|
Fine-able Offense posted:I linked the citation in my post. And even your big, scary 11.5T Yen does not approximate to infinity. quote:Biomass is not biofuels. If you're talking only about recycled biomass, not one produced ad-hoc, then we're talking peanuts and not baseload generation at all. And we still haven't cleared if that plant you visited is 6MWh/year or 6MW. quote:Given the above two notes, I am hardly surprised that you don't understand the distinction between an attack on you for supporting nuclear power vs. a critique of the apparently ideological means with which you do so, especially considering the discussion was related to something as mild as "Hey, you can't treat all power systems equally when it comes to the risk-cost of critical failure, especially from an actuarial standpoint." You may also re-read your post and note that it was No, actuarial tables cannot be applied in all cases. And no, Fukushima-style events aren't severe enough to impede application of actuarial tables. If you didn't think so because you were off an order of magnitude with the events, it's not really my fault. I don't see why a local spike should be relevant enough to make the average invalid, and you still have to explain to us why that would be. Also, refusing to subscribe to widespread ideological unguided hate on nuclear power is hardly "Defending it from an ideological standpoint". We're in an age where lacking a bias that's widely subscribed means being biased, it seems. I've been born in the Chernobyl scare, my own parents blame my heart birth defect on Chernobyl, i live in a country which has banned (twice) nuclear power by referendum, and i assure you, i'm not in the condition to have any pro-nuclear ideological bias. If anything, the contrary. You may notice i always over-estimate damage from nuclear-related incidents. I may also inform you that your "Political wonder" biomass generators are so harshly opposed in Italy that the major of Bologna won a bid for major on the main point "We won't build anything that remotely looks like an incenerator (Because you morons can't understand what's one and what's not one)". If i may note, the difference between a "Biomass plant" and a "Incinerator" is pretty thin. Goons (And really, not even most of them) whiteknight nuclear after a happy thread of 100+ pages full of numbers and other jingle, if you want to look it up. It's not like anyone has gotten up this morning and said "Hey, i think ATOMZ are really a good idea!" "If Ideological defense is a conversation that goes as such:" >>> Hey, we can't apply normal statistics to power generation! >> Yes, we can since the worst-case isn't so severe to be avoided at all costs And then you jumped on me, when i wasn't even responding to your post. And posted big scary numbers (Which may be inaccurate), accused the room of defending a cause for ideological reasons, complained about lack of attention to your visit to a biomass plant, when my point was a polite observation that "No, the worst-case isn't severe enough to warrant all this", which was a milder form of other posters complaining that it's normal to do that even for extremely severe cases. Since we're talking not of a company, but of the energy policy of entire nations, and more accurately, of the whole world, and turning nuclear off means eating up all those "Externalities" from coal, perhaps i had a point. Or perhaps my point wasn't right, but i don't think it warranted a bile-spouting attack (Gooniest, Spergiest poo poo) on my views and good faith. You're the only one trying to apply special rules to Nuclear, here. Perhaps since you're used to it, being part of the US energy regulation system without a background in Engineering or Physics. To reprise, if you think any viewpoint illustrated in the thread isn't substantiated by facts, but rather by an ideology, i would appreciate you explaining what and why that is, as i do not appreciate views based on ideology, especially when they are my own.
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 22:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
The people in this thread defending nuclear power do so because they know what they're talking about, and typically, opponents of nuclear power (including the rare few posting in this thread) do not.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 22:44
|
|
|
Aureon posted:
Goons whiteknight nuclear because everyone who opposes it "eventually" learns better in these threads or go the way of Cartoon and kindly fuckoff.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 22:45
|
|
|
Aureon posted:A source, not a bloomberg scare article. Tohoku, over the whole coast, managed to do barely three times the damage in the 2km area near Fukushima? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is actually legitimately pathetic. First of all, you said I didn't cite anything, and I did. I've got to laugh at the notion that a source you don't like (or didn't read and are now embarrassed to be called out on) is a "scare article". That figure of ~$125 billion isn't something that Bloomberg (those notorious liars!) and every other media source just made up, it's based on the amount that TEPCO told Japanese regulators it would likely require. Even if we accept the notion that TEPCO is lying about that amount for some nefarious purpose, Japanese regulators themselves had already pegged the cost at 5 trillion yen themselves, and updating that upwards is hardly surprising or somehow suspicious. Last I heard, the revised amount was being taken at face value by the government and regulatory agencies. But please go ahead and cite some evidence that this is an elaborate, moon-landing-sized conspiracy being perpetrated by TEPCO, the Japanese government, local experts, and the international media, because I'm all ears. Aureon posted:And even your big, scary 11.5T Yen does not approximate to infinity. ...do you still not understand the difference between actual infinity and effectively infinite for the purposes of risk assessment? Someone even took the time to write an entire post explaining just that concept to you, god drat dude. Aureon posted:Fuels are a type of mass. Again, I have to laugh at this. You said "biofuels" and then started talking about foodstock depletion, so you were clearly talking about bio-diesel production, and like with the above stuff now you're backtracking in the lamest way. Biomass is using non-food plant material and animal waste. It's almost always done with an eye towards sustainable sources. Aureon posted:If you're talking only about recycled biomass, not one produced ad-hoc, then we're talking peanuts and not baseload generation at all. [Citation needed] For the record, I've seen reports saying that if you went at biomass in a systematic way, you could get an enormous percentage of baseload generation in a sustainable way. Is that the case? Maybe... I'd like to see more research done on that, but it's certainly an interesting line of inquiry, and there's lots of good research out there that you couldn't be arsed to look up. Also: I merely threw this particular powerplant out there as another interesting project I'd just seen, not some kind of catch-all solution. I even specifically said I recognize the necessity of some nuclear as part of a viable energy mix. Why, it's almost like you're arguing in bad faith to backtrack from a lovely post! But even then, you're still wrong, because there's solid evidence it could be part of an effective baseload. Aureon posted:And no, Fukushima-style events aren't severe enough to impede application of actuarial tables. Come on, dude, just give that up already: shrike82 posted:Whoops... The rest of what you wrote is a barely-coherent rant, including some personal anecdotes, irrelevant stories about Italian NIMBYism, and mistaken assumptions (I am Canadian, not American). I even admitted I was wrong and unclear and contributed to the stupid derail we had, so I'm not sure what you could possibly "nail" me on from that perspective. Also, we already established it was MW and not MWh? Congratulations, you have converted me to your line of thinking with this well-sourced, well-reasoned rebuttal.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 22:57
|
|
|
Schizotek posted:Goons whiteknight nuclear because everyone who opposes it "eventually" learns better in these threads or go the way of Cartoon and kindly fuckoff. When I used the term 'white knighting" I was specifically referring to defending it even in the face of well-reasoned, legitimate problems or issues that need to be addressed if nuclear is going to be viable. Exactly the kind of hysterical knee-jerk reactions you guys all claim to hate, for what it's worth. If you can't admit that nuclear has serious problems that need to be ironed out or worked around before its (very real) potential can be properly harnessed, then I just don't know, man. Have fun with the circle jerk I guess?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:01
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:When I used the term 'white knighting" I was specifically referring to defending it even in the face of well-reasoned, legitimate problems or issues that need to be addressed if nuclear is going to be viable. Exactly the kind of hysterical knee-jerk reactions you guys all claim to hate, for what it's worth. What issues would those be, that say, the French, haven't already worked out in their implementation, let alone couldn't be feasibly/practically improved upon in the US?
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:08
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:What issues would those be, that say, the French, haven't already done? If the French model is so great and I think it is, why hasn't the rest of the world adopted it? For a lot of reasons: upfront infrastructure costs, public opinion (which, no, you don't get to just hand-wave away), spent fuel storage, etc. Hollande is likely going to cut back on nuclear power as a total share of production, so it's not like they don't contend with these issues even in what is basically the most pro-nuclear country in the world. China, which is hardly concerned with public opinion on health matters, still only has a tiny fraction of it's power coming from nuclear, for reasons that have exactly zero to do with the stuff you guys are railing against here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:15
|
|
|
TEPCO and an article that says "TEPCO says..." don't actually count as different sources.Adenoid Dan posted:And yes, of course psychological damage is part of the damage caused by nuclear accidents, one of the biggest, in fact. I wonder how the psychological damage is related to the part where people think atoms are scarier than cars. Fine-able Offense posted:If you can't admit that nuclear has serious problems that need to be ironed out or worked around before its (very real) potential can be properly harnessed, then I just don't know, man. Have fun with the circle jerk I guess? Quick name one. The fact that people don't understand science is a problem with PEOPLE not a problem with science. Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:18 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:16
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:TEPCO and an article that says "TEPCO says..." don't actually count as different sources. Fine-able Offense posted:That figure of ~$125 billion isn't something that Bloomberg (those notorious liars!) and every other media source just made up, it's based on the amount that TEPCO told Japanese regulators it would likely require. Thank you for pointing out something that I put in plain language English in the very sentence you are referring to. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:18
|
|
|
Nothing you've cited provides any evidence that the source isn't milking the Japanese government for money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:20
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Nothing you've cited provides any evidence that the source isn't milking the Japanese government for money. If you are going to allege that the government of Japan and TEPCO are involved in a massive conspiracy wherein the Japanese government buys out TEPCO and then lies about the costs of the cleanup for ~reasons~, I'm not the one who needs to cite something to disprove it, holy poo poo. Hey, prove that 9/11 wasn't an inside job.  This is becoming the textbook definition of epistemic closure.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:22
|
|
|
People have provided arguments and other estimates that indicate that your source may be overblown. You respond by relinking the same source and accusing people of kneejerking.' This is a stupid derail anyway. The upshot is that as bad as the number may be it's arguably not effectively infinite for risk analysis. Amoretize the cleanup costs over the power Fukishima generated in it's lifetime. How much does that come out to? Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 23:28 on Apr 16, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:25
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:People have provided arguments and other estimates that indicate that your source may be overblown. No, one person linked to one article that was a) several months old by the time TEPCO updated their cost estimates, and b) only dealt with the decommissioning costs, which again were outdated. That's not a refutation, that's lazy linking. Nevvy Z posted:The upshot is that as bad as the number may be it's arguably not effectively infinite for risk analysis. If you can find me an insurance company willing to issue a $150 billion dollar policy, I'll retract that statement.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:When I used the term 'white knighting" I was specifically referring to defending it even in the face of well-reasoned, legitimate problems or issues that need to be addressed if nuclear is going to be viable. Exactly the kind of hysterical knee-jerk reactions you guys all claim to hate, for what it's worth. I guess the point is that in general the serious problems that nuclear presents (and I agree, there are some, same as any large scale industrial enterprise) are generally a mix of overstated in public perception, solved on an engineering level or less severe than existing power generation methods. Its not perfect, no - it is however better than most of the alternatives of a similar level of technological maturity.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Gimby posted:I guess the point is that in general the serious problems that nuclear presents (and I agree, there are some, same as any large scale industrial enterprise) are generally a mix of overstated in public perception, solved on an engineering level or less severe than existing power generation methods. Its not perfect, no - it is however better than most of the alternatives of a similar level of technological maturity. I 100% agree with this post, and I'll leave it at that. I don't think this thread is doing that sentiment justice, though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:40
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:several months old by the time TEPCO updated their cost estimates That's all I wanted. You've been so busy calling people stupid and accusing them of whiteknighting this is the first time you've posted an argument against relying on the other estimate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:44
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:No, one person linked to one article that was a) several months old by the time TEPCO updated their cost estimates, and b) only dealt with the decommissioning costs, which again were outdated. That's not a refutation, that's lazy linking. Fortunately your number broke down its costs so we can see where they are inflating the number. They are inflating it in the decommissioning cost, which is what I gave. The number ANS are citing is actually within the range your source gave (actually significantly greater than your source's minimum estimate) but your source includes an upper bound that is an order of magnitude greater than everyone else's. Like I said, they're probably including some long-shot horror scenario where all four reactors suddenly start back up or all the fuel ponds catch fire at once and we have to do a Chernobyl-style containment. That makes it an upper bound, not the expected cost.
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2013 23:55
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:If you can find me an insurance company willing to issue a $150 billion dollar policy, I'll retract that statement. Government-run ones? The FDIC insures trillions of dollars.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:<snipped> All while acting condescending and actually having to be explained what's a MW·h and why it's not a MW/h (And no, i'm not trying to "Nail" you or something equally retarded, i'm trying to explain that whatever you are saying isn't being well understood, however right it may be. There's a failure of communication and nothing else here, but if you want to go forward and hate everyone all the time, who's stopping you) 'fuel' is a subtype of 'mass'. The article says "In the future, we may in someway". In the future in some way, there's about infinite ways to produce energy through methods preferable to today's. And the article linked knows it perfectly well: At page THREE, it talks about fuel crops. And right-out states all the sources found from non-ad-hoc crop would be equivalent to 19% of US' electricity need (And not energy need, since the article is unclear). And no one is against the use of available biomass, but the current trend is "Solar\Wind\Biomass\Whatever will save the world, no need to worry!" and that's the only reason you see skepticism against those. And again, we're all aware of the reasons why nuclear isn't implemented or easily implementable. We've been talking about it for years. This being a public forum, we cannot influence policy. All we can do is actually explain that nuclear has the engineering problems down, and just needs to solve the political\psychological ones, which, incredibly, are proving far more arduous than the engineering ones, with all respect to Opppenheimer and Fermi. I'm not going to bother responding point-to-point anymore, since it seems arguing semantics is all you want. Fukushima's cost amortized against Fukushima plant only or the whole nuclear industry? The 115b estimate or the 11b estimate? Doing worst case, as usual (115b) Against the single fukushima plant ( 877 GW·h, wikipedia sourced but it's well within the expected values of load), it comes out as 13$ to the KWh, not accounting for accrued interest on past earnings. (Which is huge, a dollar in the '70s is 3.5 dollars today at 3% interest - i guess we should do year-by-year calc, it's probably around 10$) This isn't very surprising, considering the plant's planned expenses weren't even a small fraction of 115b, and there were some new reactors that hadn't gone their full life yet (5-6) Against 2012's nuclear power generation (372GW, at 80% load http://www.euronuclear.org/info/encyclopedia/n/nuclear-power-plant-world-wide.htm, ~3700TWh, comes out as 3c/KWh. Over the energy produced post-2000, roughly 0.25c/KWh. (Again, not adjusted for accrued interest and inflation, but over 12 years it's not very relevant) Using the estimate without land cost and with the decomissioning near the lower bound, the figures are (5~10) times lower.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 01:24
|
|
|
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solution-to-renewable-energy-more-renewable-energyquote:By 2030, scaled-up green power could meet the demands of a large grid 99.9 percent of the time, according to new research from the University of Delaware. Article showing that 99.9% uptime is possible with just renewables, in America.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 02:34
|
|
|
For the low low price of probably trillions of dollars in capital investment, much of which would not see enough use to ever be profitable.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 02:41
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:Article showing that 99.9% uptime is possible with just renewables, in America. 15 years ago we were going to have fusion power in 15 years.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 02:47
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In 15 years, maybe. quote:[The study did not assume the introduction of new, more efficient technologies, The only thing stopping you is people like John McCain (the poster, not the politician)
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Mostly what's stopping it from happening is that it's not profitable and the political will doesn't exist to maintain the level of taxation and/or debt that would be necessary to finance the plants publicly. Make no mistake, a program to replace 99.9% of the generative capacity of the US with renewable sources would be a capital investment on a scale the US hasn't seen since the Great Depression (and probably higher than even most of the New Deal). For example, Hoover Dam cost ca. $700m in 2008 dollars and has a maximum capacity of 2 GW. The existing summer generative capacity of the US is approx. 1 TW. The article suggests overbuilding generation to 300% required, so the needed capacity by 2030 would be at least 3 TW assuming no electrical energy growth needed over the next 20 years. That means you need to build 1500 Hoover Dams (!!!!) for a cost of ca. $1 trillion. Of course, you can't possibly build 1500 Hoover Dams (which, incidentally, is currently producing power for a cost of ca. 1.6c/KWh, which is dirt cheap compared to most renewables), so the real price tag is going to be significantly higher than $1 trillion. John McCain fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Apr 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 03:21
|
|
|
John McCain posted:Mostly what's stopping it from happening is that it's not profitable and the political will doesn't exist to maintain the level of taxation and/or debt that would be necessary to finance the plants publicly. Make no mistake, a program to replace 99.9% of the generative capacity of the US with renewable sources would be a capital investment on a scale the US hasn't seen since the Great Depression. I understand all this. Its the insistence on profitability at the expense of all else that I have the issue with. No value is given to the health of the people around the power generation asset, or the impacts on the environment. Just the ability of it to make money. Also pretty sure that you guys could use a few more jobs over there, to help stimulate your economy a bit. Maybe this could help?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
It's not an issue of profitability for its own sake, it's simply the fact that you're never going to attract private investment for something that's unprofitable. And in order to adjust the market to properly account for the significant negative externalities of non-renewable generation would require a significant political sea change just to admit climate change as a problem, much less to agree to government subsidies (!) or, God forbid, new taxes (!!). And profitability issues aside, we're talking about huge expenditures of capital to build the drat plants. How much of the US GDP should be devoted solely to construction of new power plants? One percent? Five percent? Ten percent? That represents a titanic investment of concrete, steel, and labor. The mining for the steel and concrete alone would itself cause significant environmental damage.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 03:49
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:I understand all this. You're thinking about a expanding energy as a social non-profit service. However social services also need to at least break-even in terms of cost-vs-state funding. Jobs don't mean much if they are economically unsustainable either. Cost overruns can hit private projects just as much as state ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 03:50
|
|
|
John McCain posted:It's not an issue of profitability for its own sake, it's simply the fact that you're never going to attract private investment for something that's unprofitable. Yes. Because of people who insist on turning a profit before they invest in anything. quote:And in order to adjust the market to properly account for the significant negative externalities of non-renewable generation would require a significant political sea change just to admit climate change as a problem, much less to agree to government subsidies (!) or, God forbid, new taxes (!!). http://gigaom.com/2013/02/12/president-obama-if-congress-wont-act-on-climate-change-i-will/ quote:And profitability issues aside, we're talking about huge expenditures of capital to build the drat plants. How much of the US GDP should be devoted solely to construction of new power plants? One percent? Five percent? Ten percent? That represents a titanic investment of concrete, steel, and labor. The mining for the steel and concrete alone would itself cause significant environmental damage. I understand that there will be some environmental damage due to the mining. I believe this is a better result than the environmental damage due to the mining of coal, with the added bonus of not burning the coal and loving with the atmosphere. Office Thug posted:You're thinking about a expanding energy as a social non-profit service. However social services also need to at least break-even in terms of cost-vs-state funding. quote:Jobs don't mean much if they are economically unsustainable either. Cost overruns can hit private projects just as much as state ones.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
If you want people to invest in projects that they know very well aren't profitable and never will be profitable you're going to have to do something about that pesky "human nature" thing. And while switching government subsidies from fossil fuels to renewable power will provide a start, it'll be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of investment required to reach 99.9% renewable by 2030. We're talking New Deal/WWII Reconstruction investment levels required.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 04:23
|
|
|
John McCain posted:If you want people to invest in projects that they know very well aren't profitable and never will be profitable you're going to have to do something about that pesky "human nature" thing. quote:The only thing stopping you is people like John McCain (the poster, not the politician) quote:And while switching government subsidies from fossil fuels to renewable power will provide a start, it'll be a drop in the bucket compared to the amount of investment required to reach 99.9% renewable by 2030. We're talking New Deal/WWII Reconstruction investment levels required.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 04:38
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:Ok. I understand its a lot of money. I understand some people dont like spending a lot of money. I understand that the economy in America is all sorts of hosed up, and you dont have a lot of money just lying around. I still think it would be worth the cost. America by definition has essentially infinite money lying around, it's a matter of getting people to vote to use it. The thing is, John McCain, if you're going to shut down any argument for non-carbon generation, whether it's renewable or nuclear, with "well fossil fuels are cheaper" then we should just all go home and await death, because thanks to an entire global network and economic model built off them fossil fuels aren't going to be more expensive until CO2's at 600 ppm and we're all cooking. Seriously, your entire objection to the research is "well it'll never happen because too much of the US think climate change is a liberal plot and the alternatives aren't magically cheaper today." No poo poo? That's why we're in the situation we're in in the first place. Why even have a thread about alternative energy?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 04:46
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
The problem is not convincing you that it's a good idea, the problem is convincing the people who have control of the trillions of dollars needed to get the project done. I don't think a gradual transition to renewables is impossible, but I do think that getting America on 99.9% renewables by 2030 is impossible. I think we're pretty much hosed at this point in terms of avoiding significant climate change, but that doesn't mean we should give up, because at this rate we're going to boil the oceans. Also, this is a thread about energy generation, not exclusively alternative energy generation. John McCain fucked around with this message at 05:00 on Apr 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 04:47
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:Since when? Im pretty sure the police force is social service that doesnt break even in terms of cost-vs-state funding. There are others, like garbage collection, or verge/park maintenance. It's a really bad idea to subsidize energy usage over the long run. The amount of heat we throw out already noticeably warms our cities up, no need to encourage people to use more. Activities like consuming energy should fully internalize their costs. I would still have the state do it, though, they're the ones who are best placed to perform that kind of expensive, long-term investment. Turn it over to the Navy as a national defense measure, like our interstate troop transportation highways. They already handle nuclear reactors on ships and thus are uniquely positioned to cut through the red tape and build newer, safer reactor designs. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Apr 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 05:05
|
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:It's a really bad idea to subsidize energy usage over the long run. The amount of heat we throw out already noticeably warms our cities up, no need to encourage people to use more. Activities like consuming energy should fully internalize their costs. Good points.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 05:16
|
|
|
John McCain posted:The problem is not convincing you that it's a good idea, the problem is convincing the people who have control of the trillions of dollars needed to get the project done. You'd be amazed at how many people there are who don't KNOW that viable alternatives to fossil fuels exist. The number of people I talk to on behalf of BZE who even know what solar thermal is, let alone what it does, is a minority.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 06:07
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solution-to-renewable-energy-more-renewable-energy 99.9% sounds like a lot, but it really isn't that great. It's a downtime of roughly 10 minutes per week, or 43 per month, or just under 9 hours per year. We will still need a baseload generating capacity to get that up to an acceptable number.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 10:02
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:99.9% sounds like a lot, but it really isn't that great. It's a downtime of roughly 10 minutes per week, or 43 per month, or just under 9 hours per year. We will still need a baseload generating capacity to get that up to an acceptable number.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 11:22
|
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solution-to-renewable-energy-more-renewable-energy A few points that I found interesting:
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 11:52
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:That article is a little fuzzy on the details, but from what I understood, it gets 99.9% uptime from a combination of onshore, offshore and solar. Does that include already existing hydro power generation? If not, that would probably bring the reliability up to 100%. If it does, however, then running a couple of natural gas power plants for 9 hours/year wouldn't be so bad, either (since they would to satisfy only a small part of the total power demand). Isn't the whole point of baseload power as a concept that power plants have to be kept running 100% of the time, because the outages due to lack of other sources/peaks in usage can't be predicted with total accuracy, and it takes hours/days for a cold plant to spin up to useful output?
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 12:14
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 22:48 |
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Isn't the whole point of baseload power as a concept that power plants have to be kept running 100% of the time, because the outages due to lack of other sources/peaks in usage can't be predicted with total accuracy, and it takes hours/days for a cold plant to spin up to useful output? The rationale behind the 99.9% threshold is described in the report. It was mostly a matter of economics - costs rise asymptotically as you approach 100% (remember - getting from 90% to 99.9% requires 3x overcapacity). To cover those "missing" 9 hours per year, it's much more feasible to burn fossil fuels or use electricity-pricing schemes to shift demand around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2013 12:30
|
|