Google CEO: How to Fix U.S. Energy Problems

Batteries are pointless for power distribution. Batteries are for storing energy for later use. The US is in *constant* demand for power, peak hours being during the daytime. Storing up energy and releasing it into the system later on is not even worth it because we need constant energy right now..

No country has a constant demand. That's why many utilities, including those in many US states, have variable pricing and will give discounts to offset demand from high demand periods to low demand periods. Similarly, storing power in low demand periods for release in high demand will take supply when it's available to when it's needed. One of the techniques of shifting power from low demand to high is to pump water up into a hydro dam and release the water through the turbines during the day. Another is massive batteries like the ones in Japan. These are not theoretical solutions - these are currently in use in the real world.
 
As I recall, one of the goals of the LHC is to try to better understand Gravity. So with that said, I don't think saying we fully understand gravity is accurate. Not to me anyway.

Google has a business reason for their energy plan. Who knows exactly what it is, but I'm willing to bet it has something to do with increasing their profit, not pushing their personal agenda.

Data Centers are expensive. It probably has something to do with that.
http://harpers.org/media/slideshow/annot/2008-03/index.html

That was linked earlier in the thread. Gives a good explanation behind Google's motive.
 
heh, all the so-called "experts" just don't understand what base load is and why we need it. Solar and wind are not base load power suppliers. They're fine for offsetting *some* load during peak hours, but that's about it. Base load required over the next 20 years is going to grow by 20% to 40% across the nation, probably even more if we want to factor in plug-in electric vehicles. That means many many gigawatts more.. many... The simple answer is more nuclear and clean coal technology plants for base loads, and solar/wind to ease some of the load during peak hours. If we used breeder reactor technology and fuel reprocessing, we wouldn't have to worry about our electricity needs. As for high level waste that needs to be disposed of, encase it in a cask and either bury it or drop it down into an oceanic trench. 20-feet of water or a few feet of concrete and steel insulate the highest rated radioactive materials any nuclear plant can output, and new casks are being rated for 10k+ years. Anyhow, here's some tests of the old casks from decades ago.. the new ones are far better if you can believe it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-o8haMIVcL8

So is there any downside to adding 50-100 new nuclear power plants in the U.S?
 
nuclear energy is the way to go. Its clean compared to what we do now (burning coal), its also as plentiful as coal and produce massive amounts of energy. Solar is great, but the ratio of cost/energy isn't there. By going nuclear we can ease off burning natural gas and use that for transportation fuel, thereby reducing our dependence on oil. Or you can generate even more electricity to accommodate electric/hydrogen cars. So the best thing we can do right now in the short term is go nuclear, drill off shore and invest in R&D.
 
Problem is going nuclear is

1) MASSIVE intial cost outlay (when France went this route they almost went bankrupt! but it is paying off now cause the running costs are lower)

2) Uranium mining infrastructure. When the anti-nuclear demo's kicked off in the 60's?? and there was major public backlash against them no improvements to uranium extraction occur and no investement has been done in decades.
Now that the world is ramping up for more nuke sites there is starting to be seen a chronic shortage in uranium ore (since they will not be able to extract fast enough to meet demand). THIS will bump the cost of the ore up a ridiculous amount (its already started to rise)
 
that being said Fission plants are the best hope to increase the generation capability of alot of countries. Nukes are good at just sitting there and... generating
 
No country has a constant demand. That's why many utilities, including those in many US states, have variable pricing and will give discounts to offset demand from high demand periods to low demand periods. Similarly, storing power in low demand periods for release in high demand will take supply when it's available to when it's needed. One of the techniques of shifting power from low demand to high is to pump water up into a hydro dam and release the water through the turbines during the day. Another is massive batteries like the ones in Japan. These are not theoretical solutions - these are currently in use in the real world.
LOL, ok... let me rephrase it.. a "dynamic constant demand". Batteries are not "real/theoretical" solutions, they are gimmick solutions that hippies use as an argument because they don't understand power distribution.

So is there any downside to adding 50-100 new nuclear power plants in the U.S?
No.

Problem is going nuclear is

1) MASSIVE intial cost outlay (when France went this route they almost went bankrupt! but it is paying off now cause the running costs are lower)

2) Uranium mining infrastructure. When the anti-nuclear demo's kicked off in the 60's?? and there was major public backlash against them no improvements to uranium extraction occur and no investement has been done in decades.
Now that the world is ramping up for more nuke sites there is starting to be seen a chronic shortage in uranium ore (since they will not be able to extract fast enough to meet demand). THIS will bump the cost of the ore up a ridiculous amount (its already started to rise)
1 - Companies are paying for these new plants that are going to be going up in the next decade.. not the government. And believe it or not, building and running a nuclear plant is less expensive and generates more revenue than a coal plant, especially with all the new jack-ups in carbon emission regulation/taxation. Also, before a plant is built, it must already have the funds for decommissioning in an escrow account.

2 - Mining uranium is easier, cheaper, and less intrusive than mining coal. Given there isn't as much, but you really don't understand that nuclear is a renewable energy source. If we build one or two fuel reprocessing facilities in the US, we'd be all set for as much fuel as we needed for literally centuries to come.
 
LOL, ok... let me rephrase it.. a "dynamic constant demand". Batteries are not "real/theoretical" solutions, they are gimmick solutions that hippies use as an argument because they don't understand power distribution.

Yours is a statement completely devoid of any information. Simply restating a falsehood does not make it true.

If anyone does not understand the situation, it is you. Batteries are a real solution and they are being used. They work.
 
LOL, ok... let me rephrase it.. a "dynamic constant demand". Batteries are not "real/theoretical" solutions, they are gimmick solutions that hippies use as an argument because they don't understand power distribution.

No.


1 - Companies are paying for these new plants that are going to be going up in the next decade.. not the government. And believe it or not, building and running a nuclear plant is less expensive and generates more revenue than a coal plant, especially with all the new jack-ups in carbon emission regulation/taxation. Also, before a plant is built, it must already have the funds for decommissioning in an escrow account.

2 - Mining uranium is easier, cheaper, and less intrusive than mining coal. Given there isn't as much, but you really don't understand that nuclear is a renewable energy source. If we build one or two fuel reprocessing facilities in the US, we'd be all set for as much fuel as we needed for literally centuries to come.

1. I would have to point out that the fact that you say there is no downside shows you're definitely biased on the topic. There is others some downsides to any important decision.

2. I find it extremely hard to believe that if new nuclear plants were built in the US, that they wouldn't be somehow paid for by the tax payers. Let me guess, they're paid for by the companies through grants given by the government/politicians/insiders that are paid for by the tax payers.

3. I could have sworn I read numerous times that nuclear reprocessing is way more costly then it's worth.
 
Alrighty, believe what you want. It's much better to be well informed on the topic than to just listen to commercials and far out there earth liberation front mentalities. Having over 4 years working in a nuclear facility, I bet I know quite a bit more on the subject than you can google, because half the material found out there on google is incorrect.

- Actually, there really isn't a much of a downside. Go ahead and name some and I'll debunk them for you.

- Nuclear plants are paid for by the companies who want to build them. It's paid for by those greedy profits of the companies that supply you with power so you can run your computers. Tax them to death and you won't see any new plants pop up, because then the government *would* have to pay for them with your tax dollars. The energy policy act of 2005 is the only piece of legislation that gave a *slight* break for building new nuclear facilities in the US, and it didn't cost extra out of taxpayer dollars because it was part of the allocated budget being shifted around.

- Nuclear reprocessing and breeder reactors would reclaim so much fuel, especially fuel we already have sitting around waiting to be "disposed of". That would be far greater to get it back that way rather than spend on mining and stripping our earth causing even more environmental damage.

@ Michael

- Thank you for your concerns. I said batteries do not make sense for power grid distribution methods, but they do make sense for individual installations for people who want to store power for their own use. We DO have a constant demand for electricity in the US, and that demand is pretty darn high. Again, working in a power plant, I can see just how much load is needed day to day, hour by hour, minute by minute. You simply have no grasp of the subject if you think the power grid can be supplied by batteries if our 1200MWe nuclear plants and 800MWe to 2000MWe coal plants can hardly keep up with demand. We use so much power that we even have to buy power from other regions and other countries (mainly canada) to keep up on some days.
 
We DO have a constant demand for electricity in the US, and that demand is pretty darn high.

You have a variable demand. All utilities do. Get over it.

You simply have no grasp of the subject if you think the power grid can be supplied by batteries if our 1200MWe nuclear plants and 800MWe to 2000MWe coal plants can hardly keep up with demand.

You have no concept of what is being discussed if you compare gigawatt power plants to wind, solar, wave, tidal and other sources. The largest individual wind generators are, what, 5 MW? Most are 1-3MW. That is the context for which batteries are being discussed. Try to stay with the discussion. Batteries are a perfectly acceptable solution to matching supply and demand for distributed sources like wind and solar. Not for individual houses, but for hundreds or even thousands of houses.
 
You have a variable demand. All utilities do. Get over it.

You have no concept of what is being discussed if you compare gigawatt power plants to wind, solar, wave, tidal and other sources. The largest individual wind generators are, what, 5 MW? Most are 1-3MW. That is the context for which batteries are being discussed. Try to stay with the discussion. Batteries are a perfectly acceptable solution to matching supply and demand for distributed sources like wind and solar. Not for individual houses, but for hundreds or even thousands of houses.
- No. We need a CONSTANT supply of energy to our grid. The demand goes up and down, but that's still a constant supply needed by the power companies. If we did not have that supply readily on hand, then we'd be operating under brownout conditions at any given moment. I bet you've never even stepped foot into a switchyard control room..

- Again, no. Baseload is still needed because wind/solar/etc is not reliable. Our company is mandated by our state government to have a 15% supply of renewable energy (ie. wind and solar) by 2020(?). We've done all the calculations, and those supplies are only going to be 30% reliable. Thirty. For how shitty of a mandated investment/waste that is, that demand is needed *now*, not stored up and waiting in some battery array for when the time is right.. LOL. We're already stretched thin due to such a sharp increase in demand for power over the past 7 years, we can hardly keep up. We always have to buy blocks of power from Canada, especially in the summer months. You really just don't understand the situation at all, so please do not act like you know because you might have read an internet article somewhere with awesome super eco/hippie-friendly battery technology. It's a joke for a national power grid. I'll repeat it again.. It's great for the individual consumer with special needs, not for a grid where the demand is monstrous. The charge time for the batteries versus the dissipation time of the power used would just be hilarious.
 
- No. We need a CONSTANT

Constant = invariant. You have a variable demand. You also have a consistent and uninterrupted demand. There's a difference.

- Again, no. Baseload is still needed because wind/solar/etc is not reliable.

You still don't get it. Wind/solar/etc does not replace baseload supplies. It supplements it. I've never stated otherwise. You're confusing political imperatives with economic reality. In order to match supply and demand, you need a leveling system. These are in place today. They have been around for centuries in many ways and have been around since the beginning of use of large scale electrical supply systems.

A hydroelectric generator will not provide for consistent demand if it is entirely dependent on the volume of flow of a river. In order to flatten the supply and provide for variable demand, they build a dam and store the water until it's needed. That's a "water battery." It works. Dams aren't critical - Niagara and Beauharnois hydro facilities rely on river flow without big dams. Hydroelectric power, with or without a dam, provides baseline power. This isn't hippie stuff, it's the real world of electrical supply. This doesn't change just because we switch from water to wind or sun or anything else.

I think you're hung up on the idea that batteries are little things that power your iPod. Industrial-strength batteries like the sodium-sulfur ones used in Japan are not anywhere near the same thing.
 
Constant = invariant. You have a variable demand. You also have a consistent and uninterrupted demand. There's a difference.



You still don't get it. Wind/solar/etc does not replace baseload supplies. It supplements it. I've never stated otherwise. You're confusing political imperatives with economic reality. In order to match supply and demand, you need a leveling system. These are in place today. They have been around for centuries in many ways and have been around since the beginning of use of large scale electrical supply systems.

A hydroelectric generator will not provide for consistent demand if it is entirely dependent on the volume of flow of a river. In order to flatten the supply and provide for variable demand, they build a dam and store the water until it's needed. That's a "water battery." It works. Dams aren't critical - Niagara and Beauharnois hydro facilities rely on river flow without big dams. Hydroelectric power, with or without a dam, provides baseline power. This isn't hippie stuff, it's the real world of electrical supply. This doesn't change just because we switch from water to wind or sun or anything else.

I think you're hung up on the idea that batteries are little things that power your iPod. Industrial-strength batteries like the sodium-sulfur ones used in Japan are not anywhere near the same thing.
- I said we have a variable demand... read what I write... :rolleyes:

- I said solar/wind won't replace baseload.. read what I write. :rolleyes:

- Areas to build new hydro dams in the US are pretty much exhausted... unless you want to flood out thousands of people's homes and cause extreme environmental damage to the area.

- Batteries are a joke for the US national power grid, get over it already. You have absolutely no concept of our distribution and demand, you clearly exhibited that.
 
Where are you going to store energy from wind? A giant balloon? I don't think even a giant battery will really help much. The solution in my opinion is simple. Use less energy.
 
- No. We need a CONSTANT
- I said we have a variable demand... read what I write... :rolleyes:

I did. You're don't use consistent terminology.

- I said solar/wind won't replace baseload.. read what I write. :rolleyes:

And yet you respond as if others are claiming it will. You haven't been reading my posts.

Areas to build new hydro dams in the US are pretty much exhausted...

I never proposed building more hydro projects. I gave an example of matching load to capacity. If you don't understand that, it explains why you can't understand battery usage.

You have absolutely no concept of our distribution and demand, you clearly exhibited that.

You have a Luddite's view. I don't. That's the difference.

There are lots of proposals. Some are blue sky, some are practical. Batteries are practical because they are in use right now.

Rifkin's proposal: Use peak power to generate hydrogen in high wind/solar/etc periods. Use the H2 to generate electricity with HFC to meet demand. Blue sky until H2 technology is something other than a pipe dream (well... it is Rifkin).

Pumped hydro: Use peak power to pump water up a dam and use the water to generate power to meet demand. In use.

Supercapacitor: use super capacitors to store peak power and release it for demand. Blue sky until someone actually delivers a supercapacitor.

Stored heat: use peak power to generate and store heat and use the heat to generate power for demand. Blue sky until someone comes up with a low temperature difference heat engine that's efficient.
 
I did. You're don't use consistent terminology.



And yet you respond as if others are claiming it will. You haven't been reading my posts.



I never proposed building more hydro projects. I gave an example of matching load to capacity. If you don't understand that, it explains why you can't understand battery usage.



You have a Luddite's view. I don't. That's the difference.

There are lots of proposals. Some are blue sky, some are practical. Batteries are practical because they are in use right now.

Rifkin's proposal: Use peak power to generate hydrogen in high wind/solar/etc periods. Use the H2 to generate electricity with HFC to meet demand. Blue sky until H2 technology is something other than a pipe dream (well... it is Rifkin).

Pumped hydro: Use peak power to pump water up a dam and use the water to generate power to meet demand. In use.

Supercapacitor: use super capacitors to store peak power and release it for demand. Blue sky until someone actually delivers a supercapacitor.

Stored heat: use peak power to generate and store heat and use the heat to generate power for demand. Blue sky until someone comes up with a low temperature difference heat engine that's efficient.
- Different semantics apply to different terminology.. thus different word usage. There's a difference between demand we have and demand we need, and supply we have and supply we need.

- You responded negatively to my post, and I was even agreeing with you, rofl.

- I know very well how hydro power works, I've visited several hydro plants both in the US and Canada. We all know how flow control works. It's also obvious that potential energy can be converted into kinetic energy. I see your battery reference, but it just isn't nearly the same in terms of longevity of energy output and reliability.

- Yes, I am a luddite.. ROFL. Are you seriously on crack or something? I'm almost finished with my electrical and computer engineering dual degree, I'm working in a nuclear power facility, and I'm on [H] because I love the latest technology. ahahah. My god, what is wrong with you son? Thank you for the wonderful definitions. They really prove your awesome point of how batteries can supply gigawatts of power reliably to the US power grid in order to supplement our terawatts of usage. I'll repeat it again, batteries are great for individual/special needs, not for a national power grid distribution. Go ahead and even begin to try to explain how this would be implemented. The cost versus longevity vs output capacity is a total joke, especially when you can just use the power from solar and wind in real time when it's needed most.
 
I love it how ppl on forums get all bitter and twisted, hateful and personal when someone expresses an opinion that differs from there's

Opinions are like arseholes, everyone's got one

There are only a handful of ppl that visit this forum that have anything todo with real electrical power and it is them that have actually stated realistic responses. Everyone else is either a softie,sysadmin,student,hardware enthusiast... that have just read some Internet site or two and SUDDENLY! they expect everyone else to take their rhetoric as gospel
 
You guys aren't looking small enough. Lets start with the smallest of the small in terms of power usage. YOUR HOME

Now, what can power my home? Solar, wind, solar heat. What can power my home when the wind ain't going and the sun ain't shinin? Batteries. Small batteries.. underground. I don't use shit for electricity at night, i'm sleeping, so batteries work fine.

Houses need to power themselves, NEED to power themselves eventually through some sort of method. Large scale facilities need to cut some of their usage through wind and solar, and then grab the rest they need from hydro and nuclear. Use coal plants to supplement nuclear until nuclear can fully take over. By then we'll have a helluva large RESERVE of coal for use when emergencies occur. Energy independence, and energy safety when shit hits the walls.

Blah blah blah, peak, baseline, whatever. Nuclear can provide a fine baseline, peak loads are caused by HOUSEHOLDS. So nip the problem at the bud and let houses store enough energy through some sort of battery to supplement their power from the grid for peak hours. America is at work during the highest energy income from the sun (11-4). Energy is stored into underground batteries, I get home, turn on the TV and computer, kick back and let my batteries drain until 11 and peak is over.
 
That's essentially what I was getting at without full out saying it. I'm glad someone is smart enough to decipher it. :p
 
you see Edison was right :D (ok only partly right on the DC front but spot on with micro-generation :D)

I swear there was a thread here were some trad tried to ridicule me (some softie P.O.S.) when I said Edision was right
 
- Different semantics apply to different terminology.. thus different word usage. There's a difference between demand we have and demand we need, and supply we have and supply we need.

I think you are over-wording things. Demand we have = supply, and Supply we need = demand. Yes there is a difference, that difference is supply/ demand. There is no reason to use the expression, "demand we have." because that's just supply. You can really confuse people with those choice of words.
 
you see Edison was right :D (ok only partly right on the DC front but spot on with micro-generation :D)

I swear there was a thread here were some trad tried to ridicule me (some softie P.O.S.) when I said Edision was right


Edison was a sham, Teslas' where your monies at ;)_
 
There's a difference between demand we have and demand we need, and supply we have and supply we need.

As another has responded - supply always equals demand unless the system breaks down. There's no such thing as constant supply and variable demand.
[/quote]

You responded negatively to my post, and I was even agreeing with you, rofl.

No, I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in your comments.

I see your battery reference, but it just isn't nearly the same in terms of longevity of energy output and reliability.

You give no reference for any claims about longevity or reliability. Furthermore, if the price allows, there's no need to match longevity since you can rebuilt these batteries after a decade or so.

- Yes, I am a luddite.

You have a Luddite's view. You are so hooked on what you know that you won't admit any new information nor accept that there are alternatives to what exists. Your objection to battery usage on the power grid even though they are already in use is just like those idiots who claim that hybrid cars don't work even though there are over a million on the roads.

I'm almost finished with my electrical and computer engineering dual degree... you son?

Well, junior, I received my engineering degree before you were born. You're a student - I'm a professional. You're not impressing me.

They really prove your awesome point of how batteries can supply gigawatts of power reliably to the US power grid in order to supplement our terawatts of usage.

Here's a fact, junior. The power grid is not a small number of massive power plants with lots of power sinks. It consists of a large number of power sources and sinks of different sizes. Everything from multi-GW generating systems to individual solar/wind/micro-hydro/etc dumping sub-kW surplus power into the grid and everything in between. Highly variable power does get pushed onto the grid. Highly stable power gets dumped into the grid. Power can be saved till it's needed or used immediately. That's the real world today.
 
I absolutely love the CEO's plan. The only unfortunate detail, is that this plan will be left in BETA for about 7 years :(
 
You guys do know that there is battery technology available that will outlast you right? It was invented 100 years ago and the tech is called NiFe or Nickel Iron. The problem with NiFe is that they weigh a ton and are less efficient than other technologies. They require around 5-10% more input power to charge.
Pros are that they last forever.(a really long time. lets not get into semantics. there are 80+year old examples still working) That means less crap to go into a landfill and less money spent on recycling.
When you factor in that home batteries are non-mobile, they are the way to go.
The thing is that people want to be able to push the easy button. They don't want to learn how to make a windmill and they don't want to be dependent on the sun for generation.
These two facts will never change. Industrial solar generation just isn't feasible right now. There has been some headway made in this area in the form of plants that use mirrors to focus light on a tower to heat salt. The salt stays hot enough to boil water full time, even in darkness. There are certainly things that can be done. Progress is being made. It will take time. Until then, buy compact florescent light bulbs for the summer and use incandescent for the winter. Tell your politicians that you want to see more nuclear energy plants. You really don't have to expend much effort to get this moving in the right direction.
 
As another has responded - supply always equals demand unless the system breaks down. There's no such thing as constant supply and variable demand.



No, I'm pointing out the inconsistencies in your comments.



You give no reference for any claims about longevity or reliability. Furthermore, if the price allows, there's no need to match longevity since you can rebuilt these batteries after a decade or so.



You have a Luddite's view. You are so hooked on what you know that you won't admit any new information nor accept that there are alternatives to what exists. Your objection to battery usage on the power grid even though they are already in use is just like those idiots who claim that hybrid cars don't work even though there are over a million on the roads.



Well, junior, I received my engineering degree before you were born. You're a student - I'm a professional. You're not impressing me.



Here's a fact, junior. The power grid is not a small number of massive power plants with lots of power sinks. It consists of a large number of power sources and sinks of different sizes. Everything from multi-GW generating systems to individual solar/wind/micro-hydro/etc dumping sub-kW surplus power into the grid and everything in between. Highly variable power does get pushed onto the grid. Highly stable power gets dumped into the grid. Power can be saved till it's needed or used immediately. That's the real world today.
- You really don't understand what or how baseload works.. The people NEED those constant suppliers up and running 24/7. Yes, baseload suppliers output a consistent amount of power. The plant I work at outputs 1180MWe 24/7/365, except for unplanned outages or refuel outages. Wouldn't it be nice if plants could just on the fly dynamically output whatever anyone needed at any given time? We'd be much more efficient in terms of fuel usage. It's up to switching stations to control what power goes where and what areas need priority. Often times we see our plants not able to keep up with demand.

- Yay, batteries. This is the whole reason you keep arguing, because it's a JOKE. Get over it already. It's great for the individual needs, not for mass distribution.

- Why must you persist I am a luddite? ROFL, spare me, straw man. For being an engineer before I was born, you sure have proven you know very little about how the current grid is setup and what the needs actually are in this country. I really hope you're joking, or else you really need to consider suing wherever you got your degree from. :p

- Thanks for the lecture chief. Everything goes onto the grid where it's needed. That's what switching stations are for. Power plants don't just sit around waiting for someone to say "ok hold on, start up we need you now" LOL. Sure it can be done with hydro/solar/wind, but the reality is, we need that supply right now. Constantly starting up and tripping baseload suppliers like nuclear and coal causes damage and/or wear on components. Again, that is the reason why we have switching stations.. to control where the power goes as needed.
 
Again, that is the reason why we have switching stations.. to control where the power goes as needed.

Just because some major generation stations run full time does not make the system "constant." Some generation has to take up the variability. And where does the variable power come from? You can take advantage of any power source that can start and stop easily. Guess what? - stored power from solar/wind/etc distributed across the grid can do just that.

You think you're an expert because you're a student that works at a nuke. Decades ago, I worked on nukes too - inspecting them while they were under construction with a gazzillion pages of the ASTM manuals running through my head. I know a lot more about how the grid works than you think. I just don't have as short-sighted a view of the world as you do.
 
Just because some major generation stations run full time does not make the system "constant." Some generation has to take up the variability. And where does the variable power come from? You can take advantage of any power source that can start and stop easily. Guess what? - stored power from solar/wind/etc distributed across the grid can do just that.

You think you're an expert because you're a student that works at a nuke. Decades ago, I worked on nukes too - inspecting them while they were under construction with a gazzillion pages of the ASTM manuals running through my head. I know a lot more about how the grid works than you think. I just don't have as short-sighted a view of the world as you do.
Holy shit, THE VARIABILITY COMES FROM DEMAND. lol. Is it that hard to understand? Do you even realize we can sit there up and running in mode 1 at 100% power and not even supply anyone power until we synchronize with the grid? I don't really care what you say you did, you seem to have a real fundamental misunderstanding of how the system works.

If you want to talk about batteries, take a look into uranium hydride battery technology, because that's where it's at. It's very practical for small installations and special needs. Forget about batteries for grid distribution, the price per kilowatt is a complete joke to justify, especially based on longevity and environmental damage in the manufacturing and disposal processes for all the materials incurred.
 
I might also add, if you were doing "inspection" during construction, you would be making sure everything is compliant to tech spec P&ID's and compliant to the UFSAR. ;)
 
Just because some major generation stations run full time does not make the system "constant." Some generation has to take up the variability. And where does the variable power come from? You can take advantage of any power source that can start and stop easily. Guess what? - stored power from solar/wind/etc distributed across the grid can do just that.

You think you're an expert because you're a student that works at a nuke. Decades ago, I worked on nukes too - inspecting them while they were under construction with a gazzillion pages of the ASTM manuals running through my head. I know a lot more about how the grid works than you think. I just don't have as short-sighted a view of the world as you do.

If you were "inspecting" sites, then I'd sure as hell hope that you would know enough, or else all is lost. And so far from my reading and your posts, all is lost. lol :p
 
Holy shit, THE VARIABILITY COMES FROM DEMAND. lol. Is it that hard to understand?

I'll write this slowly, since you can't seem to read very well.

If you are running at 100%, someone has to pick up the slack when more power is required. If you're running at 100% - and I'm talking about delivered power: as in max demand from the grid - then some other generator(s) has to provide some extra power. If that extra demand is varying and is the "noise" on top of the main power, it can be provided by distributed power sources.

You have to stop thinking in terms of your limited knowledge about where you work and look at the whole picture. As I said before, the whole grid consists of lots of sources and sinks big and small. All play a role and all can be used.

Forget about batteries for grid distribution, the price per kilowatt is a complete joke to justify, especially based on longevity and environmental damage in the manufacturing and disposal processes for all the materials incurred.

You said this before and still have provided no actual facts to back it up. Sodium-sulfur batteries are not that expensive - sodium is plentiful and sulfur supply greatly exceeds demand; it's a byproduct of the petroleum industry. The batteries can be rebuilt and recycled. I don't know what fairy tales you believe in but you have to start dealing with real world scenarios. NaS batteries already exist and are already used in large scale operations on real power grids.
 
How about you two agree that you disagree with each other and let it go at that? lol
 
I'll write this slowly, since you can't seem to read very well.

If you are running at 100%, someone has to pick up the slack when more power is required. If you're running at 100% - and I'm talking about delivered power: as in max demand from the grid - then some other generator(s) has to provide some extra power. If that extra demand is varying and is the "noise" on top of the main power, it can be provided by distributed power sources.

You have to stop thinking in terms of your limited knowledge about where you work and look at the whole picture. As I said before, the whole grid consists of lots of sources and sinks big and small. All play a role and all can be used.



You said this before and still have provided no actual facts to back it up. Sodium-sulfur batteries are not that expensive - sodium is plentiful and sulfur supply greatly exceeds demand; it's a byproduct of the petroleum industry. The batteries can be rebuilt and recycled. I don't know what fairy tales you believe in but you have to start dealing with real world scenarios. NaS batteries already exist and are already used in large scale operations on real power grids.
- again, tell me something I don't already know... you are not understanding the way suppliers are supplying to the grid. Peakers come online for very high demand times, or power is switched from other regions if available. The "noise" you speak of you probably saw on some graph by searching google... it isn't worried about because power is switched and brought in with enough overhead to take care of the demand. I really don't even see what you are trying to argue. If your point is batteries will solve our problem of >40% more power demand in the next 20 years or so, think twice.

- again, batteries are a joke for US national power grid distribution, get over it. Seriously. Where peakers are needed, it's much easier and cheaper to supply through cng powered generators. Their overall capacity for output is FAR higher and price per kilowatt is FAR cheaper. Unless we have some sort of miracle life changing physics breakthrough with batteries, it won't be the economical solution, and that's why we aren't seeing tens of thousands of battery arrays built around the US.

- Go read wikipedia some more, because ideas you put forth are strikingly similar...
 
Back
Top