 ... worldwide/
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017 ... ry-future/ We’re Going to Need More Lithium -There’s plenty in the ground to meet the needs of an electric car future, but not enough mines.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... s-coal-gas
https://phys.org/news/2017-02-sodium-ion-batteries.html wrote:Lithium-ion batteries have become essential in everyday technology. But these power sources can explode under certain circumstances and are not ideal for grid-scale energy storage. Sodium-ion batteries are potentially a safer and less expensive alternative, but current versions don't last long enough yet for practical use.

-------- Solar Panel Toxic Waste Disposal --------- Nothing is %100 renewable
https://asia.nikkei.com/Tech-Science/Te ... els?page=1
http://environmentalprogress.org/big-ne ... ste-crisis
-------- Terminology
http://energynumbers.info/capacity-factor-of-wind
  • The capacity factor is the average power generated, divided by the rated peak power. is also known as the load factor.
  • To calculate the average power generated, just divide the total electricity generated, by the number of hours.
  • If we could do what economists do, and just assume that all other things are equal, then yes, a higher capacity factor is better than a lower one – but all other things vary in important ways, so that would be a useless assumption.
  • For any given decent wind site, the developer could choose turbines that would give a capacity factor of 1%, or a capacity factor of 80%, or anything in between. It’s an economic decision. ... a developer could choose a turbine with very long blades, and very low rated electronics, so it would generate its peak rated power pretty much any time when there was more than a breeze, and that would result in a capacity factor at a typical onshore wind site of about 80%, but it would deliver much much less electricity almost all the time.
  • A developer could choose a turbine that gave them an 80% capacity factor, and they might save a bit of money on buying the turbine and contracting the grid connection, but the reduction in energy generated would be far greater, so the return on investment would be much worse. The very high capacity factor would be a bad business decision, for the developer and for the energy system as a whole. So maximising the capacity factor would be a bad decision: it would be almost all the same costs, but with a lot less energy generated.
  • The maximum possible power at any one moment will be determined by the wind speed, but the actual power generated can be anywhere between zero and that value, and it can be rapidly varied up and down within that range, to provide frequency-control and other balancing services to the grid (this has been referred to in the scientific literature as synthetic inertia, and some grid controllers are already harnessing these services, allowing wind turbines to increase grid stability).
Wind Power Could Blow Past Hydro’s Capacity Factor by 2020
Measure decrease when dispatchable sources are used more for peaking power and/or stabilization
  • Capacity factor is the ratio of a generator’s annual power production to the power it could have produced if it ran at 100 percent rated capacity 24/7.
  • The capacity factor for conventional dam-based hydroelectricity is lower -- in the 40 percent range -- owing to its use as flexible, load-following supply. Despite the continuing shuttering of coal capacity, hydro’s capacity factor has been slowly declining ...
  • barring another wind drought ... these tools could help America’s wind industry surpass the capacity factor of hydroelectricity, in a symbolic passing of the baton for the 21st century.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... or-by-2020
  • The net capacity factor is the unitless ratio of an actual electrical energy output over a given period of time to the maximum possible electrical energy output over the same amount of time.
  • The maximum possible energy output of a given installation assumes its continuous operation at full nameplate capacity over the relevant period of time.
  • The actual energy output over the same period of time and with it the capacity factor varies greatly depending on a range of factors.
  • The capacity factor can never exceed the availability factor, or the fraction of downtime during the period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor
Last edited by Leeuwenhoek2 on Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:34 pm, edited 12 times in total.

chownah
Posts: 7577
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:09 pm

There has been some interest in this thread about the neoen-tesla battery in south australia and here is the first article which I have seen which explains a bit of the technical side of what that battery is doing for the grid but yet in a mostly understandable way:

A month in, Tesla's SA battery is surpassing expectations
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-month-tes ... =item-menu

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 28 guests