Recommended Posts

On 9/16/2022 at 12:45 PM, specinho said:

image.png.09fc7e0ebd45c8564fe356ffa06e4b5b.png

not too sure if dust particle theory is popular but generally.......... 

Early in the morning, if the day before was hot but morning after is humid and cooling in the tropics, the sun usually looks red. The theory is............ hot weather dries up dust particles hence, allows dust particles to fly higher up and fly everywhere. Condensation allows particles to settle on cloud or water vapour gathered. The combined density allows only radiation with the longest wavelength to penetrate i.e. infrared ray. And the sun and clouds across it appear reddish.

If weather was cooling the day before and cooling morning after, it might mean there would be less dust particles and vapour in the air. The sun appears yellow or orange due to less resistance on ray penetration. And so forth...

As water vapour or morning mist evaporated, the sun resumes whitish...... due to its hot burning center.

The deduction is hence, thickness of resistance layer in the air, formed by pollutants and water vapour would determine the colour we see........

 

 

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

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/19/2022 at 11:10 AM, TailingsPond said:

thank you for the info.

pardon me...... but, generally.......... things that can not be explained in a mode that people with no prior knowledge can understand might mean it is not well understood. Hence, it is suspected that "radiation dispersal by particles smaller than wavelength' might be uuuhhhh..... forciful........ 'n'

 

Edited by specinho

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fortunately, coal is coming to the rescue of our energy shortages.

104 coal plants of a total of 102 gigawatts (GW) in 26 countries were planned, considered, or in construction under either Chinese financing or engineering, procurement and construction (EPCs) agreements, CREA and its partner in the report, People of Asia for Climate Solutions, said.

7.6 GW or 14 plants, have already entered into operation over the past year. Another 27 plants with 23 GW capacity are near completion, and they will likely enter into operation soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Michael Sanches said:

Fortunately, coal is coming to the rescue of our energy shortages.

104 coal plants of a total of 102 gigawatts (GW) in 26 countries were planned, considered, or in construction under either Chinese financing or engineering, procurement and construction (EPCs) agreements, CREA and its partner in the report, People of Asia for Climate Solutions, said.

7.6 GW or 14 plants, have already entered into operation over the past year. Another 27 plants with 23 GW capacity are near completion, and they will likely enter into operation soon.

For a rescue energy source, coal seems to be on a multi year plateau to slight dip after decades of growth. With Covid still chugging along and a war on it might take a couple years for energy to shake out. Is the drop in Mongolian coal imports a reason China is adding coal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/5/2022 at 10:37 AM, Eyes Wide Open said:

U.S. judge agrees to appoint special master in Trump search case.

Three strikes and your out! Patience little one.

How is that Special Master working out for you......????

3 strikes and your out???

 

it is you're .......

Looks like Donald has  struck out 3 times in a row in front of his Special Master......

and now he is dragging down every one of the candidates he is backing....

Do you think he should be arrested ???? sure looks like he broke the law ....over and over again with the documents

Lock Her Up was his favorite chant......... Trumps crimes are 1000 times worse

Lock Him Up ....Please chant it as you know he deserves it

Patience little one...... he will face the long arm of the law soon........ and then you can visit him on visiting day.......

 

Enjoy ....

 

 

 

Edited by notsonice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, notsonice said:

How is that Special Master working out for you......????

3 strikes and your out???

It already begin's..A  Armageddon with no retreat..no surrender.

Nadler feuded with Schiff, Pelosi over 'unconstitutional' impeachment of Donald Trump

Nadler's concern arose after he found out Judiciary Committee would not have ability to cross-examine impeachment witnesses

She didn’t want the Judiciary panel to interview witnesses at all," the book's authors wrote. "Pelosi simply didn’t trust the panel — which was stacked with liberal crusaders and hotheaded conservatives — to handle the rollout of the complex Ukraine narrative with the careful, compelling treatment it required. She couldn’t afford another Nadler screwup. The Judiciary chairman could focus on the legal business of crafting the articles of impeachment and have academics testify, she allowed. But that was it."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nadler-feuded-schiff-pelosi-unconstitutional-impeachment-donald-trump

  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

4 hours ago, Eyes Wide Open said:

It already begin's..A  Armageddon with no retreat..no surrender.

Nadler feuded with Schiff, Pelosi over 'unconstitutional' impeachment of Donald Trump

Nadler's concern arose after he found out Judiciary Committee would not have ability to cross-examine impeachment witnesses

She didn’t want the Judiciary panel to interview witnesses at all," the book's authors wrote. "Pelosi simply didn’t trust the panel — which was stacked with liberal crusaders and hotheaded conservatives — to handle the rollout of the complex Ukraine narrative with the careful, compelling treatment it required. She couldn’t afford another Nadler screwup. The Judiciary chairman could focus on the legal business of crafting the articles of impeachment and have academics testify, she allowed. But that was it."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nadler-feuded-schiff-pelosi-unconstitutional-impeachment-donald-trump

dude what are you now babbling about now......

You were babbling about the special master and 3 strikes and your out (you're for everyone else than the babbling  EWO) ...

and now you ignore your own babble.....

Same as Trump......

no surrender?????.....yep hope they drag him out by his ankles, its what they do to the real brain dead losers.....

Enjoy as the Special Master is not playing games...unlike Trumps lawyers.......

Justice department is not humored also with Trumps BS claims that he can declassify just by thinking.....

oh he is not playing with a full deck of cards.....

What do you think........... Trump is your man...ha ha ha ..Take some ownership and tells us all that he should not be locked up....

Ha ha ha

In the meantime price of crude keeps moving downward and Goldman Sachs laid a turd with their $130 Brent at the end of 2022

Looks like they are eating crow now.........

Enjoy

 

 

Edited by notsonice

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/11/2022 at 8:35 PM, specinho said:

image.png.75b29bc86c2b881e07b64aefb0b5cb00.png

under this formula, lead is probably heavier than hydrogen. Hence, the smaller the mass, the smaller the energy?

2. not too sure if you have seen this.... it is a funnel wishing well. They way it functions is when one puts a coin onto it, the coin will roll, encircling the shape before dropping into the hole......

image.png.9176b2e6f3a9f6b12a341ca5d89f8e3f.png

This is when the center is fill with air only. If the speed of coin is fast enough, it will swirl at the same spot for a few round before dropping its speed and roll downward. Hence, I might be wrong that there might be no attraction at the center of the Sun but sere speed of rotation of planets that sustains them on their respective path....

3. If, when bond form, energy is released.

If fusion of hydrogen can be represented as H + H ------> He + energy

If fission of uranium can be represented by N + U --------> explosion -----> energy + smaller stable atoms

not too sure why am I sensing something is not quite match with fusion..... This is not my field. I barely passed physics. Just a feeling........ 🤗

image.png.10f8410b4b93c3706417af314aa608d5.png

In fusion reactions generally the hydrogen isotopes of Tritium and Deuterium are used and fused at extremely high temperatures to create a plasma contained in a magnetic field inside a Tokamak. The issues mainly are sustaining the reaction and waste heat. Quantum computing may be able to solve the problem of sustaining the fusion process but thats a few years away in my view.

When deuterium and tritium fuse, they create a helium nucleus, which has two protons and two neutrons. The reaction releases an energetic neutron. Fusion power plants would convert energy released from fusion reactions into electricity to power our homes, businesses, and other needs.

 

How do you fuse deuterium and tritium?
 
The most promising of the hydrogen fusion reactions which make up the deuterium cycle is the fusion of deuterium and tritium. The reaction yields 17.6 MeV of energy but to achieve fusion one must penetrate the coulomb barrier with the aid of tunneling, requiring very high temperatures .
 
Suggest you read up on fusion and current projects such as Iter
Edited by Rob Plant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 9/23/2022 at 6:59 AM, Michael Sanches said:

Fortunately, coal is coming to the rescue of our energy shortages.

104 coal plants of a total of 102 gigawatts (GW) in 26 countries were planned, considered, or in construction under either Chinese financing or engineering, procurement and construction (EPCs) agreements, CREA and its partner in the report, People of Asia for Climate Solutions, said.

7.6 GW or 14 plants, have already entered into operation over the past year. Another 27 plants with 23 GW capacity are near completion, and they will likely enter into operation soon.

I replied below to this exact same post you posted in another topic!

Planned and considered does not mean going to happen!

China and India combined have in H1 of 2022 new capacity of 9.38GW

In the same peroid they had 11.167GW of retired capacity!

New build does NOT mean growth!!

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

If you can post some numbers that refer to global current coal electricity production capacity thats growing then I will stand corrected.

https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/?gclid=CjwKCAjwm8WZBhBUEiwA178UnIqI_01bdKF8hYToYlfngpD0hRB-tKyLpH96vUbfZQv_XZS8zdFj0BoCrH8QAvD_BwE

click on the summary tables for newly operating and retired

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W3pt5FhqitHwbVWvvgfRr0S6QfqfOuea9pt3-Mlxp5M/edit#gid=1682876416

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xUOYq8tUZi2dcHLRZ3W1viZHyGgUlbrMxG5xIXyTOug/edit#gid=81921775

Edited by Rob Plant
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Rob Plant said:

I replied below to this exact same post you posted in another topic!

Planned and considered does not mean going to happen!

China and India combined have in H1 of 2022 new capacity of 9.38GW

In the same peroid they had 11.167GW of retired capacity!

New build does NOT mean growth!!

Why is this so difficult to comprehend?

If you can post some numbers that refer to global current coal electricity production capacity thats growing then I will stand corrected.

https://globalenergymonitor.org/projects/global-coal-plant-tracker/?gclid=CjwKCAjwm8WZBhBUEiwA178UnIqI_01bdKF8hYToYlfngpD0hRB-tKyLpH96vUbfZQv_XZS8zdFj0BoCrH8QAvD_BwE

click on the summary tables for newly operating and retired

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1W3pt5FhqitHwbVWvvgfRr0S6QfqfOuea9pt3-Mlxp5M/edit#gid=1682876416

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xUOYq8tUZi2dcHLRZ3W1viZHyGgUlbrMxG5xIXyTOug/edit#gid=81921775

Just wondering... Did you READ  your own links by any chance?????

China 2021 + 2022 retired: 1581 + 240 while installing 26,187 + 7540

Lets see... Retired 1821  Installed 33,727  an INCREASE of 31,906 GW

India 2021 + 2022 retired: 1480 + 480 while installing 6695 + 1840....

Do I REALLY have to do simple addition/subtraction for India as well?

How the $#!(T) can you live with yourself???  Do you ever look yourself in the mirror??

Bleepin' A...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, footeab@yahoo.com said:

Just wondering... Did you READ  your own links by any chance?????

China 2021 + 2022 retired: 1581 + 240 while installing 26,187 + 7540

Lets see... Retired 1821  Installed 33,727  an INCREASE of 31,906 GW

India 2021 + 2022 retired: 1480 + 480 while installing 6695 + 1840....

Do I REALLY have to do simple addition/subtraction for India as well?

How the $#!(T) can you live with yourself???  Do you ever look yourself in the mirror??

Bleepin' A...

Clearly YOU cant read once again as I posted H1 2022 figures which show a decline NOT 2021 figures

Please keep up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Rob Plant said:

Clearly YOU cant read once again as I posted H1 2022 figures which show a decline NOT 2021 figures

Please keep up!

Dear Fool:
240 <<< 7540

480 <<< 1840

Please keep up!

Suggest taking 2nd grade again! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2022 at 2:44 AM, markslawson said:

Okay, I take you point on fossil fuels. My apologies for that. However, I never said that the present crisis was the result of renewables as such. It isn't. The problem is the demonisation of coal and gas and so on and the fact that such fuels are impossible to get rid of in any of the time frames proposed has created problems which renewables cannot solve. As for Norway having 100 per cent renewables its all hydro so its no problem. Its a similar story with New Zealand, incidentally, and some smaller places which are all hydro. If you've got hydro on the system then you claim emissions virtue. Otherwise its horribly difficult and/or horrendously expensive. Germany was certainly mis-managed but it is difficult to see how proper management could have changed much. Anyway, we agree on a lot but I'll move on. Thanks for teh discussion.  

Let's look at how well countries in Europe are able to be using/generating renewable electricity. Even large and wealthy countries like Germany manage more than 40%. 

image.png.22bbc81980035622b7a7609f38a8d056.png

Of course you are also interested in final energy share being renewable (that is all energy, not only electricity). Large economies like Spain and Italy are already over 20% renewable. 

image.thumb.png.90256eae2b169b2956420dd7e6c6a3a7.png

It is not the question anymore "can we go 100% renewable?". The question is "By when are we 100% renewable?"

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

Let's look at how well countries in Europe are able to be using/generating renewable electricity. Even large and wealthy countries like Germany manage more than 40%. 

Jeroen - you're repeating all the material which has been debunked many times. To properly assess the contribution of renewables you have to subtract the contribution of biomass and hydro, which count as renewables but which don't have anything like the problems of wind farms and solar plants. For heaven sake the main source of power in Austria - the lead country in your graphic - is hydro. Same can be said for Sweden and Denmark, which uses the dams of Sweden and Norway to store excess wind power  (exports across the Baltic and then imports when wind does). That said wind and hydro work reasonably well together, if there's a lot of hydro. One country that does intrigue me on the list is Latvia - this list completely contradicts your list as seeming to say that very little of the country's energy comes from renewables. Thanks for the discussion but I'd advise you to read up a little more on this stuff. 

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 10/4/2022 at 1:49 AM, markslawson said:

Jeroen - you're repeating all the material which has been debunked many times. To properly assess the contribution of renewables you have to subtract the contribution of biomass and hydro, which count as renewables but which don't have anything like the problems of wind farms and solar plants. For heaven sake the main source of power in Austria - the lead country in your graphic - is hydro. Same can be said for Sweden and Denmark, which uses the dams of Sweden and Norway to store excess wind power  (exports across the Baltic and then imports when wind does). That said wind and hydro work reasonably well together, if there's a lot of hydro. One country that does intrigue me on the list is Latvia - this list completely contradicts your list as seeming to say that very little of the country's energy comes from renewables. Thanks for the discussion but I'd advise you to read up a little more on this stuff. 

That's exactly the continent-wide solution I am advocating. If you want to go renewable, you need a continent-wide power grid and solution. Energy storage in hydro is part of that solution.

While we are on hydro: I don't see why hydro cannot be seen as renewable. It is renewable by definition. 

Regarding biomass, yes, it is currently 60% of the end use of renewable energy in Europe (mostly heat). The majority (60%) of biomass is agricultural waste (the non-edible parts of food crops), forest waste (bark and unusable wood from forestry) and urban waste. The remainder is energy crops and forests, which are already challenged in EU sense.

Latvia Latvia - Renewable Energy Equipment (trade.gov). According to the USA Trade Administration, Latvia has about 40% green energy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeroen - for heaven sake of course hydro is a renewable. My post specifically says that. (I also know what biomass is.) It's a highly acceptable renewable, unlike wind and solar which is close to useless in most circumstances. The problem is that advanced economies want to use more wind and solar without sufficient storage or any means of balancing the enormous variations in output that occur. The continent-wide solution is already in place as the European countries all buy and sell power from one another, and there are still huge problems. I recommend that you make an effort to study them, and study the issue of wind droughts, rather then repeat long discredited assertions. I see with Latvia I was reading total energy consumption figures - so there you are a small victory for you. Otherwise this doesn't move the debate on, so I'll leave you to it. 

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2022 at 3:04 PM, specinho said:

there was a comment on a discussion board somewhere about cost of health care for a country. Highlight the essence here...........

Imagine the prospects of health care service..... People who need it might usually be

a) infants and mothers/ pediatric < 3 years old,

b) aged generations/ geriatric > 60 yrs old,

c) some unusual cases of genetics, occasional cases etc.

Those ages in between might rarely need it because they are usually healthy and vibrant with activities, especially people from not so well off group. If, a + b + c comprise 10% of a population and out of this 10%, only 0.1 to 1% requires regular medical service, and if a population is 300 m, then it would be 300,000 people. Divide that into 50 states............ we get 6000 people per state? Divided that to 4 months to 6 months regular interval, one month would be 1500 people or 50 people per day? And divided that into how many districts equipped with clinics, yes?

Question:

1. after so much they have contributed to the economic growth of a country, is it really that hard to provide free care for them?

2. insurance started off as good intention and generosity of some well off pioneers to protect their workers who might be doing injury prone or high risk work.

Later, it grows to become making money on customers' expenses. All insurances purchased are like paying money for things you might or might not used once or twice for a life time, with no guaranteed return. Not even an investment linked saving insurance could guarantee your basic seed saving is protected............

Why insist to do it on high prices and why  impose?

Hence, we can probably deduce that high costs incurred might be due to mismanagement of fund or allocation e.g. wastage on purchases, excessive staff, overpriced purchases etc...........

If spending so much on hiring so many to treat so few, why can't we demand good quality of free service?

Wondering if there is a crash course teaching government officers the basic? 'n'

image.png.e7bb9065c7347ede0501c3c844529efa.png

You obviously don’t understand the US is corrupt like the rest of the world. Getting value for a dollar from the poor has never been a priority. This is what happens in the clash between the affluent and the poor. International corporations service shareholders and spend billions stopping legislation fighting for the poor. It’s just human nature, nothing new, 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, markslawson said:

Jeroen - for heaven sake of course hydro is a renewable. My post specifically says that. (I also know what biomass is.) It's a highly acceptable renewable, unlike wind and solar which is close to useless in most circumstances. The problem is that advanced economies want to use more wind and solar without sufficient storage or any means of balancing the enormous variations in output that occur. The continent-wide solution is already in place as the European countries all buy and sell power from one another, and there are still huge problems. I recommend that you make an effort to study them, and study the issue of wind droughts, rather then repeat long discredited assertions. I see with Latvia I was reading total energy consumption figures - so there you are a small victory for you. Otherwise this doesn't move the debate on, so I'll leave you to it. 

Mark, just for fun pretend the sun is of little use in the winter. Now pretend wind is great in the winter but can’t be counted on. Now set your grid up for success. Have plenty of nat gas in the winter to run 95% of the grid. Bingo problem solved. Summer solar and wind with batteries are cheaper than nat gas so deal with it. You ain’t stopping it. As batteries and renewables get cheaper even nat gas winter market share will be eaten into. I expect this to be years from now though. That’s how I see it shake out. The next three years will show us what the size of scale the transition might end up being. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The fighting and complaining will be over less profit and less market share for nat gas turbines that sit dead most of the year. Those guys should go in the battery storage business. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On 8/31/2022 at 9:28 AM, Rob Plant said:

The price increases are because of the UK's dependence on FF not because of renewable subsidies.

UK power generation was 44.1% FF of which roughly 55% was imported over the last 12 months, 27.8% was from renewables.

The horrific price hikes for energy are down to FF and the fight for them in Ukraine and questionable successive government policies.

Renewables are cheaper than FF even from our own wells.

Your right that there will be mass unemployment and civil unrest like we havent seen for generations with interest rates mooted to rise to 22%+ next year there will be many many homeless people having lost their houses due to the inability to repay mortgages.

If your country uses plenty of FF then expect a world of financial pain heading your way.

I'm not a climate change fan at all and I think its this hysteria that has contributed to the lack of investment by banks and oil majors over the last 5-10 years which has largely caused an over dependence on the likes of Russia and the Middle East for supply

You CAN NOT build a 24/7/365 energy system w/ 99.99% uptime - which modern economies need - with an INTERMITTENT producer of electricity and heat.

Until "renewables" can be cheaply stored and the energy transported as cheaply as oil & gas, they can never support a modern economy.

Any slippery accounting that excludes the life cycle costs of storing, transporting and depreciating the (20yr life) renewables assets is a fraud on the public.

Renewables are NOT cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives - esp coal.

  • Great Response! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(edited)

On 10/5/2022 at 4:46 AM, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

That's exactly the continent-wide solution I am advocating. If you want to go renewable, you need a continent-wide power grid and solution. Energy storage in hydro is part of that solution.

While we are on hydro: I don't see why hydro cannot be seen as renewable. It is renewable by definition. 

Regarding biomass, yes, it is currently 60% of the end use of renewable energy in Europe (mostly heat). The majority (60%) of biomass is agricultural waste (the non-edible parts of food crops), forest waste (bark and unusable wood from forestry) and urban waste. The remainder is energy crops and forests, which are already challenged in EU sense.

Latvia Latvia - Renewable Energy Equipment (trade.gov). According to the USA Trade Administration, Latvia has about 40% green energy.

The only viable solution - and the best solution - for Europe long term is a blend of nuclear (ideally small modular) and traditional hydro w/ massive dams to manage water. These 2 should be supplying 80+%of Europe's heat and electricity ASAP. The remaining 20% should be a blend of multiple technologies including solar, wind, tidal, oil, gas and coal where they make the most sense from and operational and economic perspective.

Until renewables have a fundamental change and become economic when required to deliver power 24/7/365 w/ 99.99% uptime, they can't be more than 10-20% of the power gen mix. The fundamental changes in renewables I'm talking about are development of either: 1) cheap, flexible, scalable energy storage or 2) changes that make reliable generation 24/7 possible e.g. solar generation in low Earth orbit where the sun shines 24/7.

Edited by C.B. Saunders
  • Rolling Eye 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, C.B. Saunders said:

You CAN NOT build a 24/7/365 energy system w/ 99.99% uptime - which modern economies need - with an INTERMITTENT producer of electricity and heat.

Until "renewables" can be cheaply stored and the energy transported as cheaply as oil & gas, they can never support a modern economy.

Any slippery accounting that excludes the life cycle costs of storing, transporting and depreciating the (20yr life) renewables assets is a fraud on the public.

Renewables are NOT cheaper than fossil fuel alternatives - esp coal.

Firstly you need diverse forms of powergen for a stable grid.

Nuclear, renewables, FF, Hydro, Biomass etc etc.

Why do you need to sotre electricity when you have a diverse source of electricity generation? In the UK if the wind is blowing (which it does a lot) and we have excess then we simply sell it to our neighbouring countries via 8 interconnectors!

Transportation is through the existing grid network like anywhere else!

As for cost, 

How much does it cost to set up a coal power plant?
In fact, the estimated costs of building new coal plants have reached $3,500 per kW, without financing costs, and are still expected to increase further. This would mean a cost of well over $2 billion for a new 600 MW coal plant when financing costs are included.
 
Wind:-

There are economies of scale so larger turbines cost less per kW-installed than smaller ones, and single turbine sites costing more per kW than multiple turbine sites. Having said all of that, a reasonable conservative budget price for the ‘example’ turbines used throughout this webpage would be:

Maximum Power Output Typical Turbine Type Project Cost
100 kW Norvento nED100 £405 k
800 kW Enercon E53 £1.03 million
1 MW EWT DW61 £1.25 million
3 MW Enercon E82 £2.33 million
3.5 MW Enercon E126 EP3 £3.13 million

For reference, https://www.renewablesfirst.co.uk/windpower/windpower-learning-centre/how-much-does-a-wind-turbine-cost/typically the actual wind turbine costs around 69% of the total project cost.

Just because you type "NOT" in capitals doesnt make you right!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, markslawson said:

Jeroen - for heaven sake of course hydro is a renewable. My post specifically says that. (I also know what biomass is.) It's a highly acceptable renewable, unlike wind and solar which is close to useless in most circumstances. The problem is that advanced economies want to use more wind and solar without sufficient storage or any means of balancing the enormous variations in output that occur. The continent-wide solution is already in place as the European countries all buy and sell power from one another, and there are still huge problems. I recommend that you make an effort to study them, and study the issue of wind droughts, rather then repeat long discredited assertions. I see with Latvia I was reading total energy consumption figures - so there you are a small victory for you. Otherwise this doesn't move the debate on, so I'll leave you to it. 

There are no "huge problems" on the European energy market. The last major blackout was in 2006, way a before solar and wind were installed. So far, the only real problem we have seen are negative electricity prices on the wholesale market. This should reduce/go away once we can store excess production at competitive prices. 

So is there an actual problem with energy droughts?

There are 50-150 hours per year (0.5-1.5%) of solar+wind droughts per geographic region (A Brief Climatology of Dunkelflaute Events over and Surrounding the North and Baltic Sea Areas (tudelft.nl)). However, for geographically distant regions, the correlation between these events is lower than 0.2. (e.g., UK and Finland will not have simultaneous droughts). Hence, HVDC will solve this, potentially supplemented with ramp-up predictable sources like bio, nuclear & hydro. 

Short duration periods (several hours) can be covered by battery/electrolyzer solutions. The right way of doing this is currently field tested in TNO Keeping the electricity grid stable | TNO. All elements are in place, what is missing is the logic.

What is obvious is that we will need to build more energy generation capacity than "just enough", as we do now. That's all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, C.B. Saunders said:

The only viable solution - and the best solution - for Europe long term is a blend of nuclear (ideally small modular) and traditional hydro w/ massive dams to manage water. These 2 should be supplying 80+%of Europe's heat and electricity ASAP. The remaining 20% should be a blend of multiple technologies including solar, wind, tidal, oil, gas and coal where they make the most sense from and operational and economic perspective.

Until renewables have a fundamental change and become economic when required to deliver power 24/7/365 w/ 99.99% uptime, they can't be more than 10-20% of the power gen mix. The fundamental changes in renewables I'm talking about are development of either: 1) cheap, flexible, scalable energy storage or 2) changes that make reliable generation 24/7 possible e.g. solar generation in low Earth orbit where the sun shines 24/7.

A kWh of electricity from renewable is 1.5-3x cheaper than one from new nuclear developments. That leaves a lot of money on the table to come up with storage solutions. 

New onshore wind projects are USD 0.033/kWh, utility-scale solar PV USD 0.048/kWh and offshore wind USD 0.075/kWh. 

Compare that with the cost of power from e.g., Hinckley Point C : $0.119/kWh. 

I don't think we are going to see a large increase in nuclear: who is going to invest in that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Jeroen Goudswaard said:

I don't think we are going to see a large increase in nuclear: who is going to invest in that?

Those that want energy security!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.