News
news The world as we know it is about to end
news Witnesses See 40 UFOs Over a Beach in the UK
news Mysterious and Chilling Photographs of Unidentified People
news Canada's Best-Documented UFO Encounter Celebrates Its 50th
news California Broadcast Interrupted With Ominous Announcement
news Mystery of sonic weapon attacks at US embassy in Cuba deepens
news Is the US Navy Trying to Catch UFOs?
news No, We Can't Control Hurricanes from Space
news This Guy Has Been Tirelessly Documenting the Ghost in His Apartment
news Earth May Be Under Surveillance by Nine Alien Civilizations
news CIA informant claimed Hitler survived WWII



Username:
Password: or Register
 
Thread Rating:
  • 7 Vote(s) - 2.71 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 421909
06-20-2017 01:38 AM

 



Post: #91
RE: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
Advertisement
The Hermit  Wrote: (06-20-2017 12:14 AM)
"The Westinghouse Ice Condenser Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) was designed in the 1960s. Ice condensers deploy about 2 million pounds of chipped ice hanging in long, skinny baskets around the reactor core in an ice room."

Just how f*cking high were they, when they thought that one up..

I hope you don't live in Tennessee:

"The ice condenser design is the analog to the water-filled torus design employed at Fukushima and the boiling water reactors with Mark I and II containments (29 of which operate in the United States), writes Dave Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

The ice condenser and water-filled torus containments are called "pressure suppression containments." Rather than using a large volume to absorb the energy released during an accident, pressure suppression containment uses water (in the form of ice in this case) to act as energy sponges. The water absorbs heat, reducing the energy remaining to pressurize the containment volume. As a result, the containment need not be as large (or as costly, the prime factor).

Fukushima revealed the glaring vulnerability of such pressure suppression designs—What happens when the sponge gets saturated? At Fukushima, the water in the torus heated to boiling. It could absorb no more energy. The containment over-pressurized and forced hydrogen out. That hydrogen detonated, three times.

The same holds true in the ice condenser design when the ice melts; it cannot absorb any more energy and the relatively small containment volume is vulnerable to over-pressurization failure.

In the 1970s, well-founded concerns about the ice condenser design’s ability to contain radiation in a serious loss of coolant accident resulted in an Atomic Energy Commission staff recommendation to rescind licensing for the design. The commissioners rejected this warning. After the Three Mile Island meltdown and the Chernobyl explosion, a 1990 NRC study, NUREG-1150, found ice condenser reactors to be the most likely to suffer catastrophic containment failure. Watts Bar 2 will be the tenth ice condenser to operate in the United States; the nine operating ones have been plagued with many problems over the years."
http://thebulletin.org/watts-bar-unit-2-...y-tale8783
Quote this message in a reply

Luvapottamus
Registered User
User ID: 406219
06-20-2017 02:17 AM

Posts: 47,834



Post: #92
RE: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
LoP Guest  Wrote: (06-19-2017 07:23 PM)
Luvapottamus  Wrote: (06-19-2017 07:20 PM)
Sorry, I edited my post before you replied.

Hydro is pretty good, still, but you have to site it and design it well.

For example one of the drawbacks is harm to fisheries and farmland.

Many of those large projects like the TVA were designed for power and flood control.

But the river bottom farmland no longer gets silted as it was before and is now dependent on chemical soil ammendments when it was renewed naturally before.

Also in the Pacific Northwest many of these projects have damaged salmon fisheries by impeding navigation to spawning areas.

But we can learn from those mistakes and redesign replacement reservours to restore both of those functions. And if you use them to bank other renewables like wind and solar, you can clean up some of their inherent design flaws like dirty electricity in Wind.

By using the "dirty" (unclean wave form with transients) or switching to DC generation and using that power to pump water uphill into hydro projects you can spin it back out as clean AC.

Fortunately Thorium or fusion reactors will be optional before we have to replace most of those old hydro projects.

Micro hydro is an option for people with water rights to a stream.

The Angelo Preserve in California(Nature Conservancy) has a 100 year old ram pump that pumps water from the stream to the water tower(tank) for the caretaker house that runs on water power.

Doesn't generate power, but free pumped water with reliable pump is nice.

There used to be a video by the daughter of a civil engineer who built a micro dam project on their land which powers their home, but I can't find it anymore.

That'd be sweet!
chuckle

She was swimming in the lake made by the dam and you could see the turbine house, it was pro grade.chuckle

Robotic construction will make it easier to develop remote areas like that. I imagine a very tall robot 20' tall that can excavate, demolish and construct anything including arms with 3d printer heads to pour concrete.

I bet I can get online and find enough topo info to construct you a dam with 1 multipurpose robot in 10 years.

agree

Jhikpghf

But I need land with water rights and a favorable regulatory structure.

Cheap land was forever banned by rich yuppies from Silicon Valley who started the housing bubble in the 1990's.

Got worse once Wall Street got involved.

Regarding competitiveness of renewables vs coal, oil, natural gas: of course those markets are rigged.

But it also comes down to energy flux density.

Solar panels produce very little energy when you factor in the energy cost of manufacturing them, and the number required to produce the energy required for a modern home or business, then there's storage.

Feeding coal into a powerplant and then gridding it out to homes is cheaper and easier and requires less effort and space and is more reliable.

Unfortunately with the dunce grid; it's all too dangerous to use, espescially once the solar and wind dirty electricity is added.

So I need some off grid panels; it's the most economical thing I can do.

But I'll never be able to afford a system that provides air conditioning, welder, air compressor.
chuckle

There is no such thing as sovereign debt. Reinstate Greenbacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb5OQUElilo
http://taxwallstreetparty.org/
United Front Against Austerity
Quote this message in a reply
Natura Naturans
Registered User
User ID: 415819
06-20-2017 02:49 AM

Posts: 10,366



Post: #93
RE: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
LoP Guest  Wrote: (06-20-2017 12:14 AM)
Natura Naturans  Wrote: (06-19-2017 11:58 PM)
Pumped storage is very expensive and only available in mountanous areas. In most areas there is no room for such and no elevation difference for it to work. You only make an outrageously expensive renewable energy MORE EXPENSIVE!

There you go again with this "outrageously expensive" nonsense. I've shown the figures for latest renewables CFD strike prices for new build plant, $24/MWh for PV, $40/MWh for onshore wind and $55/MWh for offshore wind, contrast with the cheapest new coal at $60/MWh up to a projected $130 for coal with CCS, $70 to $80 for CCGT gas and $115/MWh for new nuclear.

All the megawatts in the world of wind gets you nothing when the wind doesn't blow. The ratings of wind power are worthless. As I showed previously wind craps out VERY frequently. Here is a chart of how erratic the production is in Germany over a six month period:

[Image: Schuster-160706-EU-Vind-2016.jpg]

You can't run a grid on that and now everyone knows it. Here is a chart of German electricity price, up to 29 cents a KWH. The US average is on third of that. And you still thing wind is great?

[Image: 2020-Power-price-projection-NEAB.jpg]

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/28/germa...sCdV8.dpbs[/b]

“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.” --Baruch Spinoza
(This post was last modified: 06-20-2017 02:49 AM by Natura Naturans.) Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 421909
06-20-2017 08:06 AM

 



Post: #94
RE: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
Natura Naturans  Wrote: (06-20-2017 02:49 AM)
LoP Guest  Wrote: (06-20-2017 12:14 AM)
There you go again with this "outrageously expensive" nonsense. I've shown the figures for latest renewables CFD strike prices for new build plant, $24/MWh for PV, $40/MWh for onshore wind and $55/MWh for offshore wind, contrast with the cheapest new coal at $60/MWh up to a projected $130 for coal with CCS, $70 to $80 for CCGT gas and $115/MWh for new nuclear.

All the megawatts in the world of wind gets you nothing when the wind doesn't blow.

Well no, it's bought you some cheap megawatts that didn't need to be generated by other means when the wind was blowing. Every MW that is genrated by renewables is a MW that you don't need to import.
Natura Naturans  Wrote: (06-20-2017 02:49 AM)
The ratings of wind power are worthless. As I showed previously wind craps out VERY frequently. Here is a chart of how erratic the production is in Germany over a six month period:

link to image: http://klimatsans.com/wp-content/uploads...d-2016.jpg
And that's why the UK has a capacity market, a mechanism that is working well and providing energy security and certainty for investors who are looking to build new capacity, safe in the knowledge that they will make a return on their investment. See my previous post talking about the UK capacity market or read here https://www.gov.uk/government/news/capac...ow-cost--2

Most German wind power is from small turbines onshore, Germany only has a small offshore installed base http://energynumbers.info/germanys-offsh...ty-factors . Onshore wind is less steady than offshore and smaller turbines have lower load factors than the modern north sea giants of 6-8MW class. Have a look at the contrast between Danish onshore and offshore load factors.
link to image: http://energynumbers.info/wp-content/upl...hlygen.png
You see the blue trace is much steadier. When we look at the numbers it becomes obvious that the most modern offshore turbines are getting great load factors, over 50% in the case of Anholt1 whereas old, small, onshore turbines often never reached 10% load factor. http://energynumbers.info/capacity-facto...wind-farms .

Natura Naturans  Wrote: (06-20-2017 02:49 AM)
Here is a chart of German electricity price, up to 29 cents a KWH. The US average is on third of that. And you still thing wind is great?

link to image: http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploa...n-NEAB.jpg

http://notrickszone.com/2017/02/28/germa...sCdV8.dpbs[/b]
Well as I wrote in the previous post they paid the price for driving down the cost of PV that the world is now benefiting from https://energytransition.org/2016/01/how...ost-of-pv/ This chart says it all link to image: https://energytransition.org/wp-content/...are-01.png " Germany’s deployment of wind and solar when the technologies were expensive is now widely celebrated as the reason why significant production capacity has been set up worldwide, leading to plummeting prices for the benefit of developing countries in particular." As this energy provider says "“It was our gift to the rest of the world,” https://sepapower.org/knowledge/snapshot...nd-starts/

The other thing that Germany did, which was hugely expensive, was panic in the aftermath of Fukushima. They shut down all their nuclear reactors, then had to replace them at enormous cost with new coal plants. https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/2015...l-burning/ In the UK we are keeping our old reactors going and retiring them at end of life. Hinkley Point C is likely to be the last PWR plant built in the UK and is a bit of an oddball now, being more expensive than any renewable option and providing baseload power at a time when baseload is about to go extinct. https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/07/29/hin...-decision/
Quote this message in a reply
SkeptiSchism
Registered User
User ID: 397519
06-20-2017 08:27 AM

Posts: 3,514



Post: #95
RE: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
Renewable Energy is a misnomer from the start, no energy is self renewing. The second law of thermodynamics proves that.

For some reason the "green" movement denigrates nuclear power, which denigrates thorium. Although modern thorium reactor designs are far safer than uranium reactors, the two are conflated and people immediately turn off when you mention thorium nuclear power.

But;

Kirk Sorensen, NASA-trained engineer, is a man on a mission to open minds to the tremendous promise that thorium, a near-valueless element in today's marketplace, may offer in meeting future world energy demand.

Compared to Uranium-238-based nuclear reactors currently in use today, a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LTFR) would be:

  • Much safer - No risk of environmental radiation contamination or plant explosion (e.g., Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island)
  • Much more efficient at producing energy - Over 90% of the input fuel would be tapped for energy, vs. <1% in today's reactors
  • Less waste-generating - Most of the radioactive by-products would take days/weeks to degrade to safe levels, vs. decades/centuries
  • Much cheaper - Reactor footprints and infrastructure would be much smaller and could be constructed in modular fashion
  • More plentiful - LFTR reactors do not need to be located next to large water supplies, as current plants do
  • Less controversial - The byproducts of the thorium reaction are pretty useless for weaponization
  • Longer-lived - Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium and is treated as valueless today. There is virtually no danger of running out of it given LFTR plant efficiency

https://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/8...rgy-source

Insanity is a relative term. You're most likely to catch it from your immediate family.
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 421941
06-20-2017 10:13 AM

 



Post: #96
RE: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
SkeptiSchism  Wrote: (06-20-2017 08:27 AM)
Renewable Energy is a misnomer from the start, no energy is self renewing. The second law of thermodynamics proves that.
Don't worry, no matter how much power you generate from wind, solar, tidal or waves, there will still be just as much tomorrow. What renews it? The Sun, which is going to stick around for a few billion more years.

SkeptiSchism  Wrote: (06-20-2017 08:27 AM)
For some reason the "green" movement denigrates nuclear power, which denigrates thorium. Although modern thorium reactor designs are far safer than uranium reactors, the two are conflated and people immediately turn off when you mention thorium nuclear power.

But;

Kirk Sorensen, NASA-trained engineer, is a man on a mission to open minds to the tremendous promise that thorium, a near-valueless element in today's marketplace, may offer in meeting future world energy demand.

Compared to Uranium-238-based nuclear reactors currently in use today, a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LTFR) would be:

  • Much safer - No risk of environmental radiation contamination or plant explosion (e.g., Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island)
  • Much more efficient at producing energy - Over 90% of the input fuel would be tapped for energy, vs. <1% in today's reactors
  • Less waste-generating - Most of the radioactive by-products would take days/weeks to degrade to safe levels, vs. decades/centuries
  • Much cheaper - Reactor footprints and infrastructure would be much smaller and could be constructed in modular fashion
  • More plentiful - LFTR reactors do not need to be located next to large water supplies, as current plants do
  • Less controversial - The byproducts of the thorium reaction are pretty useless for weaponization
  • Longer-lived - Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium and is treated as valueless today. There is virtually no danger of running out of it given LFTR plant efficiency

https://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/8...rgy-source

I think it has potential but it would have to prove its economic viability in a working reactor. AFAIK the only commercial scale thorium reactor did not cover itself in glory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 Britain had the worlds first grid scale nuclear power station https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/mar/...lear.world and at the time people were promised electricity "too cheap to meter", that turned out to be a hollow promise.

There are other promising reactor designs, for instance the UK may build one or two breeder reactors of the PRISM design http://gehitachiprism.com/what-is-prism/...-of-prism/ to burn through our huge spent fuel stockpile. Small modular reactors, built on a production lines, promise to be cheaper and safer than the mammoth new PWRs like the European EPR that has caused so many problems for its adopters https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EPR_(nuclear_reactor) Designs like pebble bed reactors and the Integral Fast Reactor have passive safety, they failsafe.





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sp1Xja6HlIU

I used to be optimistic about tokamak fusion reactors, but I now doubt they will ever be economically viable, being huge, expensive and becoming highly radioactive through their life. https://www.iter.org/

There is a fun TV drama series called Occupied ( Okkupert ) about a green Norwegian prime minister cutting off the supply of Norwegian oil and gas to Europe and promising to provide them with cheap power from his newly constructed giant thorium reactor instead. This prompts the EU to ask Russia to invade Norway and sieze control of North Sea oil and gas, I recommend it as a great watch. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Okkupert
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 420327
06-20-2017 10:43 AM

 



Post: #97
RE: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
I just got back from a trip to the middle east and I can quite categorically say that renewable energy does not work when you want a shower at 6am and the solar panels haven't had chance to heat the water tank on the roof! Tissue
Quote this message in a reply
LoP Guest
lop guest
User ID: 320750
06-20-2017 10:49 AM

 



Post: #98
RE: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
LoP Guest  Wrote: (06-20-2017 10:43 AM)
I just got back from a trip to the middle east and I can quite categorically say that renewable energy does not work when you want a shower at 6am and the solar panels haven't had chance to heat the water tank on the roof! Tissue

they don't use instant shower heaters there?
Quote this message in a reply
Natura Naturans
Registered User
User ID: 415819
06-22-2017 06:27 PM

Posts: 10,366



Post: #99
RE: Daily Telegraph: There is No Such Thing as Affordable Renewable Energy
Renewable energy cost and reliability claims exposed and debunked

A new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) from NOAA’s Earth System Laboratory, Boulder Colorado exposes and debunks the contrived claims of a recent renewable energy study which falsely alleged that low cost and reliable 100% renewable energy electric grids are possible.

The new paper concludes that the prior study is based upon significant modeling inadequacies, is “poorly executed” and contains “numerous shortcomings” and “errors” making it “unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100% wind, solar and hydroelectric power system.”

Additionally the new paper harshly chastises the previous study by noting “It is one thing to explore the potential use of technologies in a clearly caveated hypothetical analysis; it is quite another to claim that a model using these technologies at an unprecedented scale conclusively shows the feasibility and reliability of the modeled energy system implemented by midcentury.”

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/21/r...-debunked/

“The highest activity a human being can attain is learning for understanding, because to understand is to be free.” --Baruch Spinoza
Quote this message in a reply








Contact UsConspiracy Forum. No reg. required! Return to TopReturn to ContentRSS Syndication