|
silence_kit posted:I calculated 1% by using the total electrical energy generated by nuclear power plants in 2011, an estimation on the area required for nuclear power plants, 4 km^2 per plant, which includes the safety exclusion areas for the ~500 plants in the world, and the 100x number for area required for wind versus nuclear from blowfish's pro-nuclear source, for which it is likely that he did the bookkeeping to make his case look stronger. That gives me the area required for wind power to generate the same amount of electricity as nuclear power in 2011. I then multiplied that by 10 because nuclear power plants only generated 10% of the world's electricity in 2011. In other words, you're planning for the past instead of the future and using disparate sources to come up with a weird number. Isn't it a lot more accurate to use actual electrical demand and actual wind turbine capabilities instead of trying to extrapolate from ratios like this? silence_kit posted:You realize that capacity factor and exhaustion of good sites for wind is largely already accounted for when you use electrical energy generated from an average wind speed in your calculation, right? You can quibble about what that average speed should be, of course. Maybe in that guy's pro-nuclear website's estimate, it is too high. Nope. I don't know what sources you guys are using, but 2 W / m^2 is a typical wind turbine capability before accounting for capacity factor. For instance, the Burton Wold Wind Farm uses the E70/E4, which with typical 15 rotor diameter spacing works out to having a nominal power/area of 1.8 W/m^2. This is before taking capacity factor into account. The Burton World Wind Farm has 10 of these turbines for a maximum theoretical capacity of ~176 GWh, but in 2010 they only generated about 43.4 GWh. In other words, their capacity factor is roughly 25%, and 2 W / m^2 does not take this into account because it's a maximum. Why the gently caress would someone who produces wind turbines even want to include capacity factor in their published specifications anyway? Capacity factor is a function of location, it would be pointless to publish anything but the theoretical maximum.
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:In other words, you're planning for the past instead of the future and using disparate sources to come up with a weird number. Isn't it a lot more accurate to use actual electrical demand and actual wind turbine capabilities instead of trying to extrapolate from ratios like this? I'm not doing any planning at all. I just wanted to get a sense of scale. For the nth time, I'm not committed to running the world on windmills. I just did the calculation in that way since it seemed easiest. I wanted to be able to use blowfish's own 100x plot so he wouldn't argue with it. QuarkJets posted:Nope. I don't know what sources you guys are using, but 2 W / m^2 is a typical wind turbine capability before accounting for capacity factor. For instance, the Burton Wold Wind Farm uses the E70/E4, which with typical 15 rotor diameter spacing works out to having a nominal power/area of 1.8 W/m^2. This is before taking capacity factor into account. The Burton World Wind Farm has 10 of these turbines for a maximum theoretical capacity of ~176 GWh, but in 2010 they only generated about 43.4 GWh. In other words, their capacity factor is roughly 25%, and 2 W / m^2 does not take this into account because it's a maximum. So wait, are you telling me that the nameplate capacity of the wind mill is not its maximum power generation, but rather it is a power generation number calculated assuming a certain wind speed? I assumed that nameplate capacity was a synonym for peak power output. I would think that a wind turbine manufacturer would prefer to advertise a peak power output. Edit: I'm confused now, since GulMadrid is claiming that 2 W/m^2 is assuming a 6 m/s wind speed, and you are claiming that it is the nameplate capacity. I guess they are one in the same if the max power output of the windmill is when the wind is 6 m/s. Edit2: Oh this is where 2 W/m^2 comes from. It's not a manufacturer nameplate number--just a basic physics calculation assuming 6 m/s wind speed: http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/cB/page_265.shtml Edit3: Calculating the "nameplate power density" assuming the E-70 specifications http://www.enercon.de/en-en/61.htm and a windmill spacing rule of thumb recommended by that UK source, I get 20 W / m^2, not 2 W / m^2. Edit4: Oh, you said 15 rotor and not 5 rotor spacing, ok. That works out to 2 W/m^2 too. silence_kit fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Name plate capacity is pretty much the max capacity of a turbine, i.e. "my turbine produces 1MWunder optimal wind conditions", not some number per m² at the most efficient/most realistic/whatever spacing between turbines. e: and "required land area is lower than farmed area" is not a very hard mark to beat, considering that 10% of the world land mass are farmed on a more or less regular basis. suck my woke dick fucked around with this message at 21:12 on Apr 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
silence_kit posted:So wait, are you telling me that the nameplate capacity of the wind mill is not its maximum power generation, but rather it is a power generation number calculated assuming a certain wind speed? I assumed that nameplate capacity was a synonym for peak power output. I would think that a wind turbine manufacturer would prefer to advertise a peak power output. 2 W / m^2 is the nameplate capacity. For a wind farm, that assumes ideal conditions at some wind speed. It does not include a capacity factor. Burton Wold Wind Farm has a nameplate capacity of 20 GWh per year but a capacity factor of only 25%; in other words, they tend to only produce 5 GWh in any given year. All of the math done so far, which has been using 2 W / m^2, does not include a capacity factor. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 08:15 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:38
|
|
|
Uh I don't think the wind farm is averaging 570W continuous output.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
should we do the tesla battery here or new thread?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:Burton Wold Wind Farm Just out of curiosity, why did you pick a "wind farm" of 10 turbines and a 20 MW baseplate, rather than one of the hundreds of wind farms with 10-100x the baseplate and hundreds of turbines? If we want to discuss spacing, why shouldn't we look at a 2GW farm instead?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Just out of curiosity, why did you pick a "wind farm" of 10 turbines and a 20 MW baseplate, rather than one of the hundreds of wind farms with 10-100x the baseplate and hundreds of turbines? If we want to discuss spacing, why shouldn't we look at a 2GW farm instead? Because it's a wind farm with which I'm personally familiar, no other reason. The size of the wind farm shouldn't matter much when it comes to baseplate anyway. Spacing is usually chosen as a function of turbine size, not total land area.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 08:13
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Uh I don't think the wind farm is averaging 570W continuous output. I've lodged a complaint with SwiftKey for correcting "GWh" to "MWh" on my phone 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 08:14
|
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:should we do the tesla battery here or new thread? People may buy them for the same reasons they buy Tesla cars - although it doesn't make any economic sense it's kinda cool and futuristic. As long as the economics is not there it will remain a thing for the tiny rich elite. Bloomberg did a piece on battery developers working on stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 11:33
|
|
|
What is the threads opinion on wave generated energy? There is an installation off the coast of WA that is operational and from what I have read, development is 20 years behind wind. There are obvious drawbacks, like the destructive force that is salt water, and the requirements of being near a coast, but it sounds like it could be another arrow in the renewable quiver.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
As with most renewables, too much coastline per unit energy.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 12:09
|
|
|
I can't wait for Tesla to start a house fire like their cars. Stop cutting costs with lots of small cells!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 12:45
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:I can't wait for Tesla to start a house fire like their cars. Stop cutting costs with lots of small cells! I'm pretty sure all cases of burning Teslas either have nothing to do with the batteries but chargers, low-voltage fuse boxes or even external fires, or the batteries have been damaged, but no spontanous combustion. Really everything that can and does happen to regular cars. -e- Also,  American house wiring
Lurking Haro fucked around with this message at 13:17 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:14
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:I'm pretty sure all cases of burning Teslas either have nothing to do with the batteries but chargers, low-voltage fuse boxes or even external fires, or the batteries have been damaged, but no spontanous combustion. Probably not, but using a lot of small lithium cells to make a big battery is just bad engineering. Lithium Ion's already have a pretty low tolerance for over charging and heat, packing a bunch of them in parallel is just asking for trouble. Sure, it's cheaper, but there's a reason why every other manufacturer isn't going with using lots of small cells. All it takes is one bad cell and then you're looking at a risk as it starts to heat up. Also, just because these things can happen to regular cars doesn't mean that Tesla isn't loving up something else besides their battery bricks, given how many fires there are for the small number of cars produced.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Probably not, but using a lot of small lithium cells to make a big battery is just bad engineering. Lithium Ion's already have a pretty low tolerance for over charging and heat, packing a bunch of them in parallel is just asking for trouble. Sure, it's cheaper, but there's a reason why every other manufacturer isn't going with using lots of small cells. All it takes is one bad cell and then you're looking at a risk as it starts to heat up. The last fire incident I can find is the one in Toronto more than a year ago which didn't even touch the batteries. Mind giving a source for those many fires and whether using more small cells instead of fewer bigger cells is the cause? Having more parallel strings actually give the chance to isolate a damaged cell or its string with appropriate wiring and each cell has less energy than one huge cell, giving it a chance to sink this heat lowering the chance of a thermal runaway. The collision-related battery fires involved punctured cells, which was a problem with thin underbody protection.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:The last fire incident I can find is the one in Toronto more than a year ago which didn't even touch the batteries. Like I said, I don't think any of them were from Thermal runaway. Two road debris, a fire that originated from the wall, and I want to say something else, but it's been a year since I ever talked shop about the cars. I still don't think it's sound engineering. You're just giving yourself hundreds of failure points. I also think the issue will become more pronounced as the bricks age, due to each individual cell taking on slightly different resistances as time goes on. I don't think it's a viable solution, and it's pretty much a case example of the things they tell you not to do. Also, reducing the energy per cell isn't accomplishing what you think it is. You short out one cell and you've just got a small cell taking in the power from all the others it's hooked into, which means it's less robust, not more. On the other hand, I don't know the numbers on heat transfer within the cell and across it's neighbors, so I couldn't say for sure what it'd look like as the entire system ages. My gut, on the back of the napkin feeling is that the differences between the thermal transfer between lots of battery casings would be a problem compared to 6 large cells sitting next to each other. Then you've got problems of what to do with an electronically isolated string. You can't really replace it, because then you've got fresh batteries mixed with older ones and you've got the problem all over again. Sure, you can just use some fancy footwork to keep that string isolated, but then you're not delivering the same amps and you've permanently lost power that you need. All of that aside, it does look like Tesla actual doesn't have as many incidents per car as I originally believed. I still think that I wouldn't want one of their thousand cell packs sitting in my apartment compared to other options based on what I know from class. So maybe Tesla won't ever cause a fire with their cost cutting measure. They should still stop doing it because it's a bad solution to a problem for the sake of cutting a little bit off the price point.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Probably not, but using a lot of small lithium cells to make a big battery is just bad engineering. Lithium Ion's already have a pretty low tolerance for over charging and heat, packing a bunch of them in parallel is just asking for trouble. Sure, it's cheaper, but there's a reason why every other manufacturer isn't going with using lots of small cells. All it takes is one bad cell and then you're looking at a risk as it starts to heat up.  They'll be so glad to hear that Joe Random Idiot can help them with their job. quote:Also, just because these things can happen to regular cars doesn't mean that Tesla isn't loving up something else besides their battery bricks, given how many fires there are for the small number of cars produced. Step 2) Have this claim refuted. Step 3) Herp derp they're still very dangerous, you guys.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Yes, because obviously Tesla's EE's are smarter than those other EE's like me. Elon can do no wrong, the basics of circuit design are taught wrong at universities around the world, and they're the only ones in the entire world, out of dozens of companies looking at the same problem to know the right and proper solution. I'm sure there's no trade offs involved at all, because then we couldn't all slobber on Elon's cock.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Yes, because obviously Tesla's EE's are smarter than those other EE's like me. Elon can do no wrong, the basics of circuit design are taught wrong at universities around the world, and they're the only ones in the entire world, out of dozens of companies looking at the same problem to know the right and proper solution. I'm sure there's no trade offs involved at all, because then we couldn't all slobber on Elon's cock. Don't they use the same cell packs for SpaceX's Dragon capsules, which dock to the ISS? Either NASA doesn't care or they greenlit the use. -e- Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Like I said, I don't think any of them were from Thermal runaway. Two road debris, a fire that originated from the wall, and I want to say something else, but it's been a year since I ever talked shop about the cars. I still don't think it's sound engineering. You're just giving yourself hundreds of failure points. I also think the issue will become more pronounced as the bricks age, due to each individual cell taking on slightly different resistances as time goes on. I don't think it's a viable solution, and it's pretty much a case example of the things they tell you not to do. Sometimes the by-the-book solution just doesn't cut it. You have to find the balance the between robustness and cost. I imagine binning a big li-ion cell that failed testing costs more than binning smaller cells half that in mass. Of course you lose power if you cut out a string, but it prevents potential fatal failures. Replacing a few strings isn't a problem either, you just won't use the unused capacity of the new string. After all, each string is monitored separately. Still cheaper than buying a new battery. Lurking Haro fucked around with this message at 17:07 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:47
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Don't they use the same cell packs for SpaceX's Dragon capsules, which dock to the ISS? Either NASA doesn't care or they greenlit the use. A car with a life expectancy of 20 years is not equal to a space thing that will fly probably once.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:A car with a life expectancy of 20 years is not equal to a space thing that will fly probably once. True, the space thing is usually much better engineered.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Lurking Haro posted:Don't they use the same cell packs for SpaceX's Dragon capsules, which dock to the ISS? Either NASA doesn't care or they greenlit the use. Good question. I've spent all morning googling various things, and to be honest I maaaay have to eat a little crow on this. I still object to things on the sort of if all cells regardless of size were the same and we were looking at it from a mathematical standpoint I'd want the least number of cells needed, but the 18650 is reliable, it's the cheapest you'll get, and looking at the patents Tesla has they've put a lot of work into solving issues with the heat side of things. I also can't find what actual cell the 787 uses, but it looks like it may be a custom cell, in which case, yeah, I'll take the salt with my crow. This might just end up being a wait and see thing. I do think there's a lot of other non li-ion options for storage in homes, where the weight of the system isn't as important as it is in a car. edit: http://www.spacex.com/sites/spacex/files/pdf/DragonLabFactSheet.pdf Looks like they use a lithium polymer big battery. That'd make sense, since going with the lowest cost option isn't always best. Not in terms of safety, but in terms of weight and mass. Lots of little round cells have a lot of empty space in between them, after all. Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 17:08 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:A car with a life expectancy of 20 years is not equal to a space thing that will fly probably once. Pretty sure SpaceX eventually wants to start reusing the capsules.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Pretty sure SpaceX eventually wants to start reusing the capsules. Yep, they do. I still hate Elon due to politics and paypal, but the Dragon's a good ship.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Pretty sure SpaceX eventually wants to start reusing the capsules. They'd already do, but the CRS contract calls for a new capsule every time.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Yes, because obviously Tesla's EE's are smarter than those other EE's like me. Elon can do no wrong, the basics of circuit design are taught wrong at universities around the world, and they're the only ones in the entire world, out of dozens of companies looking at the same problem to know the right and proper solution. I'm sure there's no trade offs involved at all, because then we couldn't all slobber on Elon's cock. Because circuitry to protect individuals cells would be impossible right.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Yes, because obviously Tesla's EE's are smarter than those other EE's like me. Oh, and yes, cost was probably a major factor during the design of the batteries. [1] Source: I'm an engineer.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20100086844 There's the patent on one of their systems for dealing with Thermal Runaway in their packs. It's an interesting read, and a nifty idea for cooling down the cells. hobbesmaster posted:Because circuitry to protect individuals cells would be impossible right. No, but you'd want to use software as well. Which they do. Doing each individual cell would be a bit of an issue, yes, but to be honest they're a bunch of strings of cells that are themselves in parallel, so you can't just cut out individual cells anyways. Doesn't mean that you can't have an argument over if you should have a simple system that requires less monitoring or a complex system that takes more work but is cheaper, which is what a lot of the debate is over. CombatInformatiker posted:I'm going out on a limp here, but I assume that you were not involved in the design of Tesla's car or home batteries, therefore you're not intimately familiar with the problems and tradeoffs encounted during their development. From an outside perspective, you first see the drawbacks of a product, not the reasons that necessitated those drawbacks – even if you're a professional of the same discipline. [1] Yeah. That's why I've eaten crow over this. I was wrong, and I wasn't keeping up with what had happened over the past few years. I think we all know that cost was a major factor, but that doesn't always mean it was the right choice. The cost of larger cells have gone down, so you have to look at the cost in the future as well, and a lot of other factors. My post was mostly about it not being a complete open and shut case, but everyone knows that nothing ever is. edit: I should clarify, my post about Tesla vs the rest of the industry was. My first post about Tesla packs burning down homes is just me doing the whole assumptions based off of one thing and not looking at the big picture. Last time I thought about Tesla the investigation wasn't even started, so that's what I get for not keeping up on things and then deciding to make a dumb comment about it! Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 17:28 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:15
|
|
|
Fair enough. I have a lot of respect for people who openly admit to being wrong, instead of trying to wriggle out of it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 18:30
|
|
|
It wouldn't be the first time I was wrong, it won't be the last. Sorry about this time though. On the upside I learned a lot of neat stuff. If the price of 18650's drops when Musk's factory comes online then they'll probably remain significantly cheaper than the bigger automotive cells even as they come down in cost. I still hope someone else besides Musk comes along in the market though!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
So has anyone else seen the Powerwall video?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Anosmoman posted:A car with a life expectancy of 20 years is not equal to a space thing that will fly probably once. A car where you can expect a failure not to instantly kill you and which you will have time to take to a mechanic before you plunge to a horrible fiery death is indeed not equal to things that by their nature must be incredibly overengineered.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Yes, Musk, your goddamn battery packs with solar panels are going to get power to people that don't have it, because the free market and cars and it's no big deal. Urgh. This is why I can't stand the man. Here's a 10k solution, it'll help poor rural people in remote areas. None of this is going to work with out massive government investment, and yet everyone is going to be slobbering all over it like he's goddamn solar Jesus. Did he even give the dimensions for the power pack? I want to know how much space 900 million of the things would take, even if you excluded the cost of fans and everything else. What's the life span on his power pack? I mean, I'm not going to argue with the economics of scale, mass producing a solution is going to be needed no matter how we solve our energy problems, but Jesus, its so much hype. Batteries are terrible! Ok, sure. How are your batteries different, Musk? You're using a mature battery and solving the issues it has, which is great, but it's not like you're walking on water. http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/05/01/why-teslas-powerwall-is-just-another-toy-for-rich-green-people/ I think this sums it up nicely, it doesn't make economic sense for most people, how's this going to help with out it being massively subsidized? Hell, I'm going to echo the article, give me the numbers on the power pack. That's where we should be looking at storage problems for the grid, not this house by house solution. edit: Here's the video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yKORsrlN-2k edit2: I mean, he points out that you'd only need a pixel of land for batteries, but that pixel of land is like, the size of Ft. Worth or larger. C'mon! Killer-of-Lawyers fucked around with this message at 20:06 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:03
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Yes, Musk, your goddamn battery packs with solar panels are going to get power to people that don't have it, because the free market and cars and it's no big deal. Urgh. This is why I can't stand the man. Here's a 10k solution, it'll help poor rural people in remote areas. I think it follows the plan of: make world saving innovation economical and cool for rich people first, get them to lobby for government subsidies, make tons of money off that, then roll that into mass-produced low-cost versions for everybody.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:10
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:I think it follows the plan of: make world saving innovation economical and cool for rich people first, get them to lobby for government subsidies, make tons of money off that, then roll that into mass-produced low-cost versions for everybody. That's a terrible plan. I mean, it's a fantastic business plan for him, but there are other solutions out there that would probably cost society less at this point. Its also not a world saving innovation. There's some nifty ideas like we discussed last page on dealing with the downsides of using a ton of laptop li-ion cells in every possible application, but it's not some massive deal. He just put a shiny coat of marketing and charisma on it and now people think he's loving Jesus.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Phanatic posted:A car where you can expect a failure not to instantly kill you and which you will have time to take to a mechanic before you plunge to a horrible fiery death is indeed not equal to things that by their nature must be incredibly overengineered. The point is it doesn't matter if NASA greenlighted it to fly on rockets. NASA greenlighted the engine on the curiosity rover and I wouldn't put that in my car, plane, train or boat. Things are engineered for different tasks and being exceptionelly well - or poorly - engineered for one thing does not inform you of anything else. Tesla batteries could be immensely well suited for space travel and still be the most expensive and impractical batteries on Earth.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:17
|
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Yes, Musk, your goddamn battery packs with solar panels are going to get power to people that don't have it, because the free market and cars and it's no big deal. Urgh. This is why I can't stand the man. Here's a 10k solution, it'll help poor rural people in remote areas. If you spent a couple minutes looking into what he said in the video instead of coming here to cry right away you would have your questions answered. He sees go to the website http://www.teslamotors.com/powerwall and you can see all the information about dimensions, usage, etc. The dimension is 51.2" x 33.9" x 7.1" or 130 cm x 86 cm x 18 cm and it weighs 220 lbs or 100 kg.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
Nice reading comprehension. I said the power pack, not the loving power wall. edit: Did you seriously even read or watch the video, or were you too busy jumping at an opportunity to slobber all over his throbbing Galtesq cock?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 19:59 |
|
|
Killer-of-Lawyers posted:Nice reading comprehension. I said the power pack, not the loving power wall. Dude, I'm not a fan of this glorified UPS, but you really need to chill the gently caress out. You sound like a crazy person with a paranoid hatred toward Musk.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 20:42
|
|
