• UK to shut down all of its coal power plants in the next 10 years, replace with nuclear and gas
    101 replies, posted
[QUOTE=download;49150877]The cells in the 7kWh wallpack are the 10kWh model downrated to 7kWh. When running at 10kWh it only gets a few hundred cycles. If the utilities want $250/kWh they will have to run them at full power and only get a few hundred cycles out of them. Do some research on what you're actually talking about before talking shit, please.[/QUOTE] Holy shit dude. Did you even bother reading the first few paragraphs of the link I gave you? [QUOTE]There is two applications which are quite different. One is backup power, or peak-up -- the equivalent, on a utility scale of like a peaker plant, which is a high-energy application. And there is the daily cycler application. There are different chemistries, depending upon what you have. The backup power chemistry is quite similar to the car, which is a nickel cobalt aluminum or a cathode. The daily cycling control constituent is nickel manganese cobalt. It's quite a lot of manganese in there. One is meant for, call it maybe 60 or 70 cycles per year. And the other one is meant for daily cycling -- daily deep cycling, so it's 365 cycles a year. The daily cycler one, we expected to be able to daily cycle for something on the order of 15 years. Obviously warranty period would be a little bit less than that. We expected to be something that's in the 5000-cycle range capability. Whereas the high-energy pack is more like around the maybe, depending on how it's used, anywhere from 1000 to 1500 cycles. That's -- they have comparable to calendar lives.[/QUOTE] $250 per KWh is just the initial purchase price , regardless of how you use it.
Are you trying to imply that a cell that can cycle a few hundred time and a cell that can cycle 5000 times is the same cost per kWh? Because it should be obvious even to you how silly that sounds. They wouldn't have bothered releasing a cell that can only cycle a few hundred times if that is the case.
[QUOTE=download;49151445]Are you trying to imply that a cell that can cycle a few hundred time and a cell that can cycle 5000 times is the same cost per kWh? Because it should be obvious even to you how silly that sounds. They wouldn't have bothered releasing a cell that can only cycle a few hundred times if that is the case.[/QUOTE] Different applications, like it says in the quote the low cycle one is capable of outputting the energy it has stored considerably quicker. They are both the same initial price, this isn't a case of a "cheap" model and a "premium" model. You buy whichever you need for your use case. Do you need a battery that is cycling daily without fail but doesn't need to output all of the power it has stored up quickly? Get the daily cycler, it's great when paired with renewable sources. Or do you need a battery that won't be used to much but is capable of putting out a shit ton of power really quickly (i.e. to replace pumped hydro storage or whatever)? Get the low cycle high power output battery. If the low cycle battery is anything like the car battery (which they say it is) then it's capable of outputting the stored energy really really fast for a battery, which could be great in emergency situations such as if a power plant unexpectedly went offline. I don't know where you are getting the "few hundred cycles" thing from either. Even the low cycle one is going to be capable of 1000 - 1500 cycles.
I'm out. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.
[QUOTE=download;49151594]I'm out. You clearly have no clue what you're talking about.[/QUOTE] Okay, I have provided source after source for my claims, yet you have provided zero sources and just seem to be making up your claims.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49151618]Okay, I have provided source after source for my claims, yet you have provided zero sources and just seem to be making up your claims.[/QUOTE] No you haven't. You have no provided a reputable source that says that 5000 cycle packs will be $250/kWh. You have shown that the 7kWh wall pack will get 5000 cycles, and you have shown that the commercial cost will supposedly be $250/kWh, but you have not shown those two together.
Burning natural gas is cleaner than producing solar panels. Until you can find a process of refining rare earths into the necessary input materials in a clean way, then solar panels are not clean for the environment at all. I like that they are building nuclear power plants, but why are they so damn overpriced? This can't be a good deal.
[QUOTE=download;49151644]No you haven't. You have no provided a reputable source that says that 5000 cycle packs will be $250/kWh. You have shown that the 7kWh wall pack will get 5000 cycles, and you have shown that the commercial cost will supposedly be $250/kWh, but you have not shown those two together.[/QUOTE] Well there's only two chemistries here. Both are used for the Powerwall and Powerpack, without any changes. Musk stated that the utility level cost is $250 / KWh, he didn't specify which variant he was referring to so it implies that both chemistries cost the same at that level. On the topic of natural gas, I think it's a great intermediary but it emits more than CO2. You have NOx and SO2 and probably a bunch of other stuff. Both can have ill effects on the local population's health. Solar panels do have emissions from the manufacturing process but it's [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life-cycle_greenhouse-gas_emissions_of_energy_sources#2014_IPCC.2C_Global_warming_potential_of_selected_electricity_sources"]way better than gas[/URL] right now. It's also worth noting that the majority of Solar Panel emissions are from the energy required to make them, for processes like creating Crystalline silicon and as Antlerp stated, refining. So as the amount of power coming from nuclear and renewables increases, the emissions from creating solar panels drops. Under current conditions in the UK it takes about 2 1/2 years (depending on it's efficiency and where it was made of course) for a panel to break even on emissions.
SolarCity is also making a solar panel "gigafactory." Not to be confused with the Tesla Gigafactory 1.
[QUOTE=OvB;49152565]SolarCity is also making a solar panel "gigafactory." Not to be confused with the Tesla Gigafactory 1.[/QUOTE] I don't know much about it other than it's in (or at least close?) to New York, so the emissions from those panels should be pretty low and they have really high efficiencies. Shame that SolarCity pulled out of the UK before they even launched.
[QUOTE=Rangergxi;49150748]Wind is probably the best option. We have the materials to make all of the turbines necessary to power our countries and we don't have any crazy byproducts to deal with.[/QUOTE] Wind is terribly inefficient. [editline]20th November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Antlerp;49151663]Burning natural gas is cleaner than producing solar panels. Until you can find a process of refining rare earths into the necessary input materials in a clean way, then solar panels are not clean for the environment at all. I like that they are building nuclear power plants, but why are they so damn overpriced? This can't be a good deal.[/QUOTE] Because they have to be of the utmost quality? They will always be expensive, but they pay themselves off 100-fold.
[QUOTE=OvB;49152565]SolarCity is also making a solar panel "gigafactory." Not to be confused with the Tesla Gigafactory 1.[/QUOTE] I'm really curious if companies like SolarCity would have any chance of survival without government subsidies. No exaggeration, we get at least 3 solar salespeople a week coming to our door, and their main selling point is ALWAYS that big subsidies will make it worth your while.
[QUOTE=Antlerp;49151663]Burning natural gas is cleaner than producing solar panels. Until you can find a process of refining rare earths into the necessary input materials in a clean way, then solar panels are not clean for the environment at all. I like that they are building nuclear power plants, but why are they so damn overpriced? This can't be a good deal.[/QUOTE] The physical plant isn't what's overly expensive, it's the construction that is. Here is a little insight: every piece of rebar in a nuclear power plant is surveyed by actual surveyors, and 1/16th of an inch off is out of tolerance, meaning the whole piece of rebar needs to be moved and re-tied. That's just one single aspect of how stringent it is to build a nuclear plant, and the sheer manpower and work it takes is out of this world.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49154641]I'm really curious if companies like SolarCity would have any chance of survival without government subsidies. No exaggeration, we get at least 3 solar salespeople a week coming to our door, and their main selling point is ALWAYS that big subsidies will make it worth your while.[/QUOTE] Oil and gas receive subsides as well.
[QUOTE=OvB;49155024]Oil and gas receive subsides as well.[/QUOTE] Sure, but the dollar per Kw/h produced is ridiculously minimal when compared to solar and wind (more so solar). You can take the subsidies away from oil and the industry would still exist in a big way. I don't know if the same thing can be said about solar. According to the executive director of the Solar Energy Industries Association a loss of the investment tax credit for solar would result in 100,000 out of 175,000 jobs being lost in the solar industry and 90% of solar companies going out of business. That sounds pretty catastrophic to me. ([URL]http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/03/solar-industry-must-support-itc-extension-or-face-potentially-dire-consequences.html[/URL])
Solar needs subsidies because (at least here) the amount you get paid for every KWh you feed into the grid is maybe a third of what you would pay for taking one KWh from the grid. Solar peak is in the middle of the day when most people are at work, so the government pays you for every KWh you generate regardless of if you feed it into the grid or not. Without that generation payment from the government you would need a battery to store the energy in hopes of ever paying off the solar panel cost. But solar panels are already quite capital intensive, and consumer level battery storage is still quite expensive. So asking people to pay for panels, the inverter and a $3500 battery is probably just going to be to much. Companies like SolarCity also depend on the tarrif for their business model. They put the panels on your roof at no cost and you save money by consuming the panels power but they take all the money from the generation tarrif. So right now it probably wouldn't survive if the government just said fuck it, but eventually it could. The price of the panels themselves is dropping fast and if we can get consumer level batteries cost down more then it will be able to survive without those subsidies, but we are still looking at 5 - 10 years to get to that point I think.
[QUOTE=NeonpieDFTBA;49138505]Getting rid of coal is great, but replacing it with mostly natural gas, while better, still isn't the same as replacing it with nuclear (which is doing some but not a lot) and renewable sources of energy.[/QUOTE] replacing with nuclear is a horrible idea
[QUOTE=sgman91;49155097]Sure, but the dollar per Kw/h produced is ridiculously minimal when compared to solar and wind (more so solar). You can take the subsidies away from oil and the industry would still exist in a big way. I don't know if the same thing can be said about solar. According to the executive director of the Solar Energy Industries Association a loss of the investment tax credit for solar would result in 100,000 out of 175,000 jobs being lost in the solar industry and 90% of solar companies going out of business. That sounds pretty catastrophic to me. ([URL]http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/articles/2015/03/solar-industry-must-support-itc-extension-or-face-potentially-dire-consequences.html[/URL])[/QUOTE] You are right about nuclear when talking about just about any country other than the UK. For some reason our government likes getting ripped off by the Chinese or something. With Hinkley Point C the government garunted to pay £92.50 per MWh produced, which is just nuts. Even solar farms are accepting £68 per MWh and being viable.
[QUOTE=Morgen;49156428]You are right about nuclear when talking about just about any country other than the UK. For some reason our government likes getting ripped off by the Chinese or something. With Hinkley Point C the government garunted to pay £92.50 per MWh produced, which is just nuts. Even solar farms are accepting £68 per MWh and being viable.[/QUOTE] Nuclear is by far the most efficient kw/h per dollar spent in subsidy of all the green energy solutions in the US. Solar and wind are FAR behind.
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49156406]replacing with nuclear is a horrible idea[/QUOTE] Why so?
[QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49156406]replacing with nuclear is a horrible idea[/QUOTE] Oh no, my Chernobyls! [img]http://i.imgur.com/dTjaYHW.jpg[/img]
[QUOTE=SpaceGhost;49154438]Wind is terribly inefficient. [/QUOTE] May be terribly inefficient, but it's still covering about 40% of Denmark electrical usage. When you're talking efficiency, what are you really talking about? Wind in divided by power out or $/watt, watt/m^2 etc.?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49157026]May be terribly inefficient, but it's still covering about 40% of Denmark electrical usage. When you're talking efficiency, what are you really talking about? Wind in divided by power out or $/watt, watt/m^2 etc.?[/QUOTE] Denmark's needs are also incredibly low compared to places like England, France, and the US.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;49157026]May be terribly inefficient, but it's still covering about 40% of Denmark electrical usage. When you're talking efficiency, what are you really talking about? Wind in divided by power out or $/watt, watt/m^2 etc.?[/QUOTE] I don't even think you're right about that 40%. According to the Danish Energy Agency, Denmark is projective to only have 35% of it's energy made through all types of renewables by 2020. ([URL]http://www.ens.dk/en/policy/danish-climate-energy-policy[/URL]) So it's probably less than 35% right now, and that's including all types of renewables. Interestingly enough, Denmark also has the highest energy prices in the world.
[QUOTE=alexaz;49156822]Oh no, my Chernobyls! [img]http://i.imgur.com/dTjaYHW.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I never mentioned deaths, but sure. [editline]21st November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=OfficerLamarr;49156799]Why so?[/QUOTE] The waste that you have to deal with, is a nightmare in itself. Coupled with the fact that if there was a catastrophic accident it leaves large areas irradiated and uninhabitable.
[QUOTE]The waste that you have to deal with[/QUOTE] The waste is a problem, with Iodine-129's (common waste from nuclear fission) half life spanning millions of years.[SUP][URL="https://web.archive.org/web/20081121041307/http://www.stoller-eser.com/Quarterlies/iodine.htm"][1][/URL][/SUP]Fournatley, nuclear reprocessing[SUP][URL="http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/nuclear-wasteland"][2][/URL][/SUP] exists, unfortunately, it isn't exactly economical[SUP][URL="https://inldigitallibrary.inl.gov/sti/4536700.pdf"][3][/URL][/SUP] in traditional reactors. Breeder reactors are are a much more effective alternative which recycling almost all of their waste.[SUB][URL="http://fas.org/rlg/3_15_2010 Fast Breeder Reactors 1.pdf"][4][/URL][/SUB] Yes, current nuclear reactors have a waste problem but it is a problem which can be fixed or at-least largely solved by further developments into nuclear technologies.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49157125]I don't even think you're right about that 40%. According to the Danish Energy Agency, Denmark is projective to only have 35% of it's energy made through all types of renewables by 2020. ([URL]http://www.ens.dk/en/policy/danish-climate-energy-policy[/URL]) So it's probably less than 35% right now, and that's including all types of renewables. Interestingly enough, Denmark also has the highest energy prices in the world.[/QUOTE] It's probably something like 40% of their electricity by nameplate capacity, but as we know in reality it only has a capacity factor of 20 to 30%. [editline]21st November 2015[/editline] [QUOTE=Johnny Guitar;49157189]I never mentioned deaths, but sure. [editline]21st November 2015[/editline] The waste that you have to deal with, is a nightmare in itself. Coupled with the fact that if there was a catastrophic accident it leaves large areas irradiated and uninhabitable.[/QUOTE] The waste problem was solved decades ago and both Fukashima and Chernobyl have been massively overblown. [editline]21st November 2015[/editline] Both are purely political problems at this stage.
[QUOTE=sgman91;49157125]I don't even think you're right about that 40%. According to the Danish Energy Agency, Denmark is projective to only have 35% of it's energy made through all types of renewables by 2020. ([URL]http://www.ens.dk/en/policy/danish-climate-energy-policy[/URL]) So it's probably less than 35% right now, and that's including all types of renewables. Interestingly enough, Denmark also has the highest energy prices in the world.[/QUOTE] I think that stat includes all energy consumption, not just electricity. The figure on [url=http://www.ens.dk/sites/ens.dk/files/policy/danish-climate-energy-policy/dkenergypolicyreport2013_final.pdf]page five[/url] shows electricity share. Denmark has some of the highest prices on everything. Then we go a bit above and beyond on wind.
[QUOTE=CrumbleShake;49139005]Nuclear is great but imagine the shit storm from the public. Also if we get China to build all our nuclear plants for way inflated costs using outdated designs, then it's bullshit.[/QUOTE] + nuclear powerplants will maintain the near monopoly energy companies have on the energy supply. Nationalised nuclear power with privatised smaller scale renewables (smaller startup cost so easier to compete) would be the optimal solution imo.
[QUOTE=alexaz;49156822]Oh no, my Chernobyls! [img]http://i.imgur.com/dTjaYHW.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] its not totally clear on this graph, but nuclear is less than wind and soolar
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.