You need coal/gas power generator capacity to meet the total peak demand in an electrical grid system.
That capacity needs to always be there, you cant replace it with renewables.
When the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine renewables supply zero electricity.
Discuss.

http://energystorage.org/energy-storage/technologies/pumped-hydroelectric-storage

Peak Warming Man said:

You need coal/gas power generator capacity to meet the total peak demand in an electrical grid system.

Obviously not. Nuclear Power for instance can replace coal/gas.

Peak Warming Man said:

That capacity needs to always be there, you cant replace it with renewables.

Certainly it is true that the intermittent nature of solar electric and wind, in particular, is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Peak Warming Man said:

When the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine renewables supply zero electricity.

Not really true. When there is zero wind at night or on an overcast day, “renewables” that don’t rely on wind or direct conversion of light will still be supplying electricity. Also stored energy that originally came from wind or solar electric will still be supplying energy.
Peak Warming Man said:

Discuss.

See above.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/mar/10/elon-musk-i-can-fix-south-australia-power-network-in-100-days-or-its-free?CMP=soc_567

Peak Warming Man said:

You need coal/gas power generator capacity to meet the total peak demand in an electrical grid system.
That capacity needs to always be there, you cant replace it with renewables.
When the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine renewables supply zero electricity.
Discuss.

What happens when gas isn’t cheaper than renewables?

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/the-problem-with-gas-why-its-so-expensive-and-we-risk-of-running-out-of-it-20170310-guva3d.html

Peak Warming Man said:

You need coal/gas power generator capacity to meet the total peak demand in an electrical grid system.
That capacity needs to always be there, you cant replace it with renewables.
When the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine renewables supply zero electricity.
Discuss.

I can discuss. Coal, gas and hydro are the three main power supplies that can handle peak power.
Battery and flywheel are both way too small for this purpose. Flywheel can store more than battery.
Another power supply strategy that could potentially handle peak power is compressed air, but so far that’s too expensive and cancerous.
Nuclear power can’t handle peak power well, it works best on completely uniform power generation so is good for base load.
I’m not sure how good oil shale technology is.

Now let’s turn to other renewables (hydro is renewable for example) and split them into two types – renewables that produce CO2 by burning and renewables that don’t produce CO2.

The renewables that don’t produce CO2 include wind, solar, wave and tidal. All four are at the mercy of the uncertain environment so can’t even produce a constant base-load power, certainty not peak power. In addition, tidal and wave power would fuck up our coastlines.

The renewables that produce CO2 by burning include landfill methane, sewage methane, biomass burning, biodiesel and, um, ethanol. The biodiesel and ethanol are in direct competition with food and forests, and both are too valuable as vehicle fuels for use in handling peak demand. The other three aren’t great at handling peak demand.

Sufficient discussion?

> cancerous

Bloody spall checkers.

Should say dangerous.

• Bloody spall checkers.

Wondered why it didn’t pick up spall. Learnt what spall is…

All the talk in NSW is around under-supply of gas to bolster base load generation.

The Chinese pay an estimated $3.80 per gigajoule for gas from the North West Shelf in WA and, under current arrangements with Woodside Petroleum will pay the same price until 2027, when we will be paying around $9.00 per gigajoule.

The Chinese did an unbelievably fantastic deal with John Howard back in 02. Thanks once again to the Terrible Toad.

Ian said:

All the talk in NSW is around under-supply of gas to bolster base load generation.

The Chinese pay an estimated $3.80 per gigajoule for gas from the North West Shelf in WA and, under current arrangements with Woodside Petroleum will pay the same price until 2027, when we will be paying around $9.00 per gigajoule.

The Chinese did an unbelievably fantastic deal with John Howard back in 02. Thanks once again to the Terrible Toad.

To make matters worse, the price gas is selling that was taken from Aus in OS markets is making a loss, they are using Aussie taxpayers to take up the slack of their balls up…aussie taxpayer funding multinational screw ups, yay us. Go straya.

I have not read the thread…

It seems fucking obvious that eventually all power generation on earth will be by renewables. Expendibles tend to be, well, expended. I don’t know whether that day will be twenty years from now or two hundred but it’s gonna happen.

More specifically, I’m sure others have mentioned that

• It is not common for an area the effective size of your local grid to be windless. Power can be transmitted now. It’s true. Look it up. Many hundred of km.
• there are countless means of storing the energy produced by renewables to any arbitrary extent, ameliorating any temporal variations. If you’re dead-set married to the idea of using methane peakers to smooth variations, then dagnabbit you can use renewable power to make methane from water and atmospheric carbon dioxide, store what you like and use it when needed.

poikilotherm said:

Ian said:

All the talk in NSW is around under-supply of gas to bolster base load generation.

The Chinese pay an estimated $3.80 per gigajoule for gas from the North West Shelf in WA and, under current arrangements with Woodside Petroleum will pay the same price until 2027, when we will be paying around $9.00 per gigajoule.

The Chinese did an unbelievably fantastic deal with John Howard back in 02. Thanks once again to the Terrible Toad.

To make matters worse, the price gas is selling that was taken from Aus in OS markets is making a loss, they are using Aussie taxpayers to take up the slack of their balls up…aussie taxpayer funding multinational screw ups, yay us. Go straya.

Seriously? I did not know these facts. Sigh.

> It seems fucking obvious that eventually all power generation on earth will be by renewables

Obvious in this case is probably wrong.

For starters you’re assuming a growing human population, which won’t last. Second, you’re assuming no improvement in mining technology over the next millennium or two, which will also be wrong. Third, you’re assuming that resource usage per head of population won’t shrink continually, and we’ve already had resource usage shrinking continually per person for many types of resources.

Eg. Suppose that the population stays constant over the next millennium but resource usage per head decreases by a constant small percentage per head on average each year. Then with a bit of mathematics (summing a geometric progression) it’s easy to show that non-renewable resources will never run out.

More to the point, resource usage will collapse with the next fall of human civilization long before we need a permanent switch to renewables.

I’m an expert on ‘obvious’. Obvious isn’t always true.

mollwollfumble said:

> It seems fucking obvious that eventually all power generation on earth will be by renewables

Obvious in this case is probably wrong.

For starters you’re assuming a growing human population, which won’t last. Second, you’re assuming no improvement in mining technology over the next millennium or two, which will also be wrong. Third, you’re assuming that resource usage per head of population won’t shrink continually, and we’ve already had resource usage shrinking continually per person for many types of resources.

Eg. Suppose that the population stays constant over the next millennium but resource usage per head decreases by a constant small percentage per head on average each year. Then with a bit of mathematics (summing a geometric progression) it’s easy to show that non-renewable resources will never run out.

More to the point, resource usage will collapse with the next fall of human civilization long before we need a permanent switch to renewables.

I’m an expert on ‘obvious’. Obvious isn’t always true.

Honestly, what?

Moll, no improvement in mining technology changes this equation. I have made no assumptions about population growth. I have made no assumptions about mining technology. You don’t need to make any assumptions on these things to work out that there will eventually come a time when all power generation is by renewable sources.

mollwollfumble said:

> It seems fucking obvious that eventually all power generation on earth will be by renewables

Obvious in this case is probably wrong.

For starters you’re assuming a growing human population, which won’t last. Second, you’re assuming no improvement in mining technology over the next millennium or two, which will also be wrong. Third, you’re assuming that resource usage per head of population won’t shrink continually, and we’ve already had resource usage shrinking continually per person for many types of resources.

Eg. Suppose that the population stays constant over the next millennium but resource usage per head decreases by a constant small percentage per head on average each year. Then with a bit of mathematics (summing a geometric progression) it’s easy to show that non-renewable resources will never run out.

More to the point, resource usage will collapse with the next fall of human civilization long before we need a permanent switch to renewables.

I’m an expert on ‘obvious’. Obvious isn’t always true.

You forget about Global Warming, but I forget you don’t think it is a problem.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

> It seems fucking obvious that eventually all power generation on earth will be by renewables

Obvious in this case is probably wrong.

For starters you’re assuming a growing human population, which won’t last. Second, you’re assuming no improvement in mining technology over the next millennium or two, which will also be wrong. Third, you’re assuming that resource usage per head of population won’t shrink continually, and we’ve already had resource usage shrinking continually per person for many types of resources.

Eg. Suppose that the population stays constant over the next millennium but resource usage per head decreases by a constant small percentage per head on average each year. Then with a bit of mathematics (summing a geometric progression) it’s easy to show that non-renewable resources will never run out.

More to the point, resource usage will collapse with the next fall of human civilization long before we need a permanent switch to renewables.

I’m an expert on ‘obvious’. Obvious isn’t always true.

Honestly, what?

Moll, no improvement in mining technology changes this equation. I have made no assumptions about population growth. I have made no assumptions about mining technology. You don’t need to make any assumptions on these things to work out that there will eventually come a time when all power generation is by renewable sources.

Honestly. I’ve seen it happen with lead, zinc and tin. Probably arsenic and asbestos as well.
Finite reserves of fossil fuels and other materials can last an infinite time.

Let’s sum the infinite geometric series.

First year, demand is X
Subsequent years demand is r times the year before, where r < 1 eg. r = 97%.

Sum the geometric series. Over an infinite number of years the series sums to
X / (1-r)
So all we need to last an infinite time is fossil fuel reserves that are greater than present yearly consumption by factor 1/(1-r) = 33.

So if your reserves are 33 times your present yearly consumption and your usage each year is 97% of the year before, then the fossil fuel reserves will last forever, with a bit left over.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

> It seems fucking obvious that eventually all power generation on earth will be by renewables

Obvious in this case is probably wrong.

For starters you’re assuming a growing human population, which won’t last. Second, you’re assuming no improvement in mining technology over the next millennium or two, which will also be wrong. Third, you’re assuming that resource usage per head of population won’t shrink continually, and we’ve already had resource usage shrinking continually per person for many types of resources.

Eg. Suppose that the population stays constant over the next millennium but resource usage per head decreases by a constant small percentage per head on average each year. Then with a bit of mathematics (summing a geometric progression) it’s easy to show that non-renewable resources will never run out.

More to the point, resource usage will collapse with the next fall of human civilization long before we need a permanent switch to renewables.

I’m an expert on ‘obvious’. Obvious isn’t always true.

Honestly, what?

Moll, no improvement in mining technology changes this equation. I have made no assumptions about population growth. I have made no assumptions about mining technology. You don’t need to make any assumptions on these things to work out that there will eventually come a time when all power generation is by renewable sources.

Honestly. I’ve seen it happen with lead, zinc and tin. Probably arsenic and asbestos as well.
Finite reserves of fossil fuels and other materials can last an infinite time.

Let’s sum the infinite geometric series.

First year, demand is X
Subsequent years demand is r times the year before, where r < 1 eg. r = 97%.

Sum the geometric series. Over an infinite number of years the series sums to
X / (1-r)
So all we need to last an infinite time is fossil fuel reserves that are greater than present yearly consumption by factor 1/(1-r) = 33.

So if your reserves are 33 times your present yearly consumption and your usage each year is 97% of the year before, then the fossil fuel reserves will last forever, with a bit left over.

See the thing is, they will indeed last an infinite time, because there will come a point when we are 100% on renewables, and no one will be bothering to extract them.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Honestly, what?

Moll, no improvement in mining technology changes this equation. I have made no assumptions about population growth. I have made no assumptions about mining technology. You don’t need to make any assumptions on these things to work out that there will eventually come a time when all power generation is by renewable sources.

Honestly. I’ve seen it happen with lead, zinc and tin. Probably arsenic and asbestos as well.
Finite reserves of fossil fuels and other materials can last an infinite time.

Let’s sum the infinite geometric series.

First year, demand is X
Subsequent years demand is r times the year before, where r < 1 eg. r = 97%.

Sum the geometric series. Over an infinite number of years the series sums to
X / (1-r)
So all we need to last an infinite time is fossil fuel reserves that are greater than present yearly consumption by factor 1/(1-r) = 33.

So if your reserves are 33 times your present yearly consumption and your usage each year is 97% of the year before, then the fossil fuel reserves will last forever, with a bit left over.

See the thing is, they will indeed last an infinite time, because there will come a point when we are 100% on renewables, and no one will be bothering to extract them.

Until fusion is available, imagine a world without wind farms, it’s easy if you try.

Peak Warming Man said:

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

Honestly. I’ve seen it happen with lead, zinc and tin. Probably arsenic and asbestos as well.
Finite reserves of fossil fuels and other materials can last an infinite time.

Let’s sum the infinite geometric series.

First year, demand is X
Subsequent years demand is r times the year before, where r < 1 eg. r = 97%.

Sum the geometric series. Over an infinite number of years the series sums to
X / (1-r)
So all we need to last an infinite time is fossil fuel reserves that are greater than present yearly consumption by factor 1/(1-r) = 33.

So if your reserves are 33 times your present yearly consumption and your usage each year is 97% of the year before, then the fossil fuel reserves will last forever, with a bit left over.

See the thing is, they will indeed last an infinite time, because there will come a point when we are 100% on renewables, and no one will be bothering to extract them.

Until fusion is available, imagine a world without wind farms, it’s easy if you try.

20 more years, that’s all. it’ll be the electronlit uplands then.

dv said:

mollwollfumble said:

So if your reserves are 33 times your present yearly consumption and your usage each year is 97% of the year before, then the fossil fuel reserves will last forever, with a bit left over.

See the thing is, they will indeed last an infinite time, because there will come a point when we are 100% on renewables, and no one will be bothering to extract them.

Which of course will be the result of a steady 3% reduction/year anyway. i.e. you’ll pretty soon get to the point where either the reduction stops, or the energy required comes from some other source.

So, weatherman says that there’s rain on the way.. possibly 100s of mm.. if you can believe them and their “forecasts”..

so climb up ladder at dusk to clean out the gutters.. hasn’t been done in 6 mths..

but bloody spectaculous sunset and then rising full moon, which I had forgotten all about.

:)

Is there room on Nauru for all the journalists who say things like “enough capacity to power 3000 homes per year” or “2 million watts per day”?

dv said:

Is there room on Nauru for all the journalists who say things like “enough capacity to power 3000 homes per year” or “2 million watts per day”?

Probably not. We may have to use the PNG facilities as well.

Or just geosequester them as a carbon sink

mollwollfumble said:

Finite reserves of fossil fuels and other materials can last an infinite time.

Let’s sum the infinite geometric series.

First year, demand is X
Subsequent years demand is r times the year before, where r < 1 eg. r = 97%.

Sum the geometric series. Over an infinite number of years the series sums to
X / (1-r)
So all we need to last an infinite time is fossil fuel reserves that are greater than present yearly consumption by factor 1/(1-r) = 33.

So if your reserves are 33 times your present yearly consumption and your usage each year is 97% of the year before, then the fossil fuel reserves will last forever, with a bit left over.

while the maths may work there are practical lower limits on the amount of fossil fuel you can feed any given power station… so no, a finite resource will not last an infinite time

Peak Warming Man said:

You need coal/gas power generator capacity to meet the total peak demand in an electrical grid system.
That capacity needs to always be there, you cant replace it with renewables.
When the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine renewables supply zero electricity.
Discuss.

The simple fact is that fossil fuels are set for an “industrials only” future… IME the downstream oil and gas people seem to understand this pretty well and are preparing for it, on the other hand, the coal companies and other stooges of the coal mining industry aren’t yet quite as sophisticated in their thinking.

this from a stooge of the coal mining industry

also, where has all the talk of geothermal gone??

diddly-squat said:

Peak Warming Man said:

You need coal/gas power generator capacity to meet the total peak demand in an electrical grid system.
That capacity needs to always be there, you cant replace it with renewables.
When the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine renewables supply zero electricity.
Discuss.

The simple fact is that fossil fuels are set for an “industrials only” future… IME the downstream oil and gas people seem to understand this pretty well and are preparing for it, on the other hand, the coal companies and other stooges of the coal mining industry aren’t yet quite as sophisticated in their thinking.

this from a stooge of the coal mining industry

also, where has all the talk of geothermal gone??

Was reading an investment newsletter that reckoned current renewables + battery cost per kwh today is ~20c compared to coal at 10c per kwh, but, there’s a supposed ~20% reduction in costs of renewable tech each year, so in a bit over 5 years, in their model, renewables + battey will be cost equivalent or cheaper than coal generation.

diddly-squat said:

Peak Warming Man said:

You need coal/gas power generator capacity to meet the total peak demand in an electrical grid system.
That capacity needs to always be there, you cant replace it with renewables.
When the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine renewables supply zero electricity.
Discuss.

The simple fact is that fossil fuels are set for an “industrials only” future… IME the downstream oil and gas people seem to understand this pretty well and are preparing for it, on the other hand, the coal companies and other stooges of the coal mining industry aren’t yet quite as sophisticated in their thinking.

this from a stooge of the coal mining industry

also, where has all the talk of geothermal gone??

It does not seem to be price competitive in Australia. Wind and solar just keep getting cheaper and deep geothermal just keeps on being a PITA. We’ve got some easy resources in Australia but nice shallow well-watered geothermal resources ain’t one of them.

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

Peak Warming Man said:

You need coal/gas power generator capacity to meet the total peak demand in an electrical grid system.
That capacity needs to always be there, you cant replace it with renewables.
When the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine renewables supply zero electricity.
Discuss.

The simple fact is that fossil fuels are set for an “industrials only” future… IME the downstream oil and gas people seem to understand this pretty well and are preparing for it, on the other hand, the coal companies and other stooges of the coal mining industry aren’t yet quite as sophisticated in their thinking.

this from a stooge of the coal mining industry

also, where has all the talk of geothermal gone??

Was reading an investment newsletter that reckoned current renewables + battery cost per kwh today is ~20c compared to coal at 10c per kwh, but, there’s a supposed ~20% reduction in costs of renewable tech each year, so in a bit over 5 years, in their model, renewables + battey will be cost equivalent or cheaper than coal generation.

The cost of a 150ah AGM battery or a 300 watt solar panel has not moved in 4 years.

Peak Warming Man said:

poikilotherm said:

diddly-squat said:

The simple fact is that fossil fuels are set for an “industrials only” future… IME the downstream oil and gas people seem to understand this pretty well and are preparing for it, on the other hand, the coal companies and other stooges of the coal mining industry aren’t yet quite as sophisticated in their thinking.

this from a stooge of the coal mining industry

also, where has all the talk of geothermal gone??

Was reading an investment newsletter that reckoned current renewables + battery cost per kwh today is ~20c compared to coal at 10c per kwh, but, there’s a supposed ~20% reduction in costs of renewable tech each year, so in a bit over 5 years, in their model, renewables + battey will be cost equivalent or cheaper than coal generation.

The cost of a 150ah AGM battery or a 300 watt solar panel has not moved in 4 years.

That’s some poxy powerplant.

The price of 100kW system has declined about 25% (depending on where you live) in the last three years.

https://www.solarchoice.net.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/100kW-commercial-solar-system-prices-Feb-2017.png

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-15/aemo-report-torrens-island-fire-almost-second-statewide-blackout/8357316

Another journo to the gulag…stat.

“A voltage transformer exploded in a switching yard at Torrens Island on March 3, tripping generators at two of Adelaide’s biggest gas-fired power stations, Torrens Island and Pelican Point in the city’s north-west suburbs”

A voltage transformer (VT) is a small measuring transformer. I suspect (sic) that the report meant a power transformer. Even just transformer would have sufficed.

sibeen said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-15/aemo-report-torrens-island-fire-almost-second-statewide-blackout/8357316

Another journo to the gulag…stat.

“A voltage transformer exploded in a switching yard at Torrens Island on March 3, tripping generators at two of Adelaide’s biggest gas-fired power stations, Torrens Island and Pelican Point in the city’s north-west suburbs”

A voltage transformer (VT) is a small measuring transformer. I suspect (sic) that the report meant a power transformer. Even just transformer would have sufficed.

Keep sending them, please.

And send the journos who use the expression “fault line” when talking about geology or earthquakes as well, please.

>Even just transformer would have sufficed.

it’s a disambiguation, so the younger generation know a decepticon hasn’t exploded.

sibeen said:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-15/aemo-report-torrens-island-fire-almost-second-statewide-blackout/8357316

Another journo to the gulag…stat.

“A voltage transformer exploded in a switching yard at Torrens Island on March 3, tripping generators at two of Adelaide’s biggest gas-fired power stations, Torrens Island and Pelican Point in the city’s north-west suburbs”

A voltage transformer (VT) is a small measuring transformer. I suspect (sic) that the report meant a power transformer. Even just transformer would have sufficed.

There’s more than meets the eye.