Environmentally sustainable base load power

[Loren Pechtel]

Sure they are. My uncle installed heat exchange wheels into his hospital, it cut the air conditioning bills by 70%. Redesign is most of the answer, no matter how you look at it or what kind of power you eventually go for.

Sure there are things that can be done to cut usage. They are nowhere near enough.

The question was baseline power--that has to work 24/7. The sun goes down, the wind idles. There simply aren't enough rivers or geothermal sites to power the world.

I wasn't aware that the sun went down all over the world simultaneously, nor that the wind came to a standstill all over at the same time. You really suggesting that a town in the fricking desert can't possibly make use of solar power?

And you propose to transfer power from the sunny side to the dark side how???? I see some pretty big oceans in the way!

Storing energy is problematic, but hardly impossible. Suddenly, the sun going down isn't a problem. What then?

The only practical system we have today--and it's not very good--is pumped hydro. That requires suitable natural terrain and means you lose a lot of water to evaporation.



Furthermore, consider the cost of all the changes you want to make. Unlike what you probably believe cost most certainly matters--it's a measure of the effort that must be expended. Consider the most the US has ever spent on things which bring nothing to the people: WWII, we spent a peak of 40% of GDP on the war--and that level was unsustainable. We were letting things wear out during the war, eventually that would have caused big problems.

That means we can't spend that much on your green pipe dreams. Borrowing is not an answer, I'm measuring available effort, loans simply move work around, they do not create work.

 

[Petrel]

Well, if nothing can be done, then nothing will be done. Okay by me. I wasn't expecting anyone to "follow" me; I just answered the OP question.

 

[bilby]

Well, if nothing can be done, then nothing will be done. Okay by me. I wasn't expecting anyone to "follow" me; I just answered the OP question.

Something very easy, well established, and completely effective CAN be done - build Gen III nuclear power stations to replace coal ones, starting right now (if not sooner).

The only thing preventing this clear and simple solution to our impending environmental crisis is uninformed opposition from people who (perversely) call themselves 'environmentalists'.

It is time that they grew up, and accepted that they have to pick between the real problem of global warming, or the fake problem of nuclear safety - which is in fact outdated propaganda against nuclear weapons.

Imagine if Greenpeace opposed electric cars because the army wanted the battery tech for electric tanks. That is pretty much where we are vis-a-vis nuclear power. The propaganda has been accepted for so long, few even stop to question it any more. It would be funny if it wasn't likely to cause a totally preventable disaster.

 

[Hickdive]

Something very easy, well established, and completely effective CAN be done - build Gen III nuclear power stations to replace coal ones, starting right now (if not sooner).

The only thing preventing this clear and simple solution to our impending environmental crisis is uninformed opposition from people who (perversely) call themselves 'environmentalists'.

It is time that they grew up, and accepted that they have to pick between the real problem of global warming, or the fake problem of nuclear safety - which is in fact outdated propaganda against nuclear weapons.

Imagine if Greenpeace opposed electric cars because the army wanted the battery tech for electric tanks. That is pretty much where we are vis-a-vis nuclear power. The propaganda has been accepted for so long, few even stop to question it any more. It would be funny if it wasn't likely to cause a totally preventable disaster.

Probably the most concise and accurate statement of fact on energy politics I've read in a long while.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Well, if nothing can be done, then nothing will be done. Okay by me. I wasn't expecting anyone to "follow" me; I just answered the OP question.

Nuke plants aren't nothing. You just don't like them.

 

[Petrel]

Nuke plants aren't nothing. You just don't like them.

I don't recall commenting on them. I don't think they're significant in the question of sustainability - unless they're built in front of a tidal wave or on a fault line.

What's significant in sustainability is the grid itself. Load more power from new nuke plants onto the already overextended, underserviced, error-prone, terror-prone, weather-prone, expensive, outdated, hard-to-repair, wasteful grid, and you'll have problems. Nothing can or will be done about that.

 

[bilby]

Nuke plants aren't nothing. You just don't like them.

I don't recall commenting on them. I don't think they're significant in the question of sustainability - unless they're built in front of a tidal wave or on a fault line.

What's significant in sustainability is the grid itself. Load more power from new nuke plants onto the already overextended, underserviced, error-prone, terror-prone, weather-prone, expensive, outdated, hard-to-repair, wasteful grid, and you'll have problems. Nothing can or will be done about that.

Local generation using intermittent sources such as solar and wind make the grid problems worse, not better.

Whatever we do, we will want a grid as backup - if one source goes offline for any reason, a grid makes this a non-issue. A hospital that generated all it's power requirements locally still needs a grid connection for backup.

The grid is an important consideration for any power system - but the OP asks about generating base load power, not distributing it - that is a whole other question.

Certainly there are many power grids worldwide that are in dire need of maintenance or upgrade - but that is true regardless of the power generation system used.

 

[Petrel]

The grid is an important consideration for any power system - but the OP asks about generating base load power, not distributing it - that is a whole other question.

What's the point of generating if you don't distribute? Also, the method of distribution uses part of the power, so how much you must generate depends partly on how and where it's to be delivered. I didn't interpret these as separate questions.

Every grid is a system of generation, distribution and consumption, right?
So the subject seems naturally to contain the interaction of how each of those three matters is handled: means of generation; method and area of distribution; duration, amount and purpose of consumption.
Each of those factors is variable by size, quantity, location, technology, materials, manpower, priorities, costs and conditions. The hospital's backup to its diesel generator may be the grid - if a secure public grid is accessible - but in the Alps or in a war zone, it might be better off with a backup generator that uses propane. As cleaner, cheaper sources become available, it might be better off to upgrade both its primary and its backup power production.

In general, the more moving parts a mechanism has, the more things break down. Same with networks: the more extensive, complex and abstruse you build a system, the more goes wrong and the fewer people know how to fix it.
Independent, flexible and specific to site is the way I would go... but having omitted "hr" from a previous post makes me too woolly-headed to have a legitimate opinion, so there ya go:http://www.curledup.com/x_events.htm

Design intelligently (I strongly suspect this has been the exception, rather than the rule) anticipate potential dangers (the oops factor is much in evidence of late); provide adequate storage, maintenance, and redundancy (It's expensive; hardly ever done.); use wisely (Unheard-of!), and you'll be okay with any sized grid, based on any source.

 

[bilby]

The grid is an important consideration for any power system - but the OP asks about generating base load power, not distributing it - that is a whole other question.

What's the point of generating if you don't distribute? Also, the method of distribution uses part of the power, so how much you must generate depends partly on how and where it's to be delivered. I didn't interpret these as separate questions.

Every grid is a system of generation, distribution and consumption, right?
So the subject seems naturally to contain the interaction of how each of those three matters is handled: means of generation; method and area of distribution; duration, amount and purpose of consumption.
Each of those factors is variable by size, quantity, location, technology, materials, manpower, priorities, costs and conditions. The hospital's backup to its diesel generator may be the grid - if a secure public grid is accessible - but in the Alps or in a war zone, it might be better off with a backup generator that uses propane. As cleaner, cheaper sources become available, it might be better off to upgrade both its primary and its backup power production.

In general, the more moving parts a mechanism has, the more things break down. Same with networks: the more extensive, complex and abstruse you build a system, the more goes wrong and the fewer people know how to fix it.
Independent, flexible and specific to site is the way I would go... but having omitted "hr" from a previous post makes me too woolly-headed to have a legitimate opinion, so there ya go:http://www.curledup.com/x_events.htm

Design intelligently (I strongly suspect this has been the exception, rather than the rule) anticipate potential dangers (the oops factor is much in evidence of late); provide adequate storage, maintenance, and redundancy (It's expensive; hardly ever done.); use wisely (Unheard-of!), and you'll be okay with any sized grid, based on any source.

Nonsense. Given unpredictable demand, a large grid with a number of distributed and independent sources of supply is ceteris paribus going to be more robust than a small grid.

You seem very quick to insult the people who actually design and maintain such systems, particularly for someone who appears to know very little about the actual engineering involved.

Still, it is a useful derail for you to shut down discussion of environmentally sustainable base load power, given that that discussion is leading to a conclusion you find distasteful.

"The more complex it is, the more likely it is to break down" is one of those 'truthy' statements that sounds good until you realise it is total bollocks. It can be true; but in the case of networks, it is often completely false. A complex network with multiple redundant paths is amongst the most robust designs there is.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Design intelligently (I strongly suspect this has been the exception, rather than the rule) anticipate potential dangers (the oops factor is much in evidence of late); provide adequate storage, maintenance, and redundancy (It's expensive; hardly ever done.); use wisely (Unheard-of!), and you'll be okay with any sized grid, based on any source.

I disagree. The larger the grid (if well designed) the lower the chances of an outright failure.

Lets try an experiment in reliability: We know our generators will be up 90% of the time.

That's not enough, we want 1 in 1000 odds of a failure. How many generators do we need? 3. (You can enumerate all possible cases in Excel if you don't trust my stats knowledge.)

The next town over is facing the same situation, again they need 3 generators.

Thus the two towns need 6 generators.

Now lets run a wire between them. How many generators do we need? 5

The system is just as reliable but we used less equipment.

The larger you make the grid the less need you have for redundancy because the bad luck averages out. (Note that this does *NOT* apply to things which are not independent. A big winter storm can take out solar plants over a large area, for example.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"The more complex it is, the more likely it is to break down" is one of those 'truthy' statements that sounds good until you realise it is total bollocks. It can be true; but in the case of networks, it is often completely false. A complex network with multiple redundant paths is amongst the most robust designs there is.

And note that when we have seen major failures it has always been due to the control software--a single point of failure.

It has also involved running things very close to the wire. The mass blackouts have always involved the control software failing to properly cope with a generator tripping and putting the system into overload.

 

[Petrel]

"The more complex it is, the more likely it is to break down" is one of those 'truthy' statements that sounds good until you realise it is total bollocks. It can be true; but in the case of networks, it is often completely false. A complex network with multiple redundant paths is amongst the most robust designs there is.

And note that when we have seen major failures it has always been due to the control software--a single point of failure.

It has also involved running things very close to the wire. The mass blackouts have always involved the control software failing to properly cope with a generator tripping and putting the system into overload.

Does the location or nature of the equipment at the point of failure have some effect on the amount of harm done? Supposing Ontario and Quebec were on separate grids, would an ice storm in New Brunswick bring down both of them? Just asking as a clueless bystander.
https://www.zeuspowersystems.com/home/Power-Outages

 

[bilby]

"The more complex it is, the more likely it is to break down" is one of those 'truthy' statements that sounds good until you realise it is total bollocks. It can be true; but in the case of networks, it is often completely false. A complex network with multiple redundant paths is amongst the most robust designs there is.

And note that when we have seen major failures it has always been due to the control software--a single point of failure.

It has also involved running things very close to the wire. The mass blackouts have always involved the control software failing to properly cope with a generator tripping and putting the system into overload.

Does the location or nature of the equipment at the point of failure have some effect on the amount of harm done? Supposing Ontario and Quebec were on separate grids, would an ice storm in New Brunswick bring down both of them? Just asking as a clueless bystander.
https://www.zeuspowersystems.com/home/Power-Outages

No. The location or nature of the equipment at the point of failure has absolutely no effect whatsoever on the harm done, and a point of failure in an unconnected grid, possibly in a different galaxy, can easily cause a failure of both.

Just as a clueless bystander, can I ask if you think your rhetorical question in any way supports your position that more complex systems are always or even usually more prone to failure?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"The more complex it is, the more likely it is to break down" is one of those 'truthy' statements that sounds good until you realise it is total bollocks. It can be true; but in the case of networks, it is often completely false. A complex network with multiple redundant paths is amongst the most robust designs there is.

And note that when we have seen major failures it has always been due to the control software--a single point of failure.

It has also involved running things very close to the wire. The mass blackouts have always involved the control software failing to properly cope with a generator tripping and putting the system into overload.

Does the location or nature of the equipment at the point of failure have some effect on the amount of harm done? Supposing Ontario and Quebec were on separate grids, would an ice storm in New Brunswick bring down both of them? Just asking as a clueless bystander.
https://www.zeuspowersystems.com/home/Power-Outages

At worst an ice storm would cut wires. This can isolate parts of the grid but never should bring it down--the parts of the grid that weren't destroyed would still work.

We have a prime example of how this works: The internet. If even a major switching computer goes down the packets get through. It was designed to survive having nuclear holes punched in it.

 

[Petrel]

At worst an ice storm would cut wires. This can isolate parts of the grid but never should bring it down--the parts of the grid that weren't destroyed would still work.

Oh good. So, like, the wires aren't part of the grid. And the switches don't count. And obviously software doesn't count as something that can fail and effect other things. I'm so relieved we only imagined those cascading failures. How come it gets so dark in so many places whenever that happens? How come it happens so often? But, as long as it's "robust", whatever.

 

[bilby]

At worst an ice storm would cut wires. This can isolate parts of the grid but never should bring it down--the parts of the grid that weren't destroyed would still work.

Oh good. So, like, the wires aren't part of the grid. And the switches don't count. And obviously software doesn't count as something that can fail and effect other things. I'm so relieved we only imagined those cascading failures. How come it gets so dark in so many places whenever that happens? How come it happens so often? But, as long as it's "robust", whatever.

The existence of failures doesn't mean a system is not robust, when compared to the absence of a system.

Occasional blackouts are preferable to frequent blackouts. Your proposal would result in the latter.

 

[Togo]

As for using the river water for power, I suggest you google 'Todd River Regatta' to see if you can spot the flaw in this idea.

Does the regatta take up every inch of river from the springs to the coast? if not, there's space for power generation. You weren't planning to build your plant in the town centre, were you?

Solar plus storage might work very well - once a practical storage system is developed that does not rely on both mountainous terrain and large volumes if water (neither of which is available anywhere near Alice Springs).

But there is a national grid, right? If there isn't, adding base load is going to a problem, because power consumption isn't that stable. And if there is a grid, the local conditions in Alice Springs don't really matter, do they?

Solar power is certainly a good idea in Alice Springs and similar desert cities; but it has to be backed up with reliable base load power plants, at least until new cheap, reliable, high-capacity storage is available. That could be several decades away.

About the same horizon as replacing existing coal base load generation.

 

[Togo]

Sure there are things that can be done to cut usage. They are nowhere near enough.

They make more of a difference than building more power plants, of any kind, unless we're looking at a step change in the rate of construction. And it's certainly more ecological.

I wasn't aware that the sun went down all over the world simultaneously, nor that the wind came to a standstill all over at the same time. You really suggesting that a town in the fricking desert can't possibly make use of solar power?

And you propose to transfer power from the sunny side to the dark side how???? I see some pretty big oceans in the way!

Once you get as far as the coast, or the mountains, then other forms of generation or storage become available.

That means we can't spend that much on your green pipe dreams. Borrowing is not an answer, I'm measuring available effort, loans simply move work around, they do not create work.

By that argument, we don't have enough capacity to build the nukes you want either. You have to include solar, and wind, and river, and tidal, and energy conservation measures, or you don't have a solution at all.

 

[bigfield]

Does the regatta take up every inch of river from the springs to the coast? if not, there's space for power generation. You weren't planning to build your plant in the town centre, were you?

Todd River Regatta.

Plenty of water.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

At worst an ice storm would cut wires. This can isolate parts of the grid but never should bring it down--the parts of the grid that weren't destroyed would still work.

Oh good. So, like, the wires aren't part of the grid. And the switches don't count. And obviously software doesn't count as something that can fail and effect other things. I'm so relieved we only imagined those cascading failures. How come it gets so dark in so many places whenever that happens? How come it happens so often? But, as long as it's "robust", whatever.

The point is that when you cut links with ice storms or the like you end up with something no worse than what you are envisioning as a starting point.

- - - Updated - - -

They make more of a difference than building more power plants, of any kind, unless we're looking at a step change in the rate of construction. And it's certainly more ecological.

I wasn't aware that the sun went down all over the world simultaneously, nor that the wind came to a standstill all over at the same time. You really suggesting that a town in the fricking desert can't possibly make use of solar power?

And you propose to transfer power from the sunny side to the dark side how???? I see some pretty big oceans in the way!

Once you get as far as the coast, or the mountains, then other forms of generation or storage become available.

Such as???

That means we can't spend that much on your green pipe dreams. Borrowing is not an answer, I'm measuring available effort, loans simply move work around, they do not create work.

By that argument, we don't have enough capacity to build the nukes you want either. You have to include solar, and wind, and river, and tidal, and energy conservation measures, or you don't have a solution at all.

The nukes are an awful lot cheaper than what you are envisioning.