Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CSIRO and Australia grid industry association roadmap to 100% clean energy by 2050

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
    Looks like they cut employment by two thirds, and auctioned off a bunch of equipment ( ocregister.com/articles/plant-602845-edison-equipment.html ) a while ago.
    The update at songscommunity.com/cep-events/111016_event.asp says "all systems retired" and plant is in "cold and dark" state; they've moved power for essential equipment to a separate set of lines that can remain operating during demolition.
    Correct. But you are misinterpreting terms like "cold and dark." That does not mean that the core is cold, just that natural convection is now sufficient to cool it, So that if the pumps fail (and BTW they are still running) the core will not overheat. Nor does it mean the plant is dark; if you don't believe me, just drive by it some night. Why? Because the NRC doesn't allow companies to just walk away from nuclear power plants; they have long lists of required inspections, maintenance items, regular testing etc to ensure the plant is safe, even when it's not being used for power.

    Could they turn it back on tomorrow? No; there's a lengthy (months) process they'd have to go through to start generating power again that has mainly to do with the turbine plant, the standby generators and the safety systems (like the secondary heat exchangers and HPI systems) that are no longer needed. And of course you'd have to get Mitsubishi to replace their lousy primary heat exchanger. But it's a process that would take months, not years.

    So when you ask "gee, there's this big problem getting enough power, what would you do?" the answer is easy - take the months to turn an existing. fueled, zero emissions plant back on, rather than take the decades (and billions) to install enough storage to allow renewables to replace the power from that plant.

    If you want to do both, great; get out your checkbook. But if you are concerned about having enough power in the wake of the problems with natural gas storage, then San Onofre is the best option.

    Or, if you just want solar for political reasons and you don't really give a s*** about having enough power, then that's fine too. Just be honest enough to admit that, and stop with all the BS about how San Onofre is un-maintained, it's impossible to restart, solar is cheap and easy, storage is a piece of cake etc.

    Comment


    • #92
      Geez you guys keep feeding the Troll. Don't you realize Dan likes to be beat up and cause conflict? That is what he does all day long on many forums.
      MSEE, PE

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
        Correct. But you are misinterpreting terms like "cold and dark." That does not mean that the core is cold, just that natural convection is now sufficient to cool it, So that if the pumps fail (and BTW they are still running) the core will not overheat.
        I don't think I was confused about "cold and dark"; I know it's a technical term that doesn't mean all the lights are out.

        But I do think it means all the fuel has been removed from the core, and moved to cooling pools.

        Why in the world do you think I want solar for political reasons?

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by Sunking View Post
          Geez you guys keep feeding the Troll. Don't you realize Dan likes to be beat up and cause conflict? That is what he does all day long on many forums.
          Yea, I got that figured out some time ago. But to me, this seems to have some similarities to the situation of an obnoxious drunk who continues to hang out in your bar and doing so in ways that disturb your quiet enjoyment and informative discourse with other patrons while probably driving business away. Back in the day, we used to consider whacking a persistently surly patron a public service and a civic responsibility.

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
            Why in the world do you think I want solar for political reasons?
            Because you tout all things solar regularly, vehemently and over the objections of other people with a lot more experience than you have. You react poorly to suggestions that renewables are not the answer that some people think they are. All of which makes me think that you have non-technical (and/or non-practical) reasons to push renewables.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
              Because you tout all things solar regularly, vehemently and over the objections of other people with a lot more experience than you have. You react poorly to suggestions that renewables are not the answer that some people think they are. All of which makes me think that you have non-technical (and/or non-practical) reasons to push renewables.
              If you're referring to SK's and J.P.M.'s vehement attacks on me, those aren't my fault; I can't control them. Although they are technically knowledgeable, their continual ad hominem attacks verge on trolling and gaslighting. Any thread I'm in, J.P.M. seems to do his best to turn into a battle.

              In my posts, I emphasize that cost matters, and that while renewables are cheaper in some applications, they aren't cheaper everywhere yet. It's a realistic take. I'm not sure why e.g. SunEagle gets upset about it; it's very similar to his position, I'm just more optimistic about how quickly costs will come down.

              I have to suspect that the hostility is because I accept mainstream science as a good guide to the physical world, and that rubs climate change denialists the wrong way something awful.
              Last edited by DanKegel; 02-06-2017, 05:40 PM.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                If you're referring to SK's and J.P.M.'s vehement attacks on me, those aren't my fault; I can't control them.
                You may have that opinion. I have a different one based on, among other things:

                1.) They are not attacks on you, at least not my comments. Neither are they vehement. My responses to your posts, are limited to those posts I take issue with and those where I consider your content incorrect, usually inappropriate and often what I consider misleading, sometimes to the point of being a dangerous fast and loose re - and misinterpretation of reality to suit your version of how the world is and/or ought to be. Nothing personal about it. Don't know you, never met you.

                2.) You can most certainly control them. Knock off the B.S. and get knowledgeable, or at least stop doing nothing more than recasting stuff you see in a way that seems to fit some rose colored version you have of reality.

                BTW, my comments are not "ad hominem" as you seem to keep claiming. The last time I checked my latin and my legal dictionaries, that refers to claims made against the person, not what they may be saying, writing or doing. Get it right and use it correctly, or stop using it, at least with respect and reference to what I do around here. Your loss, but your continued (incorrect) use of the term only serves to point out more of what I see as your ignorance.

                Interestingly, at least mildly so to me anyway, what you are doing when you claim my comments to your posts are "ad hominem" attacks may well itself be considered a ploy known as "argumentum ad hominem". That's a sometimes effective rhetorical tactic that relies on emotion rather than intellect or logic. The concept is considered a logical fallacy in that it fails to prove a point by not addressing it in the first place. So, you duck out of a response or addressing the substance of my comments by claiming I'm attacking you, thus implying, and/or steering others to infer any comment or question I may have or criticism I may level is at you personally, and thus conveniently avoid addressing the content of my comment.

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
                  ......I have to suspect that the hostility is because I accept mainstream science as a good guide to the physical world, and that rubs climate change denialists the wrong way something awful.
                  Sadly, "mainstream science" is about where 9th grade science was 50 years ago. Now it's a cut above supermarket tabloids.
                  Powerfab top of pole PV mount (2) | Listeroid 6/1 w/st5 gen head | XW6048 inverter/chgr | Iota 48V/15A charger | Morningstar 60A MPPT | 48V, 800A NiFe Battery (in series)| 15, Evergreen 205w "12V" PV array on pole | Midnight ePanel | Grundfos 10 SO5-9 with 3 wire Franklin Electric motor (1/2hp 240V 1ph ) on a timer for 3 hr noontime run - Runs off PV ||
                  || Midnight Classic 200 | 10, Evergreen 200w in a 160VOC array ||
                  || VEC1093 12V Charger | Maha C401 aa/aaa Charger | SureSine | Sunsaver MPPT 15A

                  solar: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Solar
                  gen: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Lister

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by Mike90250 View Post
                    Sadly, "mainstream science" is about where 9th grade science was 50 years ago. Now it's a cut above supermarket tabloids.
                    That generalized distrust of science that Mike expresses is exactly what I'm talking about.
                    It's an interesting phenomenon; see e.g. washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/03/02/this-is-where-distrust-of-science-really-comes-from-and-its-not-just-your-politics

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
                      If you're referring to SK's and J.P.M.'s vehement attacks on me, those aren't my fault; I can't control them.
                      SK is as much of a political hack as you are; he just swings in the opposite direction.

                      However, I would not categorize JPM's (or Suneagle's) replies as attacks on you, they are attacks on your ideas and posts, which is not nearly the same thing.
                      I have to suspect that the hostility is because I accept mainstream science as a good guide to the physical world, and that rubs climate change denialists the wrong way something awful.
                      Oh, I understand the annoyance, because I used to be like you. Solar will save the planet! No more pollution! We can stiff it to the man and be our own power companies! Rip up our power bills and throw them in their face. We'll play in the cities, powered by the sun. We'll all be clean when the workday's done; there will be spandex jackets for everyone (apologies to Donald Fagen for the misuse of his lyrics.) This worldview was bolstered by the resources available to me at the time, like the Whole Earth Catalog and Real Goods, both of which came with a healthy dose of evangelism. Get out your credit card and save the planet.

                      That wasn't all bad; it got me started in solar, and this was back when solar was $10 a watt ($3 a watt if you were really lucky and you could get some damaged panels from abandoned solar farms.) But then I started doing other installs and learning that batteries weren't magic boxes that stored power without any fuss, that the STC ratings on solar weren't anything close to what you'd see in the real world, and that energy efficiency was boring but a whole lot more effective. And then as I started working on our Smart Cities program, talking to utilities, load aggregators and smart-grid providers, I started to see the realities of grid-scale generation and how solar and other renewables fit into that.

                      Since then I find I have less and less patience for people who tell me that solar is the ultimate solution to all our power woes. Periodically some academic study will come out showing how we can replace all our generation with clean energy, and there's invariably a lot of hand-waving and glossing over of the final bill. And this annoys me because then I have to defend our (more practical) solutions to upper management who has read the same academic article. And doing that over and over gets old.

                      So my annoyance (you'd probably call it "hostility") with your posts is not due to you being excited about renewables; it's due to seeing the same old thoughtless tropes* trotted out to solve our (complex) problems. It's akin to the annoyance a programmer feels when someone tells him how easy programming is because "it's just typing", or the annoyance a homebuilder feels when some Internet guy tells him how a great new building product will make his life ten times better - and the Internet guy should know, he once installed some sheetrock.

                      (* - and before you get mad about _that_ note that I am not saying that you are thoughtless - just that you are reposting some thoughtless stuff.)

                      Comment


                      • [QUOTE=J.P.M.;n342624]
                        BTW, my comments are not "ad hominem" as you seem to keep claiming. The last time I checked my latin and my legal dictionaries, that refers to claims made against the person, not what they may be saying, writing or doing./QUOTE]

                        I'm referring to attacks that criticize my posts without pointing out any factual mistake in the post itself, but rather say things like my previous posts are garbage (I'm paraphrasing slightly). It's like an echo chamber of negativity.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jflorey2 View Post
                          So my annoyance ... with your posts is not due to you being excited about renewables; it's due to seeing the same old thoughtless tropes* trotted out to solve our (complex) problems.
                          I appreciate your clear description. (And I expect you still agree with mainstream science, which hopefully means we're both guided by physical reality more than politics.)
                          I agree that society faces complex problems that need careful answers, not shoot-from-the-hip ones.
                          I try real hard to get my facts right, and not oversell anything I'm excited about.

                          Yet some people around here seem to get annoyed because I point out areas where renewables do make sense -- even if they agree on that particular case! It's a riddle.

                          And some people get annoyed when I can't find evidence that supports their views, and post what I do find.
                          I'm not being argumentative; I'm just sharing evidence. I'm completely happy to be proven wrong at any moment; all it takes is to present better data than what I found.

                          I really didn't mean to rub you the wrong way about San Onofre -- I'd love to see it fixed and restarted, but the reports I saw made me pessimistic about that prospect.

                          Comment


                          • I think this thread " road-map to 100% renewable energy" is done , Im over it, its closed.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X