Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units • Hacker News Board

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#81

Post by KaiserPro » Wed, Dec 20, 2017, 11:08 AM UTC

nl wrote: post #49

shard972 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear is obsolete to what? As far as I understand, nuclear is the replacement for coal, nothing else comes close to being able to provide a stable constant supply in large quantities. What else can take the role of supplying the bulk of electricity to grids that doesn't also have it's own environmental concerns?

What else can take the role of supplying the bulk of electricity to grids that doesn't also have it's own environmental concerns? Gas fire plants Hydro Pump Solar Liquid salt storage Geothermal Wind + Large Scale Solar + Storage Tidal Decentralized PV solar plus decentralized storage. There are enormous numbers of combinations of solutions which don't involve coal or nuclear. Both coal and nuclear power are slow to r…

Gas: Shits out CO2 and others, short lifespan, order of minutes to respond (less if forewarned)

Hydro: Used in the UK to provide peak backup (however thats pumped storage not generation. given the droughts and irrigation usage in aus, not the best idea) requires time to warm up. Has large environmental impact unless using a natural dam (~60 seconds to respond)

pump solar: I'm assuming you mean CSP (https://www.sulzer.com/en/applications/power-generation/rene...) for the sunny parts of Aus, possibly a good choice. Not cheap though (No response time, cannot operate as a base load)

Liquid salt storage: See above, less efficient, slow response time (unknown response time. Suspect in the order of tens of minutes, as heat has to be transfered into water for steam, better as base load)

Geothermal: needs the correct rock formation (again, unknown response time, better as base load)

Large scale solar + wind: Storage is the problem. The amount of lithium required to proper storage is utterly vast. (depends very much on the storage medium and controller, also the amount of wind solar in the preceding days)

Tidal: requires the right geology, can have massive environmental impact, power comes when it wants, but is predictable.(Has some ability to provide backup outside of high/low tide. )

Decentralised x: horrifically expensive, however the cost can be passed directly to consumers. Keeping it all in sync requires decent infrastructure. (without a new and secure mechanism unlikely to provide grid backup, but could be used to dynamically cut load. )

In conclusion nuclear provide a brilliant base load, which can be used for things like charging the various storage devices, or allowing for solar to not work at night. Its relatively cheap across an entire life cycle, and surprisingly dependable. In terms of environmental impact, significantly less that the constant low-level pollutants that are emmited by coal & gas, and the environmental changes caused by hydro. Also Lithium mining has a large environmental impact too, as does PV production.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#82

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Dec 20, 2017, 11:15 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #50

nl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else can take the role of supplying the bulk of electricity to grids that doesn't also have it's own environmental concerns? Gas fire plants Hydro Pump Solar Liquid salt storage Geothermal Wind + Large Scale Solar + Storage Tidal Decentralized PV solar plus decentralized storage. There are enormous numbers of combinations of solutions which don't involve coal or nuclear. Both coal and nuclear power are slow to r…

Start a business then! But I think investors may be hard to find - because most of that hasn't proved cost effective.

Ah, the idiotic libertarian response. Just the other day I got a small cheque because I'm an investor in a local solar scheme.

Renewables work, have very modest maintenance requirements, and the intermittency can be managed. It's ridiculous that Australia isn't getting at least 30% of its energy from solar.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#83

Post by nl » Wed, Dec 20, 2017, 11:41 AM UTC

KaiserPro wrote: post #81

nl wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What else can take the role of supplying the bulk of electricity to grids that doesn't also have it's own environmental concerns? Gas fire plants Hydro Pump Solar Liquid salt storage Geothermal Wind + Large Scale Solar + Storage Tidal Decentralized PV solar plus decentralized storage. There are enormous numbers of combinations of solutions which don't involve coal or nuclear. Both coal and nuclear power are slow to r…

Gas: Shits out CO2 and others, short lifespan, order of minutes to respond (less if forewarned) Hydro: Used in the UK to provide peak backup (however thats pumped storage not generation. given the droughts and irrigation usage in aus, not the best idea) requires time to warm up. Has large environmental impact unless using a natural dam (~60 seconds to respond) pump solar: I'm assuming you mean CSP ( https://www.sulze…

pump solar

No, this:

http://www.genexpower.com.au/the-kidston-pumped-storage-hydr...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/pumped-hydro-renewable...

base load

Oh, the old baseload argument. I haven't heard that one for a couple of years now.

https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-thr...

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.ht...

https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-myth-even-in...

nuclear... relatively cheap across an entire life cycle

> Between 2002 and 2008, for example, cost estimates for new nuclear plant construction rose from between $2 billion and $4 billion per unit to $9 billion per unit, according to a 2009 UCS report, while experience with new construction in Europe has seen costs continue to soar.

https://www.ucsusa.org/nuclear-power/cost-nuclear-power

Plenty of other studies showing similar.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#84

Post by Intermernet » Wed, Dec 20, 2017, 12:19 PM UTC

stephen_g wrote: post #51

nl wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are building plenty of gas fired plants. And a fracking ban didn't cause the gas shortage (whoever told you that has a pretty serious agenda!). Australian gas reserves are the second biggest in the world and relatively easy to access. The "problem" is/was that they are tied up in long term export agreements.

Yeah, the contracts are ridiculous. Santos et. al. are locked in to exporting too much of our production to countries like Japan (more than they even need anymore I beleive), there isn't enough of the gas produced being sold domestically so prices locally have jumped significantly, but at the same time the international price has dropped so I don't think the export is even breaking even, and I've read that at this po…

> I've read that at this point we could import the surplus back from Japan (that we sold them originally) for less than what we pay on the domestic market!

What's sillier is that apparently we wouldn't actually import the gas. I've spoken to people associated with the gas industry who have told me that we would actually buy a future allotment of gas from Japan, which would be pretty much directly supplied from Australian providers. In this case the Japanese companies basically become re-sellers who can undercut the local cost of buying the same gas, without that gas ever actually leaving the country.

If this is true, it doesn't surprise me. Australia has a terrible track record for taking advantage of primary resources. We've done similar things with iron ore, oil, gold, diamonds, coal and uranium (and probably pretty much everything else we dig out of the ground).

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#85

Post by KaiserPro » Wed, Dec 20, 2017, 1:07 PM UTC

nl wrote: post #83

KaiserPro wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gas: Shits out CO2 and others, short lifespan, order of minutes to respond (less if forewarned) Hydro: Used in the UK to provide peak backup (however thats pumped storage not generation. given the droughts and irrigation usage in aus, not the best idea) requires time to warm up. Has large environmental impact unless using a natural dam (~60 seconds to respond) pump solar: I'm assuming you mean CSP ( https://www.sulze…

pump solar No, this: http://www.genexpower.com.au/the-kidston-pumped-storage-hydr... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-21/pumped-hydro-renewable... base load Oh, the old baseload argument. I haven't heard that one for a couple of years now. https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-thr... http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.ht... https://theconversation.com/baseload-power-is-a-my…

And if you read the studies they require short term peak fossil fuel standbys.

"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."

In the UK that translates to gas/diesel standbys which in the case of the latter is horrendously polluting

Now, if you look at all of those studies, they make the assumption that there there is gas/hydro to act as backup. that is a base load.

The NRDC link ~25-50% of the power comes from Gas, which puts out CO2. Then there is biomass, which is also environmentally problematic in its current form. (https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/styles/full_content...) Granted that does not take into account grid scale efficient storage.

But there is a base load, you can see it in the graphs. They almost exclusively use gas to plug that gap. If you want to reduce carbon output, that has to go.

Now, if I was to be in charge of a country, my route to energy security with minimal environmental impact would be thus:

1) insulation at a massive discount/loan.

2) diverse renewables, but not at any cost, and not on farm land. (UK based, so tidal, solar, wind)

3) small scale nuclear. Molten salt or similar with a negative feedback loop

4) Domestic & industrial power storage/generation incentives. If you can adjust the demands at source it greatly reduces the highs and lows.

Why in the UK is something like nuclear needed? Because if we are to reduce carbon output, we need to heat our homes with electricity instead of gas, that triples the power demand at a stroke. insulation standards of 0.6U or less would reduce this significantly. However its still more power than can be feasibly harvested with rooftop solar/wind/tidal alone.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#86

Post by JoeAltmaier » Wed, Dec 20, 2017, 2:02 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #82

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Start a business then! But I think investors may be hard to find - because most of that hasn't proved cost effective.

Ah, the idiotic libertarian response. Just the other day I got a small cheque because I'm an investor in a local solar scheme. Renewables work, have very modest maintenance requirements, and the intermittency can be managed. It's ridiculous that Australia isn't getting at least 30% of its energy from solar.

"Got a check" isn't the same thing. Somebody subsidized that check I think. We also have cities subsidizing aluminum recycling, which pays nobody and has no ecological benefit.

I'm just practical about what theatre I endorse, and what I skip.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#87

Post by pjc50 » Wed, Dec 20, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #86

pjc50 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the idiotic libertarian response. Just the other day I got a small cheque because I'm an investor in a local solar scheme. Renewables work, have very modest maintenance requirements, and the intermittency can be managed. It's ridiculous that Australia isn't getting at least 30% of its energy from solar.

"Got a check" isn't the same thing. Somebody subsidized that check I think. We also have cities subsidizing aluminum recycling, which pays nobody and has no ecological benefit. I'm just practical about what theatre I endorse, and what I skip.

Of course, but the coal is on a favourable tax regime and the nuclear plants won't be built without subsidy either. Hinkley Point C is guaranteed a price of £92.50/MWh regardless of the market rate.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#88

Post by JauntyHatAngle » Wed, Dec 20, 2017, 11:30 PM UTC

eecc wrote: post #74

JauntyHatAngle wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a broader note, it is important that in the age of (mis)information, that genuine advancements/improvements on tech are advertised properly. This is difficult because taxpayers often take a dim view on their money being spent on marketing government programs. Unfortunately with large companies advertising directly against programs that often run contrary to what is in the public interest, it is arguably in the pub…

“Unfortunately with large companies advertising directly against programs that often run contrary to what is in the public interest“ - uh? I think you meant the opposite of what you wrote. ;)

On the contrary I mean the exact opposite of what I don't mean in not that case.

Yep, my mistake.

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#89

Post by slaman » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 12:15 AM UTC

just_for_you wrote: post #38

synicalx wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tesla's battery is better at doing what it was designed for, compared to coal plant(s) that are better at doing what they're designed for. In conjunction with one another, both technologies work incredibly well.

In addendum to this, I'd like to mention that things that are designed for a specific purpose are good for that specific purpose. And in general, things that are made to work well together work better than things not made to work well together. This also applies to things that happen to work well together, despite not initially being designed to.

The first rule of Tautology club is the first rule of Tautology club.

https://xkcd.com/703/

Re: Tesla big battery outsmarts lumbering coal units

#90

Post by lhopki01 » Thu, Dec 21, 2017, 10:15 AM UTC

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #86

pjc50 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the idiotic libertarian response. Just the other day I got a small cheque because I'm an investor in a local solar scheme. Renewables work, have very modest maintenance requirements, and the intermittency can be managed. It's ridiculous that Australia isn't getting at least 30% of its energy from solar.

"Got a check" isn't the same thing. Somebody subsidized that check I think. We also have cities subsidizing aluminum recycling, which pays nobody and has no ecological benefit. I'm just practical about what theatre I endorse, and what I skip.

Aluminium recycling is actually has lots of ecological benefit. It uses about 95% less energy to recycle aluminium than it does to produce it. In terms of subsidies to recycling you've chosen the item that would always be recycled no matter what.