Author Topic: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide  (Read 8332 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #50 on: February 10, 2019, 07:44:46 pm »

 There’s pollution in major cities to consider as well.

One of the things I see the EV proponets professing is the no tailpipe angle and  The mention of moving the pollution from the cities to the country.... or out of the cities, wherever they think that is.

I don't think that is at all a rational or creditable upside.

Again, we are all on the big blue marble and moving the garbage from one spot to another does not get rid of it, it's merely making it someone elses problem.  Not good enough in my book. There is a lot of disdain for the west shipping Ewaste for instance to the 3rd world countries so to me moving the pollution out of the cities to else where is a cop out as well.

If the initiative does not reduce the problem in it's entirety then it's better not to squander resources going sideways, just keep  marking time. I'n the long run it IS the best alternative even if it is boring, unfashionable and doesen't make big biz any more bucks.

Here in Oz we have the green sentiment shoved down our throats at every turn.  Most places also have plenty of sunshine and there is Miles of roof space in the suburbs for PV.
While there is a known and unquestioned predicted shortage of power in the next few years, the ability of homeowners to to provide for their own power needs and others with domestic solar is severly limited.  We are allowed 5Kw or less in some places on single phase and generally limited to 10 Kw in 3 phase if we want to claim the solar credits which greatly reduce the cost of systems.

The excuse given is that the grid can't cope with too much feedback and voltage rise becomes an issue. And it IS an excuse, nothing less.  I have had people who claim to be electrical engineer etc tell me it is a real thing, an engineering problem but when I ask if there is no way said problem can be overcome and how do they do it in other places where they encourage PV and other RE to be fed back into the system, they begrudgingly admit it can be done but at a cost.

There is always money to be spent on solar and wind farms and a lot of other useless crackpot ideas but when it comes to localised generation where the power will be right where it is used, where it can be employed without taking up any more land, disturbing habitats or having ANY negative effect, It is restricted as much as possible.

Domestic PV need no transmission lines to take power for miles, I doubt anywhere in Sydney it would have to travel 5, probably even 3KM to find a place where all the power in an area would be consumed.  Shopping centres, factories, offices, schools, hospitals, Phone exchanges, water and sewage pumping and so it goes.  Not to mention the ridiculous amount of housing units that are being thrown up her ( or falling down) where there is no generation but a lot of consumers in a very small area.

If the system was upgraded so the full potential of rooftop PV could be realised, maybe there would be enough power to charge ev's  or at very least the demand on the failing grid would be greatly reduced.  Have the homes pumping all the PV they can back into the system and have all the EV's charging during the day while people are at work. That way they drive home and don't need to charge the car.

Hell, I might even play devils advocate and suggest there may be a way of plugging the cars in to give a certain amount of discharge  to offset the night time useage again.  Have enough power with reserve to get back to work and charge up again from the domestic generated PV. may not by your PV but you might be using someone elses and they using yours. All good in the end.

There is no need to go building solar farms, taking up land and costing tax payers billions that go into the coffers of global entities.
Let the individual foot most of the bill for which they will get a return on their investment and the gubbermints will also through various ways if not direct income.
Be happy to turn the power plants down during the day, crank them up  in the evenings and on overcast days if need be.
Be happy with the substantial savings made and don't be greedy professing a want it all , want it now impractical attitude.

The fly in this practical and utopian ointment is the power cos.
They don't want people generating their own power and infringing on their revenues and yearly earnings.  They want to make money first and foremost and stuff anything or anyone else, especially the environment.

And that is where it all falls apart.  Green concern is nothing but an act like a reality TV show and why nothing worthwhile will ever be done unless there is MORE revenue in it to fit the growth models of business and Gubbermint.
 
The following users thanked this post: Barryg41, GeorgeOfTheJungle

Offline NANDBlog

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4264
  • Country: nl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #51 on: February 10, 2019, 07:52:09 pm »
Seriously, you are describing the "greens" as some kind of moron hippis.
 You are aligning yourself with this group of people, you are "one of them".

Farmers??
Pickup Truck Drivers?
Car show exhibitors??

Ah yes, the hypocrisy of the greenwashed.  Do as we say not as we do.

It is called "rolling coal", they are really special people, modifying their trucks to make as much pollution as possible.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_coal
The rest... Look, I dont have neither the time nor the patience to answer for your strawman argument.
And luckily, I dont need to convince you. Governments all over the world think alike, and despite people like you, we are switching to green energy. I really wish you would learn how to argue...

And no, the global warming model wasnt proven wrong. Someone linked two websites, which is not proof. I'm not even going to adress that temperature is somehow "lagging behind", somehow defying physics.
Anyway, luckily there is this ignore function on this forum.
 
The following users thanked this post: Someone, m98

Online tautech

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 14798
  • Country: nz
  • Taupaki Technologies Ltd. NZ Siglent Distributor
    • Taupaki Technologies Ltd.
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #52 on: February 10, 2019, 08:30:23 pm »
The fly in this practical and utopian ointment is the power cos.
They don't want people generating their own power and infringing on their revenues and yearly earnings.  They want to make money first and foremost and stuff anything or anyone else, especially the environment.

And that is where it all falls apart.  Green concern is nothing but an act like a reality TV show and why nothing worthwhile will ever be done unless there is MORE revenue in it to fit the growth models of business and Gubbermint.
All of this ^.

AND if any govt has the balls to do what's right for their ppls by stomping on this anti-competitive behavior they risk big biz capital flight offshore and a slump in their $$$ currency and imported goods pricing jumping through the roof.  :horse:
The capitalist model is not perfect, far from it.  :(
Avid Rabid Hobbyist
 
The following users thanked this post: Barryg41, GeorgeOfTheJungle

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #53 on: February 11, 2019, 03:02:33 am »
It is called "rolling coal", they are really special people, modifying their trucks to make as much pollution as possible.

Sorry, I don't own a truck like that so how you believe I have any affinity with them I have no idea.  I in fact have run my Vehicle for the last 16 years on veg oil so in fact I'll bet my backside I have caused infinitely less pollution than you have running fossil fuels.
My solar panels also generate more power than I use so if you want to get into a penis measuring contest over who is the most environmentally responsible out of the 2 of us, Lob it out and we'll get the ruler.

Quote
The rest... Look, I dont have neither the time nor the patience to answer for your strawman argument.

Funny how people suddenly run out of time and inclination to debate when they are shown to be completely wrong . More like they don't have any salient points to argue and don't want to be proven wrong again.
 If I had the inclination, i'll bet if I checked  you will have the time to make plenty of posts in the next week or so.

Quote
Governments all over the world think alike,
Yeah well I can't agree with you more there! Unfortunately they all think as badly as each other and tend to copy one anothers flawed policys and ideals as well as doing what their big business puppet want them to dance to the tune they play for them instead of doing what is best for the people they are supposed to serve.
On this we agree.

Quote
and despite people like you, we are switching to green energy. I really wish you would learn how to argue...

Yes we are switching to green energy and what a complete and utter fiasco it has been even this early in the game.
As for learning to argue, Clearly I can argue well enough that you don't want to loose any more face.

Quote
And no, the global warming model wasnt proven wrong. Someone linked two websites, which is not proof. I'm not even going to adress that temperature is somehow "lagging behind", somehow defying physics.

Yeah, they have all been proven wrong.
I have been reading the whining of some local green goobers crapping on about our record warm temps here a couple of weeks back are proof the sky is falling and chicken little is about to get roasted.  unfortunately they are too ignorant to realise in other parts of the world they are having a severe cold spell which would negate the heat waves and all the polar ice caps melting and all that crap. They also fail to acknowledge the proof that the world has always been in a state of temp fluctuation and many High temp records were set in the early 1800's, well before the globull scamming BS was thought up.


Quote
Anyway, luckily there is this ignore function on this forum.

OK, I didn't know that. I have the ability to be able to read differing viewpoints without having to shield myself from them less I get too upset or whatever it is.
Some people do not have that intestinal fortitude or self control so I highly encourage those to use that function in order to protect their delicate sensitivities. 
Unfortunately many  that say they will use this feature don't which is a real shame.

Be so much better for everyone if they did.
 
The following users thanked this post: GeorgeOfTheJungle

Offline f4eru

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 495
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #54 on: February 11, 2019, 05:57:26 pm »
The mention of moving the pollution from the cities to the country.... or out of the cities, wherever they think that is.

The nice thing is, it does move the pollution, but mainly, it reduces it to 1/5 of the volume, due do increased efficiency of the whole chain, and growing renewables share.

For the rest, you're right, we have an unacceptable footprint, and it's inacceptable to cope with the ressource waste of moving 80kg of meat with a very wasteful1500kg vehicle, no matter the fuel.
That weight should be limited to a much smaller value on the long term, especially in 10 years, when automation make car crashes extremely unlikely.
« Last Edit: February 11, 2019, 06:00:14 pm by f4eru »
 

Online TerraHertz

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3543
  • Country: au
  • Why shouldn't we question everything?
    • It's not really a Blog
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #55 on: February 19, 2019, 12:28:26 pm »
The nice thing is, it does move the pollution, but mainly, it reduces it to 1/5 of the volume, due do increased efficiency of the whole chain

What? You think the energy efficiency of remote generation, long distance electrical transmission, then battery charge and discharge losses in a vehicle, plus the energy overheads of EV and battery manufacture, is higher than the system of IC engine vehicles, their manufacture and the production and transport of hydrocarbon fuels?
Not to mention the utility of IC engine vehicles, that can be rugged, high carrying capacity, long range, and work with bulk-storable long-lasting fuel.

Also, what exactly are you saying gets "reduced to 1/5 the volume" in the former case, compared to the latter?
CO2? Actual pollution like particulates, CO, SO2, etc? Please define.

By the way, the actual biggest problem with our industrial society, is not CO2 emissions, but planned obsolescence. That results in physical products with very limited use lifetimes, thus the huge material and energy wastage required for the continual replacement of everything we use.  You don't see many (any?) Green advocates calling for an end to planned obsolescence do you? This factor alone should convince you the entire 'Green' energy push has goals quite different to what it pretends.

Quote
and growing renewables share.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all in favor of investments in energy sources that are distributed, locally or privately owned, have less harmful (or non-harmful) environmental footprints, and are capable of aiding the support of a high-tech civilization. Which of course must include having a sufficiently positive EROEI to be energy-worthwhile, as opposed to simply wasting our precious and irreplaceable fossil fuel energy resources on stupid ideologically motivated feel-good schemes that don't ultimately work.


The problem is, the only 'renewable' energy source I know of that meets those requirements, is hydroelectric power. ALL the others have serious issues with EROEI, operating lifetime, energy-payback time, energy availability and long term dependability. So bad they are actually not practical & worthwhile as major energy sources for industrial society overall.
Local and individual use of solar panel & battery installations for residential energy independence, especially  in remote locations, is great. But it does require a fossil-fueled industrial base to enable manufacture of the panels (glass, aluminium, silicon cells, wiring) and electronics.
It's also unfortunate governments and power generation authorities dislike and generally discourage true energy independence, since they lose both their money cut, and the political control aspect.


Quote
For the rest, you're right, we have an unacceptable footprint,
Perhaps. It depends what you define as objectives. It would be nice to reduce our environmental impact, true. But taking it to zero? OK YOU kill yourself first as a praiseworthy example to the rest of us.

Quote
and it's inacceptable to cope with the ressource waste of moving 80kg of meat with a very wasteful1500kg vehicle, no matter the fuel.

Speak for yourself. I find it 'inacceptable' (sic) for someone else to tell me what kind of vehicle I need to carry out whatever activities I consider worthwhile. Maybe I need a 3 ton truck as well as a light runaround? Who are you to say no?

Quote
That weight should be limited to a much smaller value on the long term, especially in 10 years, when automation make car crashes extremely unlikely.

Oh I see. You are one of those who believe in fairy tales, and want to impose fairy-tale-based restrictions on everyone else.
The kind of mindset that results in quotes like these:
Quote
"Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control." - Professor Maurice King

"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class - involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing - are not sustainable." - Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit

"Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it." - Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute

"The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet." - Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation  (One of my favorites.)

"Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun." - Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University  (A close second.)

"The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil." – Sir James Lovelock, BBC Interview

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal." - Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

"... the resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion." - Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
( More at http://everist.org/archives/links/__Global_Cull_links.txt )


As an update, here are a few recent read-worthy articles.

20190130
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/30/climate-change-gets-a-new-language-again/
Just in case you thought the Warmists don't strategize adaptations of the propaganda terminology they use.


20190213
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/australias-new-hottest-day-just-discovered-not-albany-or-oodnadatta-but-carnarvon-51-degrees-in-1953/
Australia’s new hottest day just “discovered”, not Albany or Oodnadatta, but Carnarvon (51 degrees in 1953!)
THE BOM LIST grows — Scandal after scandal  (A list of uncovered data frauds from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology.)

The BOM seem to be doing their historical revisionism nearly every year. From Sept 2017:
  http://joannenova.com.au/2017/09/too-late-bureau-of-met-buys-time-with-another-major-revision-of-data-that-was-best-quality-five-years-ago/


20190216
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.php
Global Warming Petition Project
http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php
http://humansarefree.com/2016/09/over-30000-scientists-declare-climate.html#.XGb33e4JetU.email
Over 30,000 Scientists Declare Climate Change A Hoax
A staggering 30,000+ scientists have come forward confirming that man-made climate change is a hoax perpetuated by the elite in order to make money.


20190219
http://joannenova.com.au/2019/02/nasa-hides-page-saying-the-sun-was-the-primary-climate-driver-and-clouds-and-particles-are-more-important-than-greenhouse-gases/
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-15/climate-change-religion-and-related-cover-ups-what-hell-nasa-hiding
NASA hides page saying the Sun was the primary climate driver, and clouds and particles are more important than greenhouse gases


Also https://www.iceagenow.info/ always worth reading daily, for their collection of 'gosh it really is an Ice Age starting' current global cold-weather records.
« Last Edit: February 19, 2019, 12:40:26 pm by TerraHertz »
Collecting old scopes, logic analyzers, and unfinished projects. http://everist.org
 
The following users thanked this post: GeorgeOfTheJungle

Offline boffin

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 813
  • Country: ca
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #56 on: February 22, 2019, 04:34:31 am »
I really would like to know where all the power is going to come from in holiday time when the service center's on the pacific highway have 50 cars in there art a time all wanting to suck  down 100Kw of power, at least, so they can continue on their way.
But there is always a feel good answer for theses problems from the sunshine and rainbows crowd.

This is the one that makes me laugh here in the UK. You think you've got it bad? Minor rant sorry.

Well here they're going to ban petrol and diesel cars by 2040 apparently. So that means we need 30GW of additional power online or another 10 nuclear stations in 20 years. Aka £200bn of power plants and then the fuel to run them. Then there's the distribution costs, another £50bn. At the same time they're killing our biggest industrial and political alliance, which has already lead to the cancellation of one nuclear plant, and there's renewable and anti-nuclear propaganda all over the place which is pointless because we can't generate 30GW of renewables in this country as we're a pissy little island that's dark most of the time and not that windy really in the scale of things. This is all under the guise of tackling "climate change" and selling us renewables  :palm:

Maybe if they connected a generator the legs of the shite pedallers then we'd be sorted.

Whole world's going to change in the next 30 years and it's not going to be pretty and it's not because of AGW, if that even exists, but commercial and political idiocy. I'm moving to the sticks and will have to go full mad max I reckon :)

Not nearly as dire as you predict.  The power companies (and transmission lines) can handle a pretty big uptake in BEV cars because most will charge at night when power generation/transmission lines are running at a small fraction of their capacity. 

You probably knew this already as you're a smart person, and you're just trolling, right?
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4151
  • Country: nl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #57 on: February 22, 2019, 05:05:11 am »
They generally don't charge at night, they start charging before dinner starts. In theory most people could charge at night ... but people would need pretty high monetary incentives to do so, because most people want their car fully operational ASAP. You never know when you might need it.
 

Offline Mr.B

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1006
  • Country: nz
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #58 on: February 22, 2019, 06:41:15 am »
They generally don't charge at night, they start charging before dinner starts. In theory most people could charge at night ... but people would need pretty high monetary incentives to do so, because most people want their car fully operational ASAP. You never know when you might need it.

This.

Most people in New Zealand get home from work any time between 5:30 and 6:30.
The first thing they are going to do when they get home is plug the charger in.

This is immediately before, or during, peak domestic power consumption in this country.
Time is the overseer of all things.
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #59 on: February 22, 2019, 08:18:34 am »

Not nearly as dire as you predict.  The power companies (and transmission lines) can handle a pretty big uptake in BEV cars because most will charge at night when power generation/transmission lines are running at a small fraction of their capacity. 

PFFFFT!
The power companies and transmission lines here can't even handle people turning on their AC on a hot day.  What the hell makes you think they are going to be able to handle 50 and 100A loads in say even 25% of homes all wanting to charge EV's at night?

There is a fairly huge problem with that green washed belief.

Firstly, if you had a significant amount of vehicles charging at night, the grid would be far from running at a " small fraction of their capacity" .  Have you any idea how much power an EV sucks down charging compared to the rest of  normal house hold useage both in Amperage and KWH?
Clearly not or you are just ignoring it to wave the green flag and hide the truth.
If you have a load of EV's sucking down even 20 KWH, not going to take much to bring off peak times up to the same regular day time use and that is exactly what they are predicting will  happen. The big thing now with EV's is recharge time and in order to do that they p-ush in as many KW as possible in the shortest time. That creates a Huge drain on the grid.

Secondly, here in oz and many other places the greenwashed and the minion Pollies that pander to them, are hell bent trying to do away with all fossil fuel power plants and go to renewable's.  Being we are more dessert than anything else and sunshine outstrips wind by magnitudes, Where do you think all this power is going to come from at night? 
Again you pose yet another green hypocrisy of the green mentality that say people can charge their EV's at home off their own panels. Another flawed idea to be sure typicaly lacking in any knowledge of what they are talking crap about but which way do the greenwashed want it?
Are the EV's supposed to be charged at home from the owners own solar  ::) or are they supposed to be charged from the grid at night?

Typicaly Both scenarios are flawed with significant real world problems but I wish to hell all these save the world types would get together and at least sort out which fairy tale they want to go with.  I have also heard the idea that people can charge them at work during the day when there is plenty of solar which is probably the best if still a flawed concept.
Just wish the story was consistent and creditable for once taking into account real world factors instead of a lot of rainbow and unicorn fairy tale thinking.                             

The greenwashed champion wind but the reality is it constantly and consistently fails to live up to even the most conservative rated generation here.
During some recent blackouts of over 250K homes in one state due to deliberate load shedding, The wind that was supposed to be providing something like  20+% of total power came up with a laughable 0,7% contribution. That's a factor in what lead to the topic of this thread, the $14 Mw power.

Stats have already shown that EV owners DO NOT wait to charge at night, they get home and start charging straight away like they do with their phones. Even if the chargers are programmed to charge after peak period, once there is  penetration of the EV fleet and also a lot of people have gone to batteries which are being encouraged for people without solar to charge at night when power is cheaper and be used through the day, The night time power will be far from plentiful or cheap.

Add in the fact that right here now, Pumped Hydro is also being touted as the savior of the country and the plan there is to use power in lower demand times to fill dams and then drain them back to fill in the peak demands.
What so many fail to take into account is in the RE grid scenario, Off peak demand times now are not going to be in future but the generation is going to be VERY down as well.

Future planning using todays scenarios that they are hell bent on doing away with but still want to bank on the benefits of today that will be long gone in their plans for tomorrow. Everyone is looking at this off peak night time power but not taking into consideration that in a mainly solar based grid, the power is going to be available at Midday not mid night.

Quote
You probably knew this already as you're a smart person, and you're just trolling, right?

You could have thought this through for yourself even if you are a greenwashed person and just another one pushing the green Koolaide.
Don't be so sarcastic till you check your facts and look outside your own Bubble less you throw so much egg in your own face.
 
The following users thanked this post: GeorgeOfTheJungle, bd139

Offline GeorgeOfTheJungle

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1607
  • Country: pl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #60 on: February 22, 2019, 08:48:02 pm »
@george80 I'm going to erect a monument for you for the best anti-green-washed-foolery posts ever seen. Keep them coming, please, thanks. :clap:
« Last Edit: February 22, 2019, 10:28:10 pm by GeorgeOfTheJungle »
int main (void) { while (1) fork(); }
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #61 on: February 22, 2019, 11:41:50 pm »

Someone on another thread tripped the 2 volt light in my head to think of something painfully obvious that I completely missed until now.
Another flaw in the  Charging from home and panels idea.

I pointed out that one would need a bare minimum of 20 Kw of panels to provide for the average house and the Vehicle consumption year round and that would be doubtful in a lot of places with overcast weather and winter fall off.

What I completely missed is the fact in the US, Canda and Oz as well as other places no doubt the average home has 2.3 2.5 Cars, not just the one I had in mind for some reason. Really changes the whole Dynamic and makes the home charging Idea even more laughable as a viable soloution for all but the tiniest  minority. 
Where there are teenagers still at home, I'll bet the FAMILY average is a lot closer to 4 cars. All my friends with Kids have at LEAST 4 vehicles.
Pretty obvious to see that having enough panels to charge 4 cars is going to take your own solar farm in the back yard AND, you'll have to have  at least some of the cars at home every day.

There is also the weekend scenario where the kids want to go out and so Do mum and dad so you are going to want at least 3 cars charged up and ready to go.  If you do have multiple chargers and even if they are staged to charge one after the other, that is going to add up to a LOT of draw on the grid and put a big dent in the off peak  we have now.

Looking at the figures from our own grid, The mid night and mid day figures are not very far apart at all.
I was also reading today of ice air conditioning which freezes water over night, in the supposed off peak period, so the cold energy can be used through the day.  These systems are mainly at this time industrial and they suck down some severe power.  You don't freeze tons of water in 8 hours or so in your domestic chest Freezer.

The off peak period is fast dissappearing which is a good thing for the generators as there is less ramping up and down for them but the more RE infects the power supply the power will be available over night. That's pretty obvious.
Another thing that has caused problems with wind here is it falls off at the same time  solar does... around sunset....when the demand really peaks.
The reason for this as I read is as the sun drops and the land cools, the cooling air starts sinking and moving towards the lower and cooler areas being the sea.  The onshore wind as it normally is here is therefore neutaralised  fo some hours or all night if it's hot enough and therefore you have no solar and no wind.

May be different in other places but as we are HEAVILY  coastal here as is a lot of out wind generation, It's a huge problem for the RE generated grid to over come.  Literally no solar and no wind worth a Damn either.

Of course the RE disciples all start yelling "Batteries"  but our world biggest battery when pulled into "save us" Mode was spent and dead flat in 90 min providing one smaller states grid about 5% of it's power needs.
That's 20 More world biggest battery's worth $80M each to power a state with 1.7M people out of 25M.
Umm, no. There is no way the country could even afford to provide backup for that one state, talking about providing battery backup for even just Sydney with 3M people is a complete and utter farce.

Next thing the Green motivated will start saying is " Home batteries".
Ah, no, that's not going to fly either.  Forgetting about completely unrecoverable costs to the home owner, there is a problem in that  over 1/3rd  of the citys population is going to live in apartments in another 20 Years.  No panels for them BUT, there is also talk of making batteries a requirement of any new building.  Great, so if they aren't self charged from panels, where will the power come from?

Yep, the grid at night they say so that will mean we'll have even more draw down on the grid when there is no solar and little wind trying to charge up batteries for when there is no wind or solar because you already ran the battery down in the peak time trying to take the load of the grid when there was no wind or solar.

If Only we could charge a battery and use the power twice... or even 3 times as the Theroys of some would need to make viable.

I said to the Mrs the other day, I am going to spend some decent money on some more engines and some generators. It's not fluffing around, we are going to need them the way things are going. Couple of days later she comes home from work and says did you buy those generators? I said I have got a couple, why?  She said they were talking about it at work today. Some of our engineers were talking about getting them because they think there are going to be a lot of power shortages and even work has been looking into putting them in because they are worried about blackouts and Data loss.

When the the Mrs approves and in fact encourages one to buy what she previously thought of as toys and Junk in the shed, you know things  are headed in a bad direction.
I will be ready but How much good will it do when the stores can't trade and businesses are crippled for hours.  I don't think people are going to starve  But if  we do have a full grid blackout that takes 24 hours to boot up fully again, there sure is going to be some panic.

Maybe I should buy all the gennys I can get my hands on. I have a strong feeling they are about to be an in demand item.
I can see some Chinese equipment importers making a Killing!
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #62 on: February 22, 2019, 11:59:04 pm »


Some real world, real time facts and Figures on the wind dilemma.  Bout midnight here now.

Looking at our grid generation/ Consumption report, updated every 5 min.

Our 3 Biggest states;

Qld   Demand 6567 MW  wind generation 36Mw   .54%

NSW  Demand  7642 Mw  Wind, 502   6.5%

Vic   Demand 4288   wind  255  6%

Now whether the shortfall is by weather conditions or lack of generators in place, Blind freddy can see that is a HELL of a big gap to fill between demand and what wind is providing.
 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5090
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #63 on: February 23, 2019, 12:59:17 am »
I was also reading today of ice air conditioning which freezes water over night, in the supposed off peak period, so the cold energy can be used through the day.  These systems are mainly at this time industrial and they suck down some severe power.  You don't freeze tons of water in 8 hours or so in your domestic chest Freezer.
Try again, a hobbyist has shown that it's nowhere as expensive to implement as you claim and definitely far cheaper than batteries.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline HighVoltage

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4133
  • Country: de
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #64 on: February 23, 2019, 01:36:52 am »
I just came across this nice article from Newsweek in 1975,
"The Cooling world"

Their biggest fear was that we would not have enough food in world,
because it could be too cold.



There are 3 kinds of people in this world, those who can count and those who can not.
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #65 on: February 23, 2019, 08:12:59 am »
Try again, a hobbyist has shown that it's nowhere as expensive to implement as you claim and definitely far cheaper than batteries.

I just love it when people make indignant replies to prove their superior knowledge and in doing show their ignorance and the fact they don't have the first clue about what they are trying to be so clever about.

Instead of thinking you know it all by watching some kid screw about with an ice box trying to cool one room as a once shot attempt rather than over the course of 8 hours with on going internal heat load, look up the energy input to phase change 1 ton of water to ice and then look up these systems in commercial and practical  use to see how much Ice they make in order to cool a building.  The idea with these systems is STORAGE, using the cheaper off peak rates that won't exist in the RE Grid of the future as the point I was making. Even a percentage of buildings using such a system would in itself add a great load to the off peak demands on the grid.

Add that in with resistance water heating, charging EV's, Pumping water for Hydro storage systems  and all the other things trying to take advantage of cheap " Off peak" power and anyone with a modicum of intelligence ( a lower amount of people than I would have given credit for) can see the off peak hours quickly evening out to the regular hours and the difficulty in an RE grid trying to keep up..... as I showed with real time figures.

Please try to improve your comprehension skills and not be so biased you feel you have to defend your religion even when you have no idea what you are talking about.

The way some people just rush into try to defend something demonstrating and proving their complete and utter lack of any real knowledge on a subject and then make themselves look like complete Dilettantes in trying to one up others with smartarse comments just astounds  me.
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #66 on: February 23, 2019, 08:35:53 am »

7:30 Am  Some more real time Numbers:


Qld   Demand 5929 MW  wind generation 21Mw   .35%

NSW  Demand  7382Mw  Wind, 266   3.6%

Vic   Demand 4213  wind  595 13.8%


The numbers as I have just checked surprised me.  There was more demand at Midnight than there is at 7:30 in the morning.
Not sure how that works but it is what it is and they are creditable figures, if anything Biased towards the RE agenda.

https://reneweconomy.com.au/nem-watch/

So much for off peak.  Clearly we have already reached the point here where at some times at least, the cheaper times are not off peak at all.
Not a problem except for the fact there is heck of a lot more solar input at 7:30 in the morning, ( about 1400 MW for the 3 states combined right now.) than there is at midnight. Producing a bit over 2KW myself right now even though it is completely overcast. More than covering our Morning activities and giving a very small feedback to the grid.

I didn't check but I'd be very confident in saying our draw was 100% FROM the grid at midnight!  ;D




 

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5090
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #67 on: February 23, 2019, 02:06:08 pm »
I just love it when people make indignant replies to prove their superior knowledge and in doing show their ignorance and the fact they don't have the first clue about what they are trying to be so clever about.

Instead of thinking you know it all by watching some kid screw about with an ice box trying to cool one room as a once shot attempt rather than over the course of 8 hours with on going internal heat load, look up the energy input to phase change 1 ton of water to ice and then look up these systems in commercial and practical  use to see how much Ice they make in order to cool a building.  The idea with these systems is STORAGE, using the cheaper off peak rates that won't exist in the RE Grid of the future as the point I was making. Even a percentage of buildings using such a system would in itself add a great load to the off peak demands on the grid.
It does solve the majority of the problem of solar - storage. Solar panels are really cheap nowadays and solar production aligns well with cooling load on a day-to-day basis. Directed cooling can vastly reduce cooling energy usage, but it also makes cooling an on demand load with a high dynamic range - something thermal storage solves with ease. It allows the compressor to run based on solar production while a simple, low power arrangement of fans and pumps delivers cooling as needed.

A project I would really like to work on if I get the chance to is an inverter for driving an A/C compressor (or multiple) directly from solar panels, varying the output frequency to match solar production, while requiring either no batteries or a very limited amount of battery storage. Once that's done, building a complete thermal storage system around it would be trivial. The controller for directed cooling would also be an interesting project, but comparatively boring in terms of hardware (just a Raspberry Pi or similar with some sensors and servos attached) while requiring a lot of advanced programming.
Quote
Add that in with resistance water heating
That's a technology that should have been deemed obsolete for general use hot water - heat pump technology has been very cheap for a long time. Cutting down hot water energy use to 1/3 or so is very easy.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #68 on: February 23, 2019, 02:22:49 pm »

This gets more interesting the more I look at it.

1pm grid demand.

Qld   Demand 6340 MW  wind generation 3Mw   

NSW  Demand  7040 Mw  Wind, 542   

Vic   Demand 4065   wind  439 

Look at the numbers.  2 of the 3 states are pulling LESS from the grid at 1 PM than they were at Midnight.  Clearly the effect of small scale solar on Home and business rooftops allowing self generated power to be used instead of pulling from the grid.
Unfortunately not too much solar available to charge the EV with at night.

This Off peak thing is already arse about face as I predicted but maybe was behind in what was already happening at least some of the time.
Certainly different in very hot weather which brings another point up with Charging EV's when the weather is hot and people are still running their air into the night.  I just let mine bounce of the thermostat when it's really hot all night long. 

We are coming to the end of summer here but Autum is still pretty decent generation weather and there is little need for heating or cooling.
I don't expect this trend Of more night than day draw on the grid to continue through winter but it is very interesting none the less and certainly puts a big question over the whole idea of low  night time utilization of the power networks and generators.
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #69 on: February 23, 2019, 02:56:32 pm »

Once that's done, building a complete thermal storage system around it would be trivial.

No where near as trivial as first meets the eye.
Group of friends and I were discussing this on another forum. We soon worked out that there were a lot more complexities to it than what we would have envisaged.

Turning water to ice is easy. Getting the Cold energy back out at a useful rate is not.  One only has to freeze a 5L block of ice and pour a kettle of boiling water over it to see  it's not easy to melt. The commercial systems have an intricate set of HE pipes running through the ice at close spacing to overcome this.  Not easy or cheap to replicate on a DIY basis.

Sure, you could set something up but is it is going to deliver the same hourly BTU as a regular AC is another thing.  Having a few hundred BTU that lasts  for 4 days constantly is one thing and not a useful one for space cooling.  Having 20,000 BTU for 6 hours is something else.


Quote
Add that in with resistance water heating
That's a technology that should have been deemed obsolete for general use hot water - heat pump technology has been very cheap for a long time. Cutting down hot water energy use to 1/3 or so is very easy.
[/quote]

Resistance water heating has made a come back here. Was about to be prohibited here at one stage and now it's what everyone is using especially over gas.

Resistance water heaters are a fraction of the cost of Heat pumps.  Hundreds Vs's thousands. heat pumps are only efficient down to certain temps as well. Heat pumps have a garbage reputation here. Mate of mine is a fridgy and even he won't touch one.
Solar panels are very chea  here and do a lot more than just heat water like heat pump.

Now a lot of inverters have built in diverts.
They send any excess power to the water heater instead of the grid to the tank is hot. They can then send powr say to a pool pump or other load such as clothes dryer.  Here using the power is the first priority over getting a paltry feed in tariff.

I set up a devise which looks at the Line voltage.  When it goes up to the extent I know my solar is making good power, it kicks in the water heater. I took the water heater completely off the off peak and for about 9 months now haven't had a bill for that.  If it is cloudy crappy weather for more than 3 days which is how long the water lasts us, I manually boot the heater in for a while. Only had to do that 4 times in 9 months so far.
It is very useful in compensating for high line voltage as well. Rather than have the inverter high voltage tripping all day, the heater pulls things down a bit so the inverter stays on song and the excess power is used for other things around the place.

Resistance couldn't be cheaper or more efficient for me. In winter heat pumps would be a joke here and would resort to built in resistance heating in the cold weather anyway.
I just bought another slightly smaller resistance heater. I'm going to run that direct off some panels with a controller so I still get useful heating from lower input as a pre heater and maybe a house heater.  here the water temps drop significant'y in winter and cause another 3-4 KW load just over the summer and winter incoming temp differences.  Even if that's all I put into the tank, that will be a saving on the main heating demand.

As I'm putting up more panels still, If I have a lot of excess power through the day, ( not likley but possible) I'll heat the water hot then circulate that through a radiator in the house in the evening or morning.  Not hard to store 10Kw of heating energy that way and take away a lot of demand on the grid.


 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4151
  • Country: nl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #70 on: February 23, 2019, 03:21:10 pm »
For a new energy efficient home with AC, the state of the art heatpump systems definitely make sense because it can cheaply be combined with the AC. Energy efficient homes need neither high temperature water for heating nor much power either, so the heatpump can work at relatively low temperatures (for instance -20C for the Chilltrix CX34).
« Last Edit: February 23, 2019, 03:23:49 pm by Marco »
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #71 on: February 23, 2019, 04:29:47 pm »

I looked up heat pumps.

$3800 as against the same size resistance heater for $950.  $2850 Difference.

I would pay .11C kwh for off peak.  That's almost 26,000 Kwh of power. If I use 8 Kwh of power a day for water heating which is my yearly average I would get  3250 days of heating or almost 10 years of hot water in the savings I made in the purchase of a resistance heater over a heat pump.
That's basically free power for the life of the unit.

Add in to the fact I could run it off free solar power, Heat pump makes NO sense what so ever.

Quote
so the heatpump can work at relatively low temperatures (for instance -20C for the Chilltrix CX34).

From what I can find, the chilltrix is not available here. If it were it would be a $5000+ unit. Makes resistance heating an even better option.
You could have an entire new solar system fitted for that money AND get the water heater as well making it totally free. Of course the solar would still be there for your next heater and probably the one after that too.
 
All the ones I can see available locally  fall off the efficiency curve before they get to 0 C and are certainly not getting anywhere near their normal efficiency at that and most stop working all together at that point.

Heat pumps do not make financial sense here and if one has solar they would be a very poor investment  ESPECIALLY seeing so many reviews I found said had one, never again, nothing but trouble.

Most people building new homes are trying to reduce expenses and costs not increase them. In any case spending the money on solar panels to reduce their overall power costs rather than just their water heating costs would make far more sense and be an infinitely better investment giving far longer lasting returns. 
 
The following users thanked this post: SeanB

Offline NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5090
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #72 on: February 23, 2019, 04:38:22 pm »
No where near as trivial as first meets the eye.
Group of friends and I were discussing this on another forum. We soon worked out that there were a lot more complexities to it than what we would have envisaged.

Turning water to ice is easy. Getting the Cold energy back out at a useful rate is not.  One only has to freeze a 5L block of ice and pour a kettle of boiling water over it to see  it's not easy to melt. The commercial systems have an intricate set of HE pipes running through the ice at close spacing to overcome this.  Not easy or cheap to replicate on a DIY basis.

Sure, you could set something up but is it is going to deliver the same hourly BTU as a regular AC is another thing.  Having a few hundred BTU that lasts  for 4 days constantly is one thing and not a useful one for space cooling.  Having 20,000 BTU for 6 hours is something else.
With directed cooling, it doesn't take much. Sit 3 feet or so in front of a 5000BTU/hr window A/C and if anything, you'll probably find it too cold. Then you'll get the idea to throttle down the A/C using a VFD to stop it from getting too cold, but then you run into dynamic range limitations due to little details like the minimum operating speed of the compressor and the expansion valve not being stable at such low flow rates. In contrast, an ice water chilled fan coil is trivial to throttle down - just slow down the pump. Now the compressor speed can be varied to exactly match solar production, while the pumps and fans use at most a few tens of watts that's easy to run from batteries.

Besides, the delta T you have to work with is quite big - 0C at the ice and 33C or so at the skin. With a generous 8C or so of the thermal budget to account for the skin-air thermal resistance (which is probably more than is really necessary after taking advantage of airflow), that still leaves 25C for the remaining air-coolant and coolant-ice thermal resistances.
Quote
Resistance water heaters are a fraction of the cost of Heat pumps.  Hundreds Vs's thousands. heat pumps are only efficient down to certain temps as well. Heat pumps have a garbage reputation here. Mate of mine is a fridgy and even he won't touch one.
The technology in one of those heat pump water heaters is very simple and mature - more or less the same as what's used in a $100 Walmart special window A/C.
Quote
It is very useful in compensating for high line voltage as well. Rather than have the inverter high voltage tripping all day, the heater pulls things down a bit so the inverter stays on song and the excess power is used for other things around the place.
The right fix for that is an autotransformer. Hint: an ordinary power transformer can be connected in an autotransformer configuration.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline george80

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 214
  • Country: au
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #73 on: February 23, 2019, 05:39:14 pm »
With directed cooling, it doesn't take much. Sit 3 feet or so in front of a 5000BTU/hr window A/C

I'm not interested in tiddly wink fan blowing on a bucket of Ice/ Candle heater imagination solutions here. I have a large house I want to cool and hot weather up to 47oC a few weeks back. 
If something can't be built that is at least as effective as my 15 ton Ducted AC, to me it's not worth worrying about. I'm not going to go to a lot of fuss and have crap sitting round taking up space unless it actually has a real benifit over what I'm doing now. If I want to cool just one room I'll just go put in a split.
May as well just run the Ducted ac off the solar I have now which will do that and still wind back the meters for some credit at night as frig around on a half pint soloution.

No wonder you think it's simple and easy. We are coming from very different viewpoints of what the end goal is. 


Quote
The technology in one of those heat pump water heaters is very simple and mature - more or less the same as what's used in a $100 Walmart special window A/C.

I completely agree. Somehow though the reliability and dependability seems to completely go out the window when they apply the same principal to heating water rather than heating or cooling air.  The main problems here have been Circuit boards and Failing compressors. I don't know why, just read the same thing from people that have had them over and over as well as accounts from my mate who has serviced them.


Quote
The right fix for that is an autotransformer. Hint: an ordinary power transformer can be connected in an autotransformer configuration.

How and where would that be set up to cure high line voltage with a GTI and what is a transformer that can handle 5KW going to cost me?
My voltage monitoring Relay cost $30 and works brilliantly.  I can't see myself getting a Tranny that can handle 5kw for that sort of money nor any other components to do the job as effectively.

The RIGHT Fix is for the power co to come take the transformer on the Pole down a couple of taps so the line voltage is within spec to start with. I shouldn't have to be frigging round with transformers and I would be surprised if doing so was not illegal anyway.  The problem is rather than fix the voltage issues the correct way they make BS excuses to get out of it.

Pretty sure the 6V over spec I see at midnight isn't due to anyones solar pushing the grid voltage up.

Others in the street have been complaining about it before I got here and so far the power co has done nothing.
 

Offline Marco

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4151
  • Country: nl
Re: $14,000 per MW? 'Renewables' = economic suicide
« Reply #74 on: February 23, 2019, 06:07:46 pm »
If it were it would be a $5000+ unit.

As I said for new homes, 4 kW of heating at -20C would do bugger all for most old houses any way and the low water temperature would only work with floor heating.

Central AC is not cheap to begin with and the piping for this is substantially more straightforward to install (because it circulates water rather than refrigerant). These kinds of systems are the future for new homes, perfect combination of convenience and energy efficiency.
« Last Edit: February 23, 2019, 06:11:22 pm by Marco »
 


Share me

Digg  Facebook  SlashDot  Delicious  Technorati  Twitter  Google  Yahoo
Smf