The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

«‹›2 »

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

https://theconversation.edu.au/water-based-battery-a-step-up-for-renewable-energy-8906

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 02:01

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 11:47

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Aureon posted:

e: Is Australia on the whole ridiculously anti-nuclear or something?

All the major parties are against nuclear power generation. There is a staggering amount of NIMBYism, and we had the brits and the yanks testing bombs in the outback in the 50s.

Plus, there is no need for it here. I used to be a massive nuclear power supporter, but have since changed my views. I would still prefer nuclear power over coal.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 02:57

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Aureon posted:

There's no "need" for basically anything, though.

Ok. Let me try a different tack.

Australia has some of the best settings for solar power in the world. Huge amounts of sunlight, huge amounts of open space, with most of the population in a comparatively small area. We are already installing rooftop solar PV at a rate never before seen in this country, as well as a distinct downwards trend shift in total energy consumption.

Given the issues with waste (minor issues sure, but still an issue), plus you need to mine and refine the fuel, plus the huge amounts of NIMBYism, plus that water issues (I realise solar needs water as well, but to my knowledge, not to the same amount as nuclear, plus I dont think the water is irradiated after being used in a solar plant, but im happy to be corrected) plus geosecurity issues (I have heard of nations being invaded for an energy source, but that energy source has never been the sun) plus other bits and pieces that im sure im forgetting. To me, they all add up to solar/renewables being a better choice to focus on.

quote:

So, mass-scale indoctrination. Am i allowed to make Orwellian comparisons yet?

You can try. I was convinced by a dude who worked for the CSIRO, then scitech, and now does work for the group doing the SKA here in Perth. The government doesnt inform me of much. My views arent considered mean stream.

blacksun posted:

Yeah, there's no 'need' for it here if we spend 4x the money (compared the nuclear) replacing our coal fired power generation with solar/wind.

I believe it would be worth it. You obviously disagree.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 03:51

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Cartoon posted:

Only the water actually in contact with the fuel is 'irradiated' and as the very most that you can do to water by irradiating it is boil it, nobody sees this as much of an issue. You can't make Heavy Water in a light water reactor for instance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water. People would be cock a hoop if you could. Irradiating water is used to kill nasties in dirty water so maybe it's a good thing?

http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/documentlibrary/protectingtheenvironment/factsheet/water-use-and-nuclear-power-plants/?page=1

I found that which rebuts my water argument, so there is that I guess.

Feral Integral posted:

I thought most of the water use from a (nuclear) plant was from the steam-turbine energy generation, not the pool that surrounds the reactor? So wouldn't the generator water not be irradiated? Not really sure if I'm right on any of this

Not 100% sure, but it sounds more correct than what I was thinking earlier.

# ¿ Sep 19, 2012 04:08

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/24/nuclear-power-costs-are-going-up-and-up-minister-not-down/

# ¿ Nov 20, 2012 04:21

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/business/renewables-can-do-24-hour-baseload-anywhere-anytime/

quote:

THE FUTURE of civilisation and much biodiversity hangs to a large degree on whether we can replace fossil fuels � coal, oil and gas � with clean, safe and affordable energy within several decades. The good news is that renewable energy technologies and energy efficiency measures have advanced with extraordinary speed over the past decade.

Energy efficient buildings and appliances, solar hot water, on-shore wind, solar photovoltaic (PV) modules, concentrated solar thermal (CST) power with thermal storage and gas turbines burning a wide range of renewable liquid and gaseous fuels are commercially available on a large scale.

The costs of these technologies have declined substantially, especially those of solar PV. In 2012, despite the global financial crisis, global investment in these clean, safe and healthy technologies amounted to US $269 billion. Denmark, Scotland and Germany and several states/provinces around the world have official targets of around 100% renewable electricity and are implementing policies to achieve them.

The principal barrier is resistance from vested interests and their supporters in the big greenhouse gas polluting industries and from an unsafe, expensive, polluting, would-be competitor to a renewable energy future, nuclear power. These powerful interests are running a campaign of renewable energy denial that is almost as fierce as the long-running campaign of climate change denial. Both campaigns are particularly noisy in the Murdoch press.

So far the anti-renewables campaign, with its misinformation and gross exaggerations, has received little critical examination in the mainstream media.

The renewable energy deniers rehash, among others, the old myth that renewable energy is unreliable in supplying base load demand.

Renewable energy is reliable
In a previous article for The Conversation, I reported on the initial results of computer simulations by a research team at the University of New South Wales that busted the myth that renewable energy cannot supply base load demand. However at the time of the article, I was still under the misconception that some base load renewable energy supply may be needed to be part of the renewable energy mix.

Since then, Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and I have performed thousands of computer simulations of 100% renewable electricity in the National Electricity Market (NEM), using actual hourly data on electricity demand, wind and solar power for 2010.

Our latest research, available here and reported here, finds that generating systems comprising a mix of different commercially available renewable energy technologies, located on geographically dispersed sites, do not need base load power stations to achieve the same reliability as fossil-fuelled systems.

The old myth was based on the incorrect assumption that base load demand can only be supplied by base load power stations; for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy technologies in our computer model, which has no base load power stations, easily supplies base load demand.

Our optimal mix comprises wind 50-60%; solar PV 15-20%; concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids. (Contrary to some claims, concentrated solar with thermal storage does not behave as base load in winter; however, that doesn�t matter.)

The real challenge is to supply peaks in demand on calm winter evenings following overcast days. That�s when the peak-load power stations, that is, hydro and gas turbines, make vital contributions by filling gaps in wind and solar generation.

Renewable electricity is affordable

Our latest peer-reviewed paper, currently in press in Energy Policy journal, compares the economics of two new alternative hypothetical generation systems for 2030: 100% renewable electricity versus an �efficient� fossil-fuelled system. Both systems have commercially available technologies and both satisfy the NEM reliability criterion. However, the renewable energy system has zero greenhouse gas emissions while the efficient fossil scenario has high emissions and water use and so would be unacceptable in environmental terms.

We used the technology costs projected to 2030 in the conservative 2012 study by the Bureau of Resources and Energy Economics (BREE). (In my personal view, future solar PV and wind costs are likely to be lower than the BREE projections, and future fossil fuel and nuclear costs are likely to be higher.) Then, we did thousands of hourly simulations of supply and demand over 2010, until we found the mix of renewable energy sources that gave the minimum annual cost.

Under transparent assumptions, we found that the total annualised cost (including capital, operation, maintenance and fuel where relevant) of the least-cost renewable energy system is $7-10 billion per year higher than that of the �efficient� fossil scenario.

For comparison, the subsidies to the production and use of all fossil fuels in Australia are at least $10 billion per year. So, if governments shifted the fossil subsidies to renewable electricity, we could easily pay for the latter�s additional costs.

Thus 100% renewable electricity would be affordable under sensible government policy, busting another myth. All we need are effective policies to drive the transition.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2013 03:41

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Gotta love an article that calls nuclear power "unsafe, expensive, [and] polluting" but handwaves away hydropower like drowning a few hundred square kilometers ain't no thang.

While I agree its a bit biased, the plan calls for the usage of existing hydro power sources, not creating any new ones.

karthun posted:

It still relies on fossil fuels.

quote:

and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids.

Almost. You almost got it right.

# ¿ Apr 15, 2013 05:59

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

karthun posted:

This exact same flaw exists in for biomethane, it needs to compete against fracked natural gas.

Why? Because its cheaper?

# ¿ Apr 15, 2013 08:45

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=solution-to-renewable-energy-more-renewable-energy

quote:

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.

A mix of offshore and onshore wind, along with contributions from solar power, could provide reliable power flow during all but a handful of days in the hypothetical four-year period under study.

Moreover, researchers found that scaling up renewable generation capacity to seemingly excessive levels -- more than three times the needed load, in some instances -- proved more cost-effective than scaling up storage capacity, due to the high systems costs associated with storage technology.

"That's a lot of overbuilding," said Willett Kempton, a professor in the School of Marine Science and Policy at the University of Delaware and a co-author of the study. Much of that excess capacity would be underused during all but a few days a year, he said.

At the same time, thermal power plants face a similar problem today through inefficiency, he added.

"If you think about it, power plants burn three times the amount of fuel energy needed to produce their energy output," he said. "You burn three units of coal to get one unit of electricity."

Overgeneration would be cost effective even if all excess energy were simply dumped, according to the study. If that excess energy were harnessed -- to offset the costs of heating fuels, for example -- costs could be lowered even further.

Diversity of supply
Reliability has long been the Achilles' heel of renewable energy, which depends on intermittent weather conditions like wind and sun to generate power. However, by extending enough wind turbines and solar panels over a wide enough area, it is possible to achieve approximate reliability by shifting power from active to passive regions.

The study did not assume the introduction of new, more efficient technologies, although it did form its calculations based on 2030 technology costs and energy prices. Its models incorporated four years of energy use and weather data from within PJM Interconnection, a regional transmission organization covering about one-fifth of the United States' total electrical system.

The simulations were run on the XSEDE supercomputer network, a project of the National Science Foundation. The researchers ran 28 billion separate simulations, sifting for the lowest possible cost to achieve varying levels of reliability for 72 gigawatts of power.

The simulations found that onshore wind power was consistently the cheapest renewable option, followed by offshore wind, with solar power and limited hydrogen energy storage coming online only when the researchers asked for near-perfect reliability.

"When we modeled to cover 30 percent of the hours under study, the least-cost scenario didn't include any offshore wind or solar, Kempton said. "When we modeled for 90 percent reliability, the scenario included both offshore and onshore wind."

It wasn't until the researchers asked for a scenario in which energy supply met demand 99.9 percent of the time that solar was brought into the picture, he said.

"Solar was more expensive than wind power, but it also matched load most closely," said Cory Budischak, an instructor at Delaware Technical Community College and co-author of the study. "It's more windy at night, but sunnier during the day when you see most of your peak demand. So at 90 percent reliability you can get by with just wind, but to get that last 9.9 percent, you really need solar."

Electric car batteries as backups
By building up renewable energy capacity to around 290 percent, energy could be delivered at a low cost with very little battery storage needed, Budischak said.

"You still need battery storage, but only enough for a couple of days, rather than a couple of weeks," he said.

The researchers ran simulations based on varying levels of battery and electric car storage. Electric cars, which could be tapped during daytime hours to help meet peak demand, provide the cheapest storage option since most of their costs would be absorbed by their owners, Kempton said.

"But with cars, you run into resource constraints," Kempton said. "It's not like every person in PJM is going to have five electric vehicles."

He added, "With wind and solar we don't see the same kind of constraints."

While most analysts believe the world can -- and, if the worst effects of climate change are to be averted, must -- transfer to a predominantly renewable-based energy economy, the role of fossil fuels as backup power supply is still hotly debated.

An article in the Los Angeles Times this week cited several sources as claiming that upscaling renewable would need to be met with a corresponding rise in traditional fossil fuel power plants in order to ensure baseload power supply.

According the University of Delaware study, a large enough system of renewable energy generators could feasibly fill its own reliability gaps. "In our 99.9 percent scenario, we found that, in four years, only five times would you need to bring fossil-fuel plants back online to ensure power supply," Kempton said.

Rather than build new plants, a few of the coal or gas plants offset by new renewable supplies could be kept online to provide that backup power, he said.

Article showing that 99.9% uptime is possible with just renewables, in America.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2013 02:34

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Rent-A-Cop posted:

In 15 years, maybe.

15 years ago we were going to have fusion power in 15 years.

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

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

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.

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.

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

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

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 (!!).

I swear Obama had something to say about climate change in his latest SotU address.

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.

Personally, I would take any subsidies or government funds going to the fossil fuel industry, and immediately cap them at current levels, then start to reduce them down over the next 5-10 years, till they dont get anything. Take that money, and pump it into renewable energy projects. That will give you a bit of a head start.

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.

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.

quote:

Jobs don't mean much if they are economically unsustainable either. Cost overruns can hit private projects just as much as state ones.

Im struggling to understand what you mean by this.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2013 04:06

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

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.

And finally, the argument has come full circle.

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.

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.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2013 04:38

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

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.

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.

Good points.

# ¿ Apr 17, 2013 05:16

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

The Australian Energy Market Operator (AEMO) runs the energy market on the East coast of Australia, and they have put out a report saying that an energy supply from 100% renewable energy is possible.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/aemo-100-per-cent-renewables.aspx

There is a bit of a summary here http://larvatusprodeo.net/archives/2013/05/are-100-renewables-possible/

There is another summary here http://www.climatechange.gov.au/en/government/initiatives/aemo-100-per-cent-renewables.aspx

There is another summary here, http://bravenewclimate.com/2013/05/02/100pc-renew-study-needs-makeover/#more-6110 , where the Author includes more details on including nuclear power in the mix.

Yes its expensive. I understand that. Just keep in mind that its cheaper to build new solar than it is to build new coal plants, and that all our coal plants will need to be replaced by 2045 anyway.

# ¿ May 8, 2013 01:32

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

hobbesmaster posted:

And it's only got a 3500 acre footprint.

This is why we're so completely hosed with solar and wind.

Because these technologies are never going to get any better and certainly not if we install a lot of them and get better at the process. Because its simply impossible for the solar technologies to get any better than what they are already.

# ¿ Sep 27, 2013 02:17

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/renewable-energy-now-cheaper-than-new-fossil-fuels-in-australia/

New wind farms can generate energy cheaper than new coal or gas plants in Australia.

# ¿ Jan 12, 2014 09:54

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

blowfish posted:

Problem: you need like 3-4 times overcapacity at least to get reasonably secure base load power, and you need to add storage to do that.

That's going to increase wind/solar costs quite a bit if they are to be the backbone of your power grid.

http://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-intermittent-renewables-will-work-13210

quote:

In a previous article for The Conversation I reported on the initial results of computer simulations by a research team at the University of New South Wales that busted the myth that renewable energy cannot supply base-load demand. However at the time of the article I was still under the misconception that some base-load renewable energy supply may be needed to be part of the renewable energy mix.

Since then Ben Elliston, Iain MacGill and I have performed thousands of computer simulations of 100% renewable electricity in the National Electricity Market (NEM), using actual hourly data on electricity demand, wind and solar power for 2010. Our latest research, available here and reported here, finds that generating systems comprising a mix of different commercially available renewable energy technologies, located on geographically dispersed sites, do not need base-load power stations to achieve the same reliability as fossil-fuelled systems.

The old myth was based on the incorrect assumption that base-load demand can only be supplied by base-load power stations; for example, coal in Australia and nuclear in France. However, the mix of renewable energy technologies in our computer model, which has no base-load power stations, easily supplies base-load demand. Our optimal mix comprises wind 50-60%; solar PV 15-20%; concentrated solar thermal with 15 hours of thermal storage 15-20%; and the small remainder supplied by existing hydro and gas turbines burning renewable gases or liquids. (Contrary to some claims, concentrated solar with thermal storage does not behave as base-load in winter; however, that doesn’t matter.)

# ¿ Jan 12, 2014 11:11

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Amusing article / book review that brings up some interesting points for renewables in Australia.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2014/07/14/get-fact-testing-ian-plimer-on-wind-and-solar-power/

I haven't read either book, but it's nice having a quick reference to say to anyone that that is why plimer is poo poo.

# ¿ Jul 14, 2014 16:08

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

hobbesmaster posted:

So reading up on this... four people killed themselves in easily preventable accidents due to improper supervision and failure to follow basic electrical safety standards (in one case, directly contradicting them).

In the states (especially Texas) we call that "Friday"

Yeah, but we have halfway decent labour laws and workplace deaths are something we actively try to avoid, instead of just replacing the dead worker. I understand it's different in America.

Funnily enough the minister in charge was former dancer Peter Garrett, and he was forced to resign because he lowered the rate of deaths in the construction industry during the program. Meanwhile, our current immigration minister is personally responsible for the innocent women and children who we lock up for no reason, in places where locals have rampaged through the detention centre and killed people seeking asylum, and he gets the prime minister to vouch for him and his good work.

But enough on our hosed politics, let's get back to our hosed energy gen systems.

# ¿ Jul 18, 2014 06:21

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Wait, hold on, back up, what the gently caress?

The current policy of the government is to use the military to intercept any boats carrying asylum seekers and tow them back to where they came from. They refuse to answer any questions about what's actually happening, citing operational security reasons. We also have over a thousand men, women and children in offshore immigration detention (which groups like HRW and Amnesty International call torture) and have ceased processing claims. A few months ago, the residents of manus island took exception to the asylum seekers and there was a riot and an asylum seeker named Reza Berati was killed. There are weekly reports of new horrors coming out of there, like the poo poo conditions, lack of medical support, constant self harm, including by children and worse stuff.

Also we have recently intercepted 2 boats with tamil asylum seekers and are keeping one in international waters because we were going to give them back to the Sri Lankan government and noted good lawyer Ron Merkel said what the gently caress is happening and got a high Court order to stop it. We did manage to get about 50 tamils shipped back though, and they have already been arrested and charged.

Yes, I know this is against international law, and common decency.

I could keep going but frankly I'm a bit depressed now. Come over to the auspol thread to find out more.

NPR Journalizard fucked around with this message at 09:59 on Jul 18, 2014

# ¿ Jul 18, 2014 09:56

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Nintendo Kid posted:

For those that don't understand, all buildings over about 75 feet height in Los Angeles must have an emergency helicopter landing facility, with a minimum of 50 foot by 50 foot helipad and an additional clear area 25 feet from the helipad proper.

Why?

# ¿ Aug 9, 2014 17:02

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Nuclear power has major problems in Australia, because we tend to build cities in the same places that make good sites. You need huge amounts of fresh water, something we don't have in abundance in the southern half. Either that or you have them way up north and have to deal with huge transmission distances.

Anywhere you do it you will need to get approval by traditional owners and they have every right to be sceptical about any promises made to them about safety and cleanup, given how utterly hosed over they have been at every opportunity.

# ¿ Aug 25, 2014 05:49

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

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

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Researchers create a module that converts 34.5% of received solar energy to electricity.

quote:

Researchers at the University of NSW have utilised the light-trapping effects of a simple prism to dramatically boost the efficiency of solar cells.
Martin Green and Mark Keevers said the device they have built has set a world record for sunlight-to-electricity efficiency using "unfocused light" � the sort of sun that hits our roofs.

The UNSW team said its mini-module converts 34.5 per cent of received solar energy into electricity. The result, confirmed by the US National Renewable Energy Laboratory, has eclipsed the 24 per cent efficiency achieved by an 800-square-centimetre commercial module made by Alta Devices in the US. The UNSW module is 28 square centimetres.
Advertisement

Typical efficiency for commercially available solar panels is 14 to 22 per cent.
Other solar cells have obtained higher efficiencies from unfocused sunlight, but these results were achieved before being placed into prototypes or modules that could be scaled up for commercial use.

http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/unsw-researchers-break-solar-efficiency-record-for-unfocused-sunlight-20160517-gowsgx.html

Solar keeps on getting better. This is still a long way from market, but its encouraging.

# ¿ May 18, 2016 05:46

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Potato Salad posted:

More on this w/ some kinematics:

Were this disk to become free in such a way that it landed on the ground upright -- and it has enough inertia that it's going to land drat-near upright -- it would draw upon its stored rotational energy to accelerate linearly until the velocity of the outer edge of the disk matched its linear velocity. This occurs at VLinear = sqrt( 1/6 VRimOriginal^2) after some kinematics equations. For the given ten-metric-tonne, four-meter-diameter, 209m/s starting rim velocity disc, this point is 85m/s, or 190 mph.

This ten-metric-tonne disc takes up 1.24 cubic meters of steel and has a diameter of four meters -- as such, it is actually quite thin at 0.09m. This is a 22,000 pound disk that is thirteen feet across yet less than four inches thick. This gives it incredible penetrating power against pesky things like your hedges or the neighbor's drywall, particularly when traveling at 190 mph.

Of course, there's going to be energy loss as the disc first strikes the ground, spitting steel sparks and flame against your concrete foundation as it tries to accelerate to its theoretical maximum of 190mph from its rest state. Further energy is going to be lost if the substrate yields or breaks under its 22,000 pound mass. The device wouldn't hit 190mph immediately but rather keep trying to speed up until its rim speed finally comes down to match its linear speed. It is entirely feasible that this kind of accident will in real life resemble less of a disk doing a burnout until it gets up to speed, but more of an explosion as the thin, sharp wheel spews hellfire as the device leaves your house not even at maximum speed yet, continuing to accelerate as it cuts your neighbor's house in half and continues down the block.

What would happen if you had this system buried under your house, capped by a concrete plug? Would it just try to bury itself in the ground?

# ¿ Jun 24, 2016 01:48

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

BattleMoose posted:

Someone's flat out lying. And honestly I am not sure who it is. Who is the correct authority to state about the price peaks of electricity in South Australia?

On one hand, you have the people who run the actual electricity market in SE Australia. Its not a true national market because gently caress WA, but its the biggest and covers the majority of the population.

On the other hand you have a right wing propaganda mouthpiece run by a undead lich who has constantly lied about renewable energy and its effects. The Australian is a vanity rag which has never actually made a profit run by Rupert Murdoch simply so he can say he runs the nations only national daily newspaper. The only good use for that paper and its stable mates is to line the bottom of bird cages.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2016 06:30

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

BattleMoose posted:

I would specifically like the names of those people who gave those numbers and their positions within the appropriate regulatory body. Or referenceable material published by the appropriate authority.

http://www.aemc.gov.au/Australias-Energy-Market/Markets-Overview/National-electricity-market

Knock yourself out.

# ¿ Aug 15, 2016 06:55

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

# ¿ Aug 15, 2016 07:41

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/17/energy-companies-withholding-supply-to-blame-for-july-price-spike-report-finds

quote:

Fossil fuel electricity generators in South Australia withheld their supply to push up prices and reap bigger profits, according to an analysis of the causes behind the extremely high prices there in early July.

The findings suggested some solutions proposed ahead of this week�s Coag energy council meeting for the so-called �energy crisis� like increasing the supply of gas in Australia won�t help the situation at all.

The three things often pointed to as possible causes of the price spikes, especially on 7 July, have been the closure of the Northern power station, the main Victoria-SA interconnector being down and wind farms not producing much power.

But in a report commissioned by GetUp, energy analyst Bruce Mountain showed the generation capacity that was available in the market still far exceeded the demand. However, besides those owned by Origin, all other fossil fuel generators continued to operate far below their capacity, only offering electricity to the market for a very high cost.

In addition, Mountain showed the Australian Energy Market Operator (Aemo) forecasted that low wind and the interconnector maintenance would create high prices, which the generators could have responded to by ramping up supply and making solid profits.

�Yet, they did not respond to that information by making more of their production available to the market,� Mountain said in the report.

�Had this capacity been made available to the market at more reasonable prices, even prices far above production cost, those extreme prices would not have occurred.�

Mountain said Snowy Hydro, Engie, AGL and Energy Australia were exploiting their market power to push up prices. He said they weren�t doing anything illegal, but they were taking advantage of a market that wasn�t functioning properly.

�I think there�s a question of social license �and we�re seeing this in many other industries, where people are expected not just by the letter of the law but by the spirit of the law and maybe there�s scope for some of that to find its way into how we think about these things,� said Mountain.

Miriam Lyons from GetUp said the market is failing to deliver the competition needed to protect consumers� interests.

�This shows that the answer to South Australia�s problems is not more gas, but more competition. Supporting cleaner suppliers of on-demand energy � like concentrating solar thermal in Port Augusta � would be far better for consumers, and for the planet.�

Mountain conducted a detailed analysis of how much the generators gained by withholding their supply. For the past eight years, wholesale prices in South Australia averaged $64 per megawatt hour. But in the first two weeks of July it averaged $433.

On 7 July in particular, there were 16 settlement periods (which happen every 30 minutes), occurring almost back-to-back, where the wholesale price was above $2,000 per megawatt hour.

Mountain said it was not conceivable their marginal cost of production could have been more than $300 per megawatt hour.

As a result, during that period the generators reaped $46m from the wholesale market. Mountain calculated they would have made only $5m if they had not charged more than $300 per megawatt hour.

Mountain said: �The fact that these generators did not compete to get their plant dispatched when prices were many multiples of their production costs suggest that these generators stood to gain more by withholding capacity from the market or, equivalently, making it available only at extremely high prices, than by competing vigorously to offer their production to the market.�

As an example of the concentrated market power in South Australia, Mountain pointed to AGL, which owns the Torrens Island power station. �It was privatised as a single power station � It�s capacity is almost equal to the average demand of South Australia,� Mountain said.

Turns out privatization is the problem.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2016 02:36

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

fishmech posted:

Always find it hilarious when articles like this say what's needed is "more competition". It's just such trash, competition doesn't get you anything you want in these sorts of things unless you've already got strong regulations. And if you have those strong regulations you could already be forcing those outcomes anyway.

Competition to solve pricing/availability is something that's really relegated to minor things, like toothpaste or juice brands. It simply can't work for utilities.

I agree, nationalise the energy companies.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2016 03:26

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Potato Salad posted:

Energy is a strategic resource, and we've seen it used as a political lever in the EU two years ago (Russian natural gas pipes, one-way pipes not capable of bidirectional flow at first in states downstream of those with desire to leverage the capacity to interrupt flow to their downstream customers for political gain).

There's a difference in immediate impact of deprivation between commodities and strategic resources. We don't grind to an instant and dangerous halt when the flow of cars, toothpaste, and anime is flagging or stopped outright. Grid failure kills commerce and access to money in seconds. Resiliency is not something a private business has a stake in implementing, especially when liability (both financial and PR) is largely compartmentalized in a large web of subsidiaries.

Energy is a strategic resource and deserves a better breed of caretakers than your run-of-the-mill post-1980s "Grow quarterly at all cost, siphon the rewards" MBA program graduates.

Frogmanv2 posted:

I agree, nationalise the energy companies.

# ¿ Aug 18, 2016 03:54

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Phanatic posted:

Yeah, you know, if you completely ignore opportunity cost and just ignore all the other, more productive uses you could have put that extra $20 million to. Heck, cut funding to the army and corporations, use the money to build more infrastructure, you'll benefit from the externalities since public transit infrastructure tends to make back way more than it costs.

I support this argument.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2016 02:19

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Pretty sure the same people who yell "OMG COST OVERRUN GUBBERMINT IS AWFUL" are the same people who yell "OMG GUBBERMINT IS SPENDING TOOOOOO MUCH MONEY" thereby causing the government to lowball estimates to appease the vocal minority who get concerned when numbers reach billions, and have no idea about a cost:benefit ratio.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2016 16:17

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Sinestro posted:

If you have the same rules as the private sector, there will be the same problems. The only difference is how much it costs to borrow money, except when the government borrows cheap money it's a slow danger to the economy as a whole.

I think this is where I have a problem with your argument. The private sector has a profit motive that generally overrules other motives. The government (notionally) has a motive to put its citizens first. It can afford to say to the private company "you will abide by this set of rules when you build this piece of infrastructure, or you will suffer these consequences." They can enforce (notionally) a better standard and provide other benefits that are more important to society than a handful of people getting rich.

# ¿ Aug 26, 2016 18:10

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

fishmech posted:

The entire state was out, they've only just started restoring power to the most populated areas.

Yeah there was a *massive* storm that damaged big transmission lines.

https://twitter.com/paulkidd/status/781103870114050048 

# ¿ Sep 29, 2016 01:48

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Trabisnikof posted:

Pretty much all the credible sources I have seen said renewables had no impact on the blackout.

Yep

https://theconversation.com/what-caused-south-australias-state-wide-blackout-66268

# ¿ Sep 29, 2016 15:35

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

Mr Interweb posted:

So now that we're living in Trump's America, how does the future of solar and wind look?

The dude hasnt taken office yet and has had exactly zero chance to enact any bullshit regressive mindfart policies.

Its looking pretty grim.

# ¿ Dec 30, 2016 03:29

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

BattleMoose posted:

In other news South Australia had rolling blackouts, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-08/sa-heatwave-forces-rolling-blackouts-angering-government/8252512

Combination of a heat wave, heavy reliance on wind (34% of electricity production) and a windless day and a few transmission issues all met up. Its almost like such a scenario was extremely likely and unexpected....

You forgot to mention the bit about them not switching on the backup generation unit at pelican point.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2017 03:21

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 3, 2024 11:47

NPR Journalizard: Feb 14, 2008

BattleMoose posted:

I am very curious about what actually happened here. Electricity prices would be at record highs, the perfect time to turn on that generator to make all the profit. Why didn't that happen? At the moment I am going with that the local politicians are covering their assess by redirecting blame and that technical/maintenance or scheduling issues were most likely the reason that plant wasn't generating.

Not 100% sure. Apparently AEMO are preparing a report which should give us more information. To the best of my knowledge the unit cant be switched on unless a bunch of conditions are more *or* the minister in charge tells them to switch it on. My gut tells me that he didnt order it switched on so the libs can point to the rolling blackouts as yet another problem with renewables and we should build more coal plants.

# ¿ Feb 10, 2017 03:49

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > The Energy Generation Megathread: Heated Exchanges

«‹›2 »