Los Angeles to Open Five New Natural Gas Plants to Avoid More Outages.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

8 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

More rubbish. Yes renewables can replace all of that. 

 

So the EIA is rubbish while you use it to make your arguments too?

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

1 minute ago, ronwagn said:

Maybe in a hundred years. If it is cost effective, I am all for it. Your timeline is far from realistic though. 

30 years. Over half of the fossil fuel energy btu's consumed are given off as waste heat. Very little is wasted using renewable electricity so much easier to replace fossil energy than it appears from those charts.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

4 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

So the EIA is rubbish while you use it to make your arguments too?

Your claim that our energy can not be replaced with renewables is rubbish.

The EIA made no such claim.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

1 minute ago, Jay McKinsey said:

30 years. Over half of the fossil fuel energy btu's consumed are given off as waste heat. Very little is wasted using renewable electricity so much easier to replace fossil energy than it appears from those charts.

Waste heat is a big waste, but there are ways that it can be used. Unfortunately we do not use the potential of waste heat. EVs are good in that respect but the electricity will not be feasible for many uses such as ships, airplanes, long range trains etc. All progress takes time. 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

 All progress takes time. 

Yes, 30 years.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

7 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

30 years. Over half of the fossil fuel energy btu's consumed are given off as waste heat. Very little is wasted using renewable electricity so much easier to replace fossil energy than it appears from those charts.

Yes, but the overall cost competitveness is a big factor. My estimate is over 100 years for 75% and that is optimistic. 

[ronwagn + 6,290]

5 minutes ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Yes, 30 years.

There you go again!

 

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

2 minutes ago, ronwagn said:

Yes, but the overall cost competitveness is a big factor. My estimate is over 100 years for 75% and that is optimistic. 

There you go again!

[nsdp + 449]

On 9/2/2021 at 12:58 AM, ronwagn said:

The political agenda is from the eco nazis who think they have the best answers but don't. Natural gas is the best answer until something can do the job for less money and is equally clean. It is all about cost/benefit ratios in the real world. Any changes away from fossil fuels and biomass require many decades. People with large homes are paying $500 plus for electric bills in California. That is with living at about 75 degrees. Lower temps mean even more money. I just saw a relatives records and they are living at 4,000 feet elevation. 

Water bills are also very high and things will get worse next year unless lots of rain and snow shows up. California actually needs two good years to replace groundwater levels. 

Ron even the very best CCGT units dump 40% of the energy burned as  additional left over waste heat out of the generator. So one kilowatt hour at the generator buss needs 3413 btu  for the kilowatt hour you get plus 1365 btu for the waste heat to generate the kwh at the powerplant. Best fossil fuel case is you need 4798 btus of ng to generate 1 kwh.

Wind power is endothermic. It removes heat from the atmosphere and converts it to electricity. Let's assume wind is 100% efficient(least energy removed to generate 1kwh).  Then you have to take atmosphere 3413 btu's of heat out of the atmosphere to generate1 kwh.  So to generate 1 kwh with NG you must burn 4798 btu  to get one KWH for your customer.   With wind you reduce the heat in the atmosphere 3413btu. Wind leaves 4798 btus less heat in the atmosphere when you generate 1 kwh.  Solar is 14-18 % efficient so it removes about 160 btu's from incoming radiation per square meter of panels.   The atmosphere adsorbs the remaining 5000 btus of radiation per square meter for a total available 6000 watt's.  You need 6 square meters to generate 1kwh with solar; 5/6 of the solar radiation still goes through to heat  your roof.

a 5mw wind turbine properly sited will produce 60 kwh/d.  That reduces the heat load on the ionosphere by 60x4798 btu's/kwh=285,175 btu.

AS to water usage. closing Navajo generating station at Page Arizona frees up 34 billion gallons per year to be allocated to the Navajo tribein AZ and NM.  so that is another benefit.

[nsdp + 449]

On 9/2/2021 at 12:58 AM, ronwagn said:

The political agenda is from the eco nazis who think they have the best answers but don't. Natural gas is the best answer until something can do the job for less money and is equally clean. It is all about cost/benefit ratios in the real world. Any changes away from fossil fuels and biomass require many decades. People with large homes are paying $500 plus for electric bills in California. That is with living at about 75 degrees. Lower temps mean even more money. I just saw a relatives records and they are living at 4,000 feet elevation. 

Water bills are also very high and things will get worse next year unless lots of rain and snow shows up. California actually needs two good years to replace groundwater levels. 

Ron even the very best CCGT units dump 40% of the energy burned as  additional left over waste heat out of the generator. So one kilowatt hour at the generator buss needs 3413 btu  for the kilowatt hour you get plus 1365 btu for the waste heat to generate the kwh at the powerplant. Best fossil fuel case is you need 4798 btus of ng to generate 1 kwh.

Wind power is endothermic. It removes heat from the atmosphere and converts it to electricity. Let's assume wind is 100% efficient(least energy removed to generate 1kwh).  Then you have to take atmosphere 3413 btu's of heat out of the atmosphere to generate1 kwh.  So to generate 1 kwh with NG you must burn 4798 btu  to get one KWH for your customer.   With wind you reduce the heat in the atmosphere 3413btu. Wind leaves 4798 btus less heat in the atmosphere when you generate 1 kwh.  Solar is 14-18 % efficient so it removes about 160 btu's from incoming radiation per square meter of panels.   The atmosphere adsorbs the remaining 5000 btus of radiation per square meter for a total available 6000 watt's.  You need 6 square meters to generate 1kwh with solar; 5/6 of the solar radiation still goes through to heat  your roof.

a 5mw wind turbine properly sited will produce 60 kwh/d.  That reduces the heat load on the ionosphere by 60x4798 btu's/kwh=285,175 btu.

AS to water usage. closing Navajo generating station at Page Arizona frees up 34 billion gallons per year to be allocated to the Navajo tribein AZ and NM.  so that is another benefit.

[nsdp + 449]

On 9/2/2021 at 12:58 AM, ronwagn said:

The political agenda is from the eco nazis who think they have the best answers but don't. Natural gas is the best answer until something can do the job for less money and is equally clean. It is all about cost/benefit ratios in the real world. Any changes away from fossil fuels and biomass require many decades. People with large homes are paying $500 plus for electric bills in California. That is with living at about 75 degrees. Lower temps mean even more money. I just saw a relatives records and they are living at 4,000 feet elevation. 

Water bills are also very high and things will get worse next year unless lots of rain and snow shows up. California actually needs two good years to replace groundwater levels. 

Ron even the very best CCGT units dump 40% of the energy burned as  additional left over waste heat out of the generator. So one kilowatt hour at the generator buss needs 3413 btu  for the kilowatt hour you get plus 1365 btu for the waste heat to generate the kwh at the powerplant. Best fossil fuel case is you need 4798 btus of ng to generate 1 kwh.

Wind power is endothermic. It removes heat from the atmosphere and converts it to electricity. Let's assume wind is 100% efficient(least energy removed to generate 1kwh).  Then you have to take atmosphere 3413 btu's of heat out of the atmosphere to generate1 kwh.  So to generate 1 kwh with NG you must burn 4798 btu  to get one KWH for your customer.   With wind you reduce the heat in the atmosphere 3413btu. Wind leaves 4798 btus less heat in the atmosphere when you generate 1 kwh.  Solar is 14-18 % efficient so it removes about 160 btu's from incoming radiation per square meter of panels.   The atmosphere adsorbs the remaining 5000 btus of radiation per square meter for a total available 6000 watt's.  You need 6 square meters to generate 1kwh with solar; 5/6 of the solar radiation still goes through to heat  your roof.

a 5mw wind turbine properly sited will produce 60 kwh/d.  That reduces the heat load on the ionosphere by 60x4798 btu's/kwh=285,175 btu.

AS to water usage. closing Navajo generating station at Page Arizona frees up 34 billion gallons per year to be allocated to the Navajo tribein AZ and NM.  so that is another benefit.

[nsdp + 449]

On 9/2/2021 at 12:58 AM, ronwagn said:

The political agenda is from the eco nazis who think they have the best answers but don't. Natural gas is the best answer until something can do the job for less money and is equally clean. It is all about cost/benefit ratios in the real world. Any changes away from fossil fuels and biomass require many decades. People with large homes are paying $500 plus for electric bills in California. That is with living at about 75 degrees. Lower temps mean even more money. I just saw a relatives records and they are living at 4,000 feet elevation. 

Water bills are also very high and things will get worse next year unless lots of rain and snow shows up. California actually needs two good years to replace groundwater levels. 

Ron even the very best CCGT units dump 40% of the energy burned as  additional left over waste heat out of the generator. So one kilowatt hour at the generator buss needs 3413 btu  for the kilowatt hour you get plus 1365 btu for the waste heat to generate the kwh at the powerplant. Best fossil fuel case is you need 4798 btus of ng to generate 1 kwh.

Wind power is endothermic. It removes heat from the atmosphere and converts it to electricity. Let's assume wind is 100% efficient(least energy removed to generate 1kwh).  Then you have to take atmosphere 3413 btu's of heat out of the atmosphere to generate1 kwh.  So to generate 1 kwh with NG you must burn 4798 btu  to get one KWH for your customer.   With wind you reduce the heat in the atmosphere 3413btu. Wind leaves 4798 btus less heat in the atmosphere when you generate 1 kwh.  Solar is 14-18 % efficient so it removes about 160 btu's from incoming radiation per square meter of panels.   The atmosphere adsorbs the remaining 5000 btus of radiation per square meter for a total available 6000 watt's.  You need 6 square meters to generate 1kwh with solar; 5/6 of the solar radiation still goes through to heat  your roof.

a 5mw wind turbine properly sited will produce 60 kwh/d.  That reduces the heat load on the ionosphere by 60x4798 btu's/kwh=285,175 btu.

AS to water usage. closing Navajo generating station at Page Arizona frees up 34 billion gallons per year to be allocated to the Navajo tribe in AZ and NM.  so that is another benefit.

[nsdp + 449]

On 9/2/2021 at 12:58 AM, ronwagn said:

The political agenda is from the eco nazis who think they have the best answers but don't. Natural gas is the best answer until something can do the job for less money and is equally clean. It is all about cost/benefit ratios in the real world. Any changes away from fossil fuels and biomass require many decades. People with large homes are paying $500 plus for electric bills in California. That is with living at about 75 degrees. Lower temps mean even more money. I just saw a relatives records and they are living at 4,000 feet elevation. 

Water bills are also very high and things will get worse next year unless lots of rain and snow shows up. California actually needs two good years to replace groundwater levels. 

Ron even the very best CCGT units dump 40% of the energy burned as  additional left over waste heat out of the generator. So one kilowatt hour at the generator buss needs 3413 btu  for the kilowatt hour you get plus 1365 btu for the waste heat to generate the kwh at the powerplant. Best fossil fuel case is you need 4798 btus of ng to generate 1 kwh.

Wind power is endothermic. It removes heat from the atmosphere and converts it to electricity. Let's assume wind is 100% efficient(least energy removed to generate 1kwh).  Then you have to take atmosphere 3413 btu's of heat out of the atmosphere to generate1 kwh.  So to generate 1 kwh with NG you must burn 4798 btu  to get one KWH for your customer.   With wind you reduce the heat in the atmosphere 3413btu. Wind leaves 4798 btus less heat in the atmosphere when you generate 1 kwh.  Solar is 14-18 % efficient so it removes about 160 btu's from incoming radiation per square meter of panels.   The atmosphere adsorbs the remaining 5000 btus of radiation per square meter for a total available 6000 watt's.  You need 6 square meters to generate 1kwh with solar; 5/6 of the solar radiation still goes through to heat  your roof.

a 5mw wind turbine properly sited will produce 60 kwh/d.  That reduces the heat load on the ionosphere by 60x4798 btu's/kwh=285,175 btu.

AS to water usage. closing Navajo generating station at Page Arizona frees up 34 billion gallons per year to be allocated to the Navajo tribe in AZ and NM.  so that is another benefit.

[nsdp + 449]

On 9/2/2021 at 12:58 AM, ronwagn said:

The political agenda is from the eco nazis who think they have the best answers but don't. Natural gas is the best answer until something can do the job for less money and is equally clean. It is all about cost/benefit ratios in the real world. Any changes away from fossil fuels and biomass require many decades. People with large homes are paying $500 plus for electric bills in California. That is with living at about 75 degrees. Lower temps mean even more money. I just saw a relatives records and they are living at 4,000 feet elevation. 

Water bills are also very high and things will get worse next year unless lots of rain and snow shows up. California actually needs two good years to replace groundwater levels. 

Ron even the very best CCGT units dump 40% of the energy burned as  additional left over waste heat out of the generator. So one kilowatt hour at the generator buss needs 3413 btu  for the kilowatt hour you get plus 1365 btu for the waste heat to generate the kwh at the powerplant. Best fossil fuel case is you need 4798 btus of ng to generate 1 kwh.

Wind power is endothermic. It removes heat from the atmosphere and converts it to electricity. Let's assume wind is 100% efficient(least energy removed to generate 1kwh).  Then you have to take atmosphere 3413 btu's of heat out of the atmosphere to generate1 kwh.  So to generate 1 kwh with NG you must burn 4798 btu  to get one KWH for your customer.   With wind you reduce the heat in the atmosphere 3413btu. Wind leaves 4798 btus less heat in the atmosphere when you generate 1 kwh.  Solar is 14-18 % efficient so it removes about 160 btu's from incoming radiation per square meter of panels.   The atmosphere adsorbs the remaining 5000 btus of radiation per square meter for a total available 6000 watt's.  You need 6 square meters to generate 1kwh with solar; 5/6 of the solar radiation still goes through to heat  your roof.

a 5mw wind turbine properly sited will produce 60 kwh/d.  That reduces the heat load on the ionosphere by 60x4798 btu's/kwh=285,175 btu.

AS to water usage. closing Navajo generating station at Page Arizona frees up 34 billion gallons per year to be allocated to the Navajo tribe in AZ and NM.  so that is another benefit.

[Rob Plant + 2,616]

On 9/3/2021 at 5:13 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Of course charging will be spread out over the whole day with the bulk occurring at night.

This is correct, most EV/hybrid owners in the UK mostly finish work and get home for about 6PM and just plug their vehicle in to charge.

That being said many workplaces and hotels now have charging and in particular workplaces which means that these are charged during the day. This "infrastructure" is rapidly expanding and is becoming more commonplace.

I have a hybrid and haven't bothered with the expense of putting a home charging station in my house as I can commute to and from work on the charge from my workplace (which is free). Many people I know do the same thing so this does add to the electricity demand during daytime. I am guessing though that average commutes are longer in the US than the UK (circa 30 miles each way) so may not apply, if they are roughly the same then you may have a problem down the line.

Edited September 8, 2021 by Rob Plant

[Ecocharger + 1,375]

On 9/7/2021 at 9:49 PM, nsdp said:

Ron even the very best CCGT units dump 40% of the energy burned as  additional left over waste heat out of the generator. So one kilowatt hour at the generator buss needs 3413 btu  for the kilowatt hour you get plus 1365 btu for the waste heat to generate the kwh at the powerplant. Best fossil fuel case is you need 4798 btus of ng to generate 1 kwh.

Wind power is endothermic. It removes heat from the atmosphere and converts it to electricity. Let's assume wind is 100% efficient(least energy removed to generate 1kwh).  Then you have to take atmosphere 3413 btu's of heat out of the atmosphere to generate1 kwh.  So to generate 1 kwh with NG you must burn 4798 btu  to get one KWH for your customer.   With wind you reduce the heat in the atmosphere 3413btu. Wind leaves 4798 btus less heat in the atmosphere when you generate 1 kwh.  Solar is 14-18 % efficient so it removes about 160 btu's from incoming radiation per square meter of panels.   The atmosphere adsorbs the remaining 5000 btus of radiation per square meter for a total available 6000 watt's.  You need 6 square meters to generate 1kwh with solar; 5/6 of the solar radiation still goes through to heat  your roof.

a 5mw wind turbine properly sited will produce 60 kwh/d.  That reduces the heat load on the ionosphere by 60x4798 btu's/kwh=285,175 btu.

AS to water usage. closing Navajo generating station at Page Arizona frees up 34 billion gallons per year to be allocated to the Navajo tribe in AZ and NM.  so that is another benefit.

Care to repeat yourself one more time? But I guess all this green material is mindlessly repetitive anyway.

[ronwagn + 6,290]

On 9/7/2021 at 8:48 PM, nsdp said:

Ron even the very best CCGT units dump 40% of the energy burned as  additional left over waste heat out of the generator. So one kilowatt hour at the generator buss needs 3413 btu  for the kilowatt hour you get plus 1365 btu for the waste heat to generate the kwh at the powerplant. Best fossil fuel case is you need 4798 btus of ng to generate 1 kwh.

Wind power is endothermic. It removes heat from the atmosphere and converts it to electricity. Let's assume wind is 100% efficient(least energy removed to generate 1kwh).  Then you have to take atmosphere 3413 btu's of heat out of the atmosphere to generate1 kwh.  So to generate 1 kwh with NG you must burn 4798 btu  to get one KWH for your customer.   With wind you reduce the heat in the atmosphere 3413btu. Wind leaves 4798 btus less heat in the atmosphere when you generate 1 kwh.  Solar is 14-18 % efficient so it removes about 160 btu's from incoming radiation per square meter of panels.   The atmosphere adsorbs the remaining 5000 btus of radiation per square meter for a total available 6000 watt's.  You need 6 square meters to generate 1kwh with solar; 5/6 of the solar radiation still goes through to heat  your roof.

a 5mw wind turbine properly sited will produce 60 kwh/d.  That reduces the heat load on the ionosphere by 60x4798 btu's/kwh=285,175 btu.

AS to water usage. closing Navajo generating station at Page Arizona frees up 34 billion gallons per year to be allocated to the Navajo tribe in AZ and NM.  so that is another benefit.

Please check your premises. This is a coal plant. The Navajos are now facing unemployment and higher priced and less available electricity. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Generating_Station

Edited September 9, 2021 by ronwagn

[nsdp + 449]

15 hours ago, Ecocharger said:

Care to repeat yourself one more time? But I guess all this green material is mindlessly repetitive anyway.

It is called essential tremens.https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/essential-tremor/symptoms-causes/syc-20350534 oil Price would not remeove the excess posts.

[nsdp + 449]

8 hours ago, ronwagn said:

Please check your premises. This is a coal plant. The Navajos are now facing unemployment and higher priced and less available electricity. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Generating_Station

Ron on steam drum coal fired or gas fired built in the  1970-90's the water cycle is the same.  so the water usage is the same.  It is not until the 1990's when combined cycle became a common option that there is any difference at all. Coal Construction before 2000 exceeded NG by about 9mw-1mw if EIA is correct.

[wrs + 893]

On 8/31/2021 at 3:08 AM, Jay McKinsey said:

Power lines already go to every house and business. Don't need anymore. 

If you don't have at least a level 2 charger then your EV will take 8-10 hours to get a partial charge.  Putting in higher voltage to every home will require more power lines.  There is only so much load that a power line can handle, charging EVs is a much larger load being added to the grid.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

6 hours ago, wrs said:

If you don't have at least a level 2 charger then your EV will take 8-10 hours to get a partial charge.  Putting in higher voltage to every home will require more power lines.  There is only so much load that a power line can handle, charging EVs is a much larger load being added to the grid.

Upgrading a power line does not mean adding a new power line. However most houses already have 220/240 for level 2. 

[wrs + 893]

17 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

Upgrading a power line does not mean adding a new power line. However most houses already have 220/240 for level 2. 

It will if enough people do it.  There are two parts to this, adding the level 2 charging outlet and the extra load on the grid as a result of so many people either adding a line or activating the existing lines for new charging loads.  It will create a need for more generation which does mean more lines from the generation source and onto the grid.  Growth of the grid is inevitable with growth of level 2 charging installations being added.

[Jay McKinsey + 1,489]

9 hours ago, wrs said:

It will if enough people do it.  There are two parts to this, adding the level 2 charging outlet and the extra load on the grid as a result of so many people either adding a line or activating the existing lines for new charging loads.  It will create a need for more generation which does mean more lines from the generation source and onto the grid.  Growth of the grid is inevitable with growth of level 2 charging installations being added.

The new generation is occurring because we are replacing fossil with renewable. Those new plants will indeed need new transmission feeder lines to connect to the main grid. Many of those miles of new lines will be HVDC running across the ocean bottom connecting offshore wind directly to major cities. Likewise some old feeder lines from retired fossil plants will also be removed.. 

The distribution network will not need to add any new lines. As I said, lines already run to every property, surely you know this. Some of those lines may need to be upgraded but the vast majority won't as they were already built to handle loads that easily handle EV charging as the vast majority of residences and businesses have 220/240 volt capacity which is all a level 2 charger is.

 

Edited September 11, 2021 by Jay McKinsey

[turbguy + 1,401]

6 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The new generation is occurring because we are replacing fossil with renewable. Those new plants will indeed need new transmission feeder lines to connect to the main grid. Many of those miles of new lines will be HVDC running across the ocean bottom connecting offshore wind directly to major cities. Likewise some old feeder lines from retired fossil plants will also be removed.. 

The distribution network will not need to add any new lines. As I said, lines already run to every property, surely you know this. Some of those lines may need to be upgraded but the vast majority won't as they were already built to handle loads that easily handle EV charging as the vast majority of residences and businesses have 220/240 volt capacity which is all a level 2 charger is.

 

There probably will be distribution upgrades required in many "older" areas to accommodate EV charging.

Same thing happened with the popular rise of AC.

It ain't all that expensive, though.  Typically distribution transformer replacements if voltage droops at customer premises.

Some older fossil plant sites could be used for new modular nuclear with enough foresight.

Those sites already have the water, transportation access, and even plant/transmission equipment that could be reused.

Edited September 12, 2021 by turbguy

[wrs + 893]

16 hours ago, Jay McKinsey said:

The new generation is occurring because we are replacing fossil with renewable. Those new plants will indeed need new transmission feeder lines to connect to the main grid. Many of those miles of new lines will be HVDC running across the ocean bottom connecting offshore wind directly to major cities. Likewise some old feeder lines from retired fossil plants will also be removed.. 

The distribution network will not need to add any new lines. As I said, lines already run to every property, surely you know this. Some of those lines may need to be upgraded but the vast majority won't as they were already built to handle loads that easily handle EV charging as the vast majority of residences and businesses have 220/240 volt capacity which is all a level 2 charger is.

 

 I just drove through west Texas to Utah and back last week.  There are more new wind farms everywhere and what I saw were new transmission towers.  If there were buried lines, I couldn't see them but I could plainly see the new transmission lines that I know are for the wind farm to grid connectivity.  I will stick with my actual reality based assumption that more power load is going to require more transmission lines which is consistent with my actual practice as an electrical engineer.