WetEV
Well-known member
LeftieBiker said:
Duck Duck Go is your friend.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dc+transmition+line+losses&t=ffab&ia=web
Economics of Renewable Power, simplified.
- Thread starter WetEV
- Start date
Help Support My Nissan Leaf Forum:
Duck Duck Go is your friend.
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dc+transmition+line+losses&t=ffab&ia=web
If tesla made the batteries they could push them out for around $110,000 per Mwh of name plate capacity. But, realistically you only want to use about 60% to 70% of that Mwh on a day to day cycling, if you want the battery to last 20 years.
Then what does the battery lose in the charge and discharge cycle, 10% to 20%, more towards end of life and when you count battery heating and cooling.
I say over capacity is better than feeding batteries.
The batteries will last maybe 25 years with cell swapping, cell deletion, but most mono solar panels will last until they get taken out by unruly weather or the mounts rot out from under them.
Buy then hopefully by then a super cheap ultra long life battery can be developed for grid apps.
Then what does the battery lose in the charge and discharge cycle, 10% to 20%, more towards end of life and when you count battery heating and cooling.
I say over capacity is better than feeding batteries.
The batteries will last maybe 25 years with cell swapping, cell deletion, but most mono solar panels will last until they get taken out by unruly weather or the mounts rot out from under them.
Buy then hopefully by then a super cheap ultra long life battery can be developed for grid apps.
WetEV said:
When you get Old you think you remember things long after you have actually forgotten them.
This article
http://cleanandsecuregrid.org/2017/01/02/a-new-energy-network-hvdc-development-in-china/
is a great read about ultra-high voltage DC (UHVDC) transmission projects in China.
They are able to build 2000+ km long lines for about 25 US cents a watt. O+M was not mentioned, nor expected lifetime.
Presuming a 40% capacity factor of imported PV/wind and similar lifetimes (probably pessimistic), alternative energy at a distance adds about 10 cents per watt to the build cost of the alternative energy plant. That is dirt cheap, and it shows tremendous promise for regional power sharing since it translates into wholesale electricity at < 2 cents a kWh
Compare that to the average 3.6 cents per kWh just for the O+M of nuclear, never mind the astronomical build cost, time to get off the ground, and safety/security/waste disposal issues.
http://cleanandsecuregrid.org/2017/01/02/a-new-energy-network-hvdc-development-in-china/
is a great read about ultra-high voltage DC (UHVDC) transmission projects in China.
They are able to build 2000+ km long lines for about 25 US cents a watt. O+M was not mentioned, nor expected lifetime.
Presuming a 40% capacity factor of imported PV/wind and similar lifetimes (probably pessimistic), alternative energy at a distance adds about 10 cents per watt to the build cost of the alternative energy plant. That is dirt cheap, and it shows tremendous promise for regional power sharing since it translates into wholesale electricity at < 2 cents a kWh
Compare that to the average 3.6 cents per kWh just for the O+M of nuclear, never mind the astronomical build cost, time to get off the ground, and safety/security/waste disposal issues.
This is good read on some of the usually unrecognized costs of nuclear power:
https://www.philly.com/business/energy/three-mile-island-nuclear-reactor-decommissioning-plan-exelon-years-20190405.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."
https://www.philly.com/business/energy/three-mile-island-nuclear-reactor-decommissioning-plan-exelon-years-20190405.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."
RegGuheert
Well-known member
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.WetEV said:
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.RegGuheert said:
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.
GRA
Well-known member
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:SageBrush said:
https://energynews.us/2019/01/22/mi...ransmission-line-to-bring-western-wind-power/
Actually, it is both quick to build and inexpensive. You are confusing the technology with politics.GRA said:
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.
GRA
Well-known member
Not confusing them, pointing out that you can't say oh, it's cheap and easy if we ignore the politics; the politics can't be ignored, at least in a democracy, where everyone is or can be a special interest. The Chinese government can pretty much say "do what we say or else", but I doubt you'd care to live under similar rule- after all, our current President wishes he had that kind of arbitrary power.SageBrush said:
^^ Your reasoning is screwy.
As an example, vaccinations are cheap and simple but eradicating measles is impossible in the US due to idiots. That does not make vaccination idiotic.
Is the transition to RE hampered by politics ? Yes
Is the transition to RE hampered by technical obstacles or cost ? No
As an example, vaccinations are cheap and simple but eradicating measles is impossible in the US due to idiots. That does not make vaccination idiotic.
Is the transition to RE hampered by politics ? Yes
Is the transition to RE hampered by technical obstacles or cost ? No
GRA
Well-known member
It's not MY reasoning, it's a fact. You can't pretend that technology alone matters (ignoring the lack of cheap mass storage, which at the moment does still limit the total % that RE can penetrate). Building all that new transmission capacity will also be expensive, especially in a reduced time frame - it's taken us over a century to build what we have now, even though building it used to be a lot easier politically. Which isn't to say that expanding it by ~ 10% is un-affordable, but cheap, no. And of course, this says nothing about replacing all the primary energy (the vast majority) that isn't and at the moment can't be replaced by electricity, no matter how generated, which is both a technical and cost issue. That time frame extends out many decades.SageBrush said:
Then there's writing off the cost of existing fossil-fueled power plants, in many cases well before they've reached their financially profitable lifetime. IIRR, the total replacement cost of all the existing electric generation facilities and infrastructure in this country is around $2.5 trillion, so dumping a large portion of that would certainly have major costs.
RegGuheert
Well-known member
Classic: SageBrush makes authoritative statements about a topic he knows nothing about.SageBrush said:
Measles vaccinations *has* virtually eradicated measles in the U.S. OTOH, measles vaccination has *reduced* the herd immunity of the adult population in the U.S., thus making the *only* truly-at-risk portion of the population (below age one year) much more at risk in case measles comes into the country from elsewhere.
The bigger question is this: Is it really in our best interest to eradicate measles? Sure, that's the facile answer, but reality is often far from pat answers.
Similar threads
