Oilpan4
Gold Member
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

Sat Apr 06, 2019 6:32 pm

They can bring that concentrated waste to new mexico and put it deep underground.
2011 white SL leaf with 2014 batt.
Chargers: Panasonic brick moded for 240v, duosida 16a 240v and a 10kw setec portable CHAdeMO
Location: 88103

SageBrush
Posts: 4580
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

Sun Apr 07, 2019 5:17 am

This is good read on some of the usually unrecognized costs of nuclear power:
https://www.philly.com/business/energy/ ... 90405.html

Highlights:
$500 Million bail-out to keep the plant running "profitably."
$1.2 Billion decommissioning costs when it closes
60 year decontamination schedule

The "profit" angle story is NG and renewables offering cheaper electricity. So PA is being asked to subsidize the nuclear plant since it cannot compete. The nuclear company says that the subsidy will save taxpayers money. :lol: :lol:
Where have I heard that nonsense before ? Oh yes -- COAL plants, and Trump's desire to subsidize them to keep electricity "cheap."
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

Oilpan4
Gold Member
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

Sun Apr 07, 2019 7:51 am

The nuclear plant probably can't compete with the cheap coal that's so plentiful in PA.
If they want to burn coal, let them.
2011 white SL leaf with 2014 batt.
Chargers: Panasonic brick moded for 240v, duosida 16a 240v and a 10kw setec portable CHAdeMO
Location: 88103

SageBrush
Posts: 4580
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:27 pm

Oilpan4 wrote:The nuclear plant probably can't compete with the cheap coal that's so plentiful in PA.
.
Wrong
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

Oilpan4
Gold Member
Posts: 715
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 10:51 pm
Delivery Date: 10 May 2018
Leaf Number: 004270

Re: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

Sun Apr 07, 2019 12:50 pm

Then why don't they just put up solar panels?
2011 white SL leaf with 2014 batt.
Chargers: Panasonic brick moded for 240v, duosida 16a 240v and a 10kw setec portable CHAdeMO
Location: 88103

SageBrush
Posts: 4580
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

Sun Apr 07, 2019 1:00 pm

Oilpan4 wrote:Then why don't they just put up solar panels?
Who is 'they' ?

The utility Exelon owns 3-mile island, they do not own PV plants. I'll give you one guess who is behind the lobbying to bail-out 3-mile island.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

User avatar
RegGuheert
Posts: 6419
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2012 4:12 am
Delivery Date: 16 Mar 2012
Leaf Number: 5926
Location: Northern VA

Re: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:33 pm

WetEV wrote:I don't see how you claim that the resulting 80% is feasible answer is very wrong.
It seems you have missed the point. The point of claiming zero transmission losses is NOT to save 7%. The reason they claim zero transmission losses is to address the geography problem, which is a very big problem, indeed. IOW, generation does not happen when/where demand occurs.
RegGuheert
2011 Leaf SL Demo vehicle
10K mi. on 041413; 20K mi. (55.7Ah) on 080714; 30K mi. (52.0Ah) on 123015; 40K mi. (49.8Ah) on 020817; 50K mi. (47.2Ah) on 120717; 60K mi. (43.66Ah) on 091918.
Enphase Inverter Measured MTBF: M190, M215, M250, S280

SageBrush
Posts: 4580
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

Mon Apr 08, 2019 4:53 pm

RegGuheert wrote:
WetEV wrote:I don't see how you claim that the resulting 80% is feasible answer is very wrong.
It seems you have missed the point. The point of claiming zero transmission losses is NOT to save 7%. The reason they claim zero transmission losses is to address the geography problem, which is a very big problem, indeed. IOW, generation does not happen when/where demand occurs.
IOW, the ability to transmit electricity efficiently over long distances is a large part of the RE solution. It may be snowing in New England but it is sunny a VHVDC distance away.

This is in large part why your doom and gloom stance and opinion that 6x over-building is completely wrong. Another key technology is off-shore wind.
Last edited by SageBrush on Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

GRA
Posts: 10691
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2011 1:49 pm
Location: East side of San Francisco Bay

Re: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:19 pm

SageBrush wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:
WetEV wrote:I don't see how you claim that the resulting 80% is feasible answer is very wrong.
It seems you have missed the point. The point of claiming zero transmission losses is NOT to save 7%. The reason they claim zero transmission losses is to address the geography problem, which is a very big problem, indeed. IOW, generation does not happen when/where demand occurs.
IOW, the ability to transmit electricity efficiently over long distances is a large part of the RE solution. It may be snowing in New England but it is sunny a VHVDC distance away.

This is in large part why your doom and gloom stance and opinion that 6x over-building is completely wrong. The other key technology is off-shore wind.
Of course it's part of the solution, but it's not a cheap or quick one. Estimates I've read indicate we'd have to add about 40,000 miles of new transmission lines (and also the necessary interconnections to make a truly national grid) to get PV from the SW and wind from the plains to the coasts (we've got around 435,000 miles of U.S. transmission lines now). Doable but expensive and time consuming, as no one has ever said "please, please build transmission towers and lines across my land/within my sight", so by the time you deal with all the purchasing, permitting, court challenges etc., years have gone by and costs have risen accordingly. Just one of the more recent examples, in a relatively short line:
In Wisconsin, many oppose transmission line to bring western wind power
https://energynews.us/2019/01/22/midwes ... ind-power/
Guy [I have lots of experience designing/selling off-grid AE systems, some using EVs but don't own one. Local trips are by foot, bike and/or rapid transit].

The 'best' is the enemy of 'good enough'. Copper shot, not Silver bullets.

SageBrush
Posts: 4580
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 2:28 am
Delivery Date: 13 Feb 2017
Location: NM

Re: Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.

Mon Apr 08, 2019 5:40 pm

GRA wrote:
SageBrush wrote:
RegGuheert wrote:It seems you have missed the point. The point of claiming zero transmission losses is NOT to save 7%. The reason they claim zero transmission losses is to address the geography problem, which is a very big problem, indeed. IOW, generation does not happen when/where demand occurs.
IOW, the ability to transmit electricity efficiently over long distances is a large part of the RE solution. It may be snowing in New England but it is sunny a VHVDC distance away.

This is in large part why your doom and gloom stance and opinion that 6x over-building is completely wrong. The other key technology is off-shore wind.
Of course it's part of the solution, but it's not a cheap or quick one. Estimates I've read indicate we'd have to add about 40,000 miles of new transmission lines (and also the necessary interconnections to make a truly national grid) to get PV from the SW and wind from the plains to the coasts (we've got around 435,000 miles of U.S. transmission lines now). Doable but expensive and time consuming, as no one has ever said "please, please build transmission towers and lines across my land/within my sight", so by the time you deal with all the purchasing, permitting, court challenges etc., years have gone by and costs have risen accordingly. Just one of the more recent examples, in a relatively short line:
In Wisconsin, many oppose transmission line to bring western wind power
https://energynews.us/2019/01/22/midwes ... ind-power/
Actually, it is both quick to build and inexpensive. You are confusing the technology with politics.
As I point out again and again, close to 100% RE is not a technical problem, it is a political question with massive involvement by special interests.
2013 LEAF 'S' Model with QC & rear-view camera
Bought off-lease Jan 2017 from N. California
Two years in Colorado, now in NM
03/2018: 58 Ahr, 28k miles
11/2018: 56.16 Ahr, 30k miles
-----
2018 Tesla Model 3 LR, Delivered 6/2018

Return to “Business / Economy and Politics”