Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#121
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
UNBELIEVABLE: It's 02:39 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard is out of Bed and TROLLING, already!!!! LOL
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 02:39:40 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: FLUSH senile asshole's troll**** 02:39??? AGAIN??? LOL Just what the **** is wrong with you, you lonely sleepless senile pest? -- Marland revealing the senile sociopath's pathology: "You have mentioned Alexa in a couple of threads recently, it is not a real woman you know even if it is the only thing with a Female name that stays around around while you talk it to it. Poor sad git who has to resort to Usenet and electronic devices for any interaction as all real people run a mile to get away from from you boring them to death." MID: |
#122
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
UNBELIEVABLE: It's 03:18 am in Australia and the Senile Ozzietard is out of Bed and TROLLING, already!!!! LOL
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 03:18:24 +1100, Ray, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote: FLUSH senile asshole's troll**** 03:18??? LOL Seriously, do you REALLY know NO shame AT ALL, sociopath? -- Keema Nam addressing nym-shifting senile Rodent: "You are now exposed as a liar, as well as an ignorant troll." "MID: .com" |
#123
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 19/01/2020 13:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/01/2020 13:17, Pancho wrote: The actual answer as with most of this ecobollox, is that if it were that simple or cheap everyone would be doing it. The discussion is about aiming for low carbon emissions in energy production. At the moment what people are doing is burning hydro carbons. |
#124
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 19/01/2020 13:37, Chris Hogg wrote:
But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. I'm pretty sure I already gave a link once in this thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage "The storage capacity of the German natural gas network is more than 200,000 GW·h which is enough for several months of energy requirement." Plus we could use depleted gas wells. Greens might not do sums but you appear to be unable to use wiki. |
#125
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 19/01/2020 14:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/01/2020 13:37, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing* months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. To power the UK for a day, just on electricity, in winter, takes about 24 hours at an average of 35Gw = 840GWh In terms of nuclear warheads, that is 722 kilotons. 50 Hiroshimas. Would you rather live: (a) near a nuclear power station that cannot explode, only melt down inside a safe containment vessel? (b) near a megaton explosion capable hydrogen store? Note: a megaton explosion takes out* about 100 sq km absolutely. Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions. How exactly would these explosions occur? AIUI hydrogen's dispersal rate in air is very fast. It is quite hard to get an explosive mix. |
#126
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 19/01/2020 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article , Pancho wrote: On 17/01/2020 14:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , Pancho wrote: Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating. So if we can economically provide enough wind power overcapacity, the two technologies would be well suited. Make far more sense to use electricity produced by wind power to heat our houses directly. I'd guess upgrading the grid rather cheaper than installing a high pressure pipe network. The point was hydrogen generation can be used as a battery. It could, but how do you get it to the house? erm?? Gas pipes!. |
#127
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 19/01/2020 14:42, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:37:34 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. AND: Where is the capacity coming from? Unreliables, supported by nuclear? Bear in mind that whatever unreliable is being used as the primary generator, when the 'battery' (in whatever form that might be) gets substantially discharged, not only will the primary generators have to supply the ongoing day-to-day demand, they will also have to recharge that 'battery' PDQ, in anticipation of another generation-free period in a week or so's time. How much extra generating capacity that might need, I don't know, but substantial, I would think. That problem doesn't arise with nuclear. A large battery gives plenty of time for a battery to recharge, two months is a big battery. Actually the problem does occur with nuclear, too. You need rapid dispatch to counter the variability of demand. |
#128
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 19/01/2020 20:10, Pancho wrote:
On 19/01/2020 13:28, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 19/01/2020 13:17, Pancho wrote: The actual answer as with most of this ecobollox, is that if it were that simple or cheap everyone would be doing it. The discussion is about aiming for low carbon emissions in energy production. At the moment what people are doing is burning hydro carbons. Indeed. And renewable energy is there to make sure we continue to do so. Since it patently doesn't reduce carbon emissions -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns. |
#129
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 19/01/2020 20:13, Pancho wrote:
On 19/01/2020 14:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 19/01/2020 13:37, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing* months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. To power the UK for a day, just on electricity, in winter, takes about 24 hours at an average of 35Gw = 840GWh In terms of nuclear warheads, that is 722 kilotons. 50 Hiroshimas. Would you rather live: (a) near a nuclear power station that cannot explode, only melt down inside a safe containment vessel? (b) near a megaton explosion capable hydrogen store? Note: a megaton explosion takes out* about 100 sq km absolutely. Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions. Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with devastating results https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_explosion Note that nearly all of these killed more people than chernobyl and ALL of them killed more people than Fukushimas recator did. How exactly would these explosions occur? AIUI hydrogen's dispersal rate in air is very fast. It is quite hard to get an explosive mix. Don't be silly It there is a fire and it breaches the walls of the containment, forget chernobyl, its goodnight Vienna. -- Gun Control: The law that ensures that only criminals have guns. |
#130
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 19/01/2020 20:13, Pancho wrote:
On 19/01/2020 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , *** Pancho wrote: On 17/01/2020 14:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , **** Pancho wrote: Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating. So if we can economically provide enough wind power overcapacity, the two technologies would be well suited. Make far more sense to use electricity produced by wind power to heat our houses directly. I'd guess upgrading the grid rather cheaper than installing a high pressure pipe network. The point was hydrogen generation can be used as a battery. It could, but how do you get it to the house? erm?? Gas pipes!. would leak hydrogen. Its the smallest molecule there is. -- But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an hypothesis! Mary Wollstonecraft |
#131
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 19/01/2020 20:17, Pancho wrote:
On 19/01/2020 14:42, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:37:34 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing* months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. AND: Where is the capacity coming from? Unreliables, supported by nuclear? Bear in mind that whatever unreliable is being used as the primary generator, when the 'battery' (in whatever form that might be) gets substantially discharged, not only will the primary generators have to supply the ongoing day-to-day demand, they will also have to recharge that 'battery' PDQ, in anticipation of another generation-free period in a week or so's time. How much extra generating capacity that might need, I don't know, but substantial, I would think. * That problem doesn't arise with nuclear. A large battery gives plenty of time for a battery to recharge, two months is a big battery. Actually the problem does occur with nuclear, too. You need rapid dispatch to counter the variability of demand. Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran the entire grid once. You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate dispatch requirements. -- But what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an hypothesis! Mary Wollstonecraft |
#132
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 19/01/2020 20:13, Pancho wrote:
On 19/01/2020 14:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 19/01/2020 13:37, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing* months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. To power the UK for a day, just on electricity, in winter, takes about 24 hours at an average of 35Gw = 840GWh In terms of nuclear warheads, that is 722 kilotons. 50 Hiroshimas. Would you rather live: (a) near a nuclear power station that cannot explode, only melt down inside a safe containment vessel? (b) near a megaton explosion capable hydrogen store? Note: a megaton explosion takes out* about 100 sq km absolutely. Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions. How exactly would these explosions occur? AIUI hydrogen's dispersal rate in air is very fast. It is quite hard to get an explosive mix. Golly. I guess you cannot do WIKI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_safety "Hydrogen possesses the NFPA 704's highest rating of 4 on the flammability scale because it is flammable when mixed even in small amounts with ordinary air; ignition can occur at a volumetric ratio of hydrogen to air as low as 4% due to the oxygen in the air and the simplicity and chemical properties of the reaction. ... The storage and use of hydrogen poses unique challenges due to its ease of leaking as a gaseous fuel, low-energy ignition, wide range of combustible fuel-air mixtures, buoyancy, and its ability to embrittle metals that must be accounted for to ensure safe operation. Liquid hydrogen poses additional challenges due to its increased density and the extremely low temperatures needed to keep it in liquid form. " "Hydrogen-air mixtures can ignite with very low energy input, 1/10 that required igniting a gasoline-air mixture. For reference, an invisible spark or a static spark from a person can cause ignition." "Although the autoignition temperature of hydrogen is higher than those for most hydrocarbons, hydrogen's lower ignition energy makes the ignition of hydrogenair mixtures more likely. The minimum energy for spark ignition at atmospheric pressure is about 0.02 millijoules." "The flammability limits based on the volume percent of hydrogen in air at 14.7 psia (1 atm, 101 kPa) are 4.0 and 75.0. The flammability limits based on the volume percent of hydrogen in oxygen at 14.7 psia (1 atm, 101 kPa) are 4.0 and 94.0." "The limits of detonability of hydrogen in air are 18.3 to 59 percent by volume"[6] "Flames in and around a collection of pipes or structures can create turbulence that causes a deflagration to evolve into a detonation, even in the absence of gross confinement." (For comparison: Deflagration limit of gasoline in air: 1.47.6%; of acetylene in air,[7] 2.5% to 82%) " -- A leader is best When people barely know he exists. Of a good leader, who talks little,When his work is done, his aim fulfilled,They will say, We did this ourselves. Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching |
#133
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:17:29 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 14:42, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:37:34 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. AND: Where is the capacity coming from? Unreliables, supported by nuclear? Bear in mind that whatever unreliable is being used as the primary generator, when the 'battery' (in whatever form that might be) gets substantially discharged, not only will the primary generators have to supply the ongoing day-to-day demand, they will also have to recharge that 'battery' PDQ, in anticipation of another generation-free period in a week or so's time. How much extra generating capacity that might need, I don't know, but substantial, I would think. That problem doesn't arise with nuclear. A large battery gives plenty of time for a battery to recharge, two months is a big battery. I don't understand what you're saying there. A large 'battery', of whatever type, would take a long time to recharge from flat, when speed would be of the essence in time for the next lull in the weather with no generation from unreliables. Actually the problem does occur with nuclear, too. You need rapid dispatch to counter the variability of demand. But nuclear is dispatchable; not ideal (they're best run flat-out AIUI), but it's not difficult. UK nukes were designed to do baseload. They were never designed to be dispatchable. PWR is a different matter. "For many years, load-following requirements have been specified in standard terms of reference. For example, most PWR plants are capable to follow loads in a power range of 30-100% at rates from 1 to 3% per minute. Exceptional rates of 5% per minute or even 10% per minute are possible over limited ranges" ( http://www.templar.co.uk/downloads/0...et_Nuttall.pdf ) The problem is xenon poisoning of the reactor elements if reduced rate recations are sustained. The French get around this by modulating reactors with fresh fuel rods: once they are getting on, they use them for baseload. Faster rates of change are available with other recator types Certainly an all nuclear grid would be able to cope with diurnal shifts, and by moving maintenance and refuelling into the summer when demand is lower, as long as the ~3GW of hydro/pumped power were there to cope with unplanned outages. I would imagine some gas would be retained for STOR purposes too. You wouldn't build a nuclear power station just to cover 6 extremely cold winter days.. -- Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as foolish, and by the rulers as useful. (Seneca the Younger, 65 AD) |
#134
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 08:26, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:10:48 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 13:37, Chris Hogg wrote: But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. I'm pretty sure I already gave a link once in this thread. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage "The storage capacity of the German natural gas network is more than 200,000 GW·h which is enough for several months of energy requirement." No you didn't give that link, at least, not that I could find. But in that link is a reference to this study of the use of natural gas distribution systems for hydrogen transmission that is interesting http://tinyurl.com/vy8gz4w Plus we could use depleted gas wells. Such as Rough http://tinyurl.com/t37zrz8 "It had a storage capacity of 3.31 billion cubic metres which was approximately 70% of the UK's gas storage capacity (approximately nine days' supply). Rough could supply 10% of the UK's peak gas demand and thus was an important part of the UK's gas infrastructure." Of course, all these figures, whether for Germany or the UK, are for supply of natural gas at current take-off rates. Those rates would be a lot higher and their duration of supply correspondingly much shorter for a hydrogen economy, which would use hydrogen to replace all fossil fuels. But I take the point. Greens might not do sums but you appear to be unable to use wiki. chuckle As I pointed out, the one who is unable to use Wiki is Pancho. Hydrogen is unbelievably dangerous. I'd rather have Chernobyl at the bottom of my garden than a hydrogen store. About 1000 more peole have died from gas explosions than from nuclear radiation. When it comes to energy stores the most stable and least dangerous form is uranium and thorium, followed by coal. Liquid hydrocarbons are nasty. Gas is nasty. So are batteries. The worst of the lot is hydrogen. -- "In our post-modern world, climate science is not powerful because it is true: it is true because it is powerful." Lucas Bergkamp |
#135
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
Chris Hogg wrote:
Pancho wrote: Plus we could use depleted gas wells. Such as Rough Someone was building gas storage in salt domes in (?)cheshire |
#136
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
Andy Burns wrote:
Someone was building gas storage in salt domes in (?)cheshire https://www.storengy.co.uk/our-products-and-services/storage-products/auctions-2020 |
#137
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
In article ,
Ray wrote: But has found that magic money tree may said didn't exist? Dont need a magic money tree, just stop sending billions a year to the EU. Have you looked at the net costs of us leaving the EU so far? Makes our net EU contribution look like a drop in the ocean... -- *Make it idiot-proof and someone will make a better idiot. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#138
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote: About 1000 more peole have died from gas explosions than from nuclear radiation. Given gas has been around rather longer than nuclear power, hardly a surprise? -- *Income tax service - Weve got what it takes to take what you've got. Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#139
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:17:29 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 14:42, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:37:34 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. AND: Where is the capacity coming from? Unreliables, supported by nuclear? Bear in mind that whatever unreliable is being used as the primary generator, when the 'battery' (in whatever form that might be) gets substantially discharged, not only will the primary generators have to supply the ongoing day-to-day demand, they will also have to recharge that 'battery' PDQ, in anticipation of another generation-free period in a week or so's time. How much extra generating capacity that might need, I don't know, but substantial, I would think. That problem doesn't arise with nuclear. A large battery gives plenty of time for a battery to recharge, two months is a big battery. I don't understand what you're saying there. A large 'battery', of whatever type, would take a long time to recharge from flat, when speed would be of the essence in time for the next lull in the weather with no generation from unreliables. The idea of a battery is to smooth out variance. To allow for supply to match demand. With a big enough battery we just need average energy production to match average energy demand. Without a big enough battery we need overcapacity. Hasn't this point been made many times? Actually the problem does occur with nuclear, too. You need rapid dispatch to counter the variability of demand. But nuclear is dispatchable; not ideal (they're best run flat-out AIUI), but it's not difficult. Yes, but is it optimal? You would need enough nuclear capacity to match maximum demand, also turning it down can cause difficulty. At some point it might be cheaper to have fewer nuclear power stations generating full all the time. When they have spare capacity they generate hydrogen, in periods of high demand they use the hydrogen to fuel rapid dispatch generators. |
#140
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran the entire grid once. You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate dispatch requirements. We were discussing high capacity , do keep up. |
#141
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/01/2020 20:13, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 14:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 19/01/2020 13:37, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing* months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. To power the UK for a day, just on electricity, in winter, takes about 24 hours at an average of 35Gw = 840GWh In terms of nuclear warheads, that is 722 kilotons. 50 Hiroshimas. Would you rather live: (a) near a nuclear power station that cannot explode, only melt down inside a safe containment vessel? (b) near a megaton explosion capable hydrogen store? Note: a megaton explosion takes out* about 100 sq km absolutely. Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions. Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with devastating results No megaton explosions, then. Gosh, I am surprised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_explosion Note that nearly all of these killed more people than chernobyl and ALL of them killed more people than Fukushimas recator did. "Note: a megaton explosion takes out about 100 sq km absolutely." The idea is to support what you actually claimed not start an irrelevant tangent. |
#142
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 11:02, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:17:29 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 14:42, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:37:34 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing* months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. AND: Where is the capacity coming from? Unreliables, supported by nuclear? Bear in mind that whatever unreliable is being used as the primary generator, when the 'battery' (in whatever form that might be) gets substantially discharged, not only will the primary generators have to supply the ongoing day-to-day demand, they will also have to recharge that 'battery' PDQ, in anticipation of another generation-free period in a week or so's time. How much extra generating capacity that might need, I don't know, but substantial, I would think. * That problem doesn't arise with nuclear. A large battery gives plenty of time for a battery to recharge, two months is a big battery. I don't understand what you're saying there. A large 'battery', of whatever type, would take a long time to recharge from flat, when speed would be of the essence in time for the next lull in the weather with no generation from unreliables. The idea of a battery is to smooth out variance. To allow for supply to match demand. With a big enough battery we just need average energy production to match average energy demand. Without a big enough battery we need overcapacity. Hasn't this point been made many times? Actually the problem does occur with nuclear, too. You need rapid dispatch to counter the variability of demand. But nuclear is dispatchable; not ideal (they're best run flat-out AIUI), but it's not difficult. Yes, but is it optimal? You would need enough nuclear capacity to match maximum demand, also turning it down can cause difficulty. At some point it might be cheaper to have fewer nuclear power stations generating full all the time. When they have spare capacity they generate hydrogen, in periods of high demand they use the hydrogen to fuel rapid dispatch generators. No point. Cheaper to add a little more pumped storage Or gas. -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan |
#143
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran the entire grid once. You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate dispatch requirements. We were discussing high capacity , do keep up. You really dont understand the subject do you? Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers. hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and down. Or having some gas. Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute for pumped storage -- "A point of view can be a dangerous luxury when substituted for insight and understanding". Marshall McLuhan |
#144
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 19/01/2020 20:13, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 14:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , *** Pancho wrote: On 17/01/2020 14:29, Dave Plowman (News) wrote: In article , **** Pancho wrote: Hydrogen can also be used as a replacement for domestic gas heating. So if we can economically provide enough wind power overcapacity, the two technologies would be well suited. Make far more sense to use electricity produced by wind power to heat our houses directly. I'd guess upgrading the grid rather cheaper than installing a high pressure pipe network. The point was hydrogen generation can be used as a battery. It could, but how do you get it to the house? erm?? Gas pipes!. would leak hydrogen. Its the smallest molecule there is. And yet coal gas contained a significant hydrogen proportion. You remember coal gas, don't you. You know, the gas that we used until the 1970s. You know the 70s, Grocer Heath, Seasons in the sun, Two tone tonic strides. https://www.theiet.org/impact-society/sectors/energy/energy-news/transitioning-to-hydrogen-assessing-the-engineering-risks-and-uncertainties/ Quote: "Hydrogen allows much of our existing gas infrastructure to be used Most of the local iron mains gas network will have been replaced with polyethylene pipe by 2030, which can be used with hydrogen. This means most of the necessary street works would have already been done. Note. This is all new to me but governments appear to have been planning for it. There are problems such as increased tendency to leakage and corrosion, but pumping hydrogen though pipes isn't entirely new. |
#145
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Would you rather live: (a) near a nuclear power station that cannot explode, only melt down inside a safe containment vessel? (b) near a megaton explosion capable hydrogen store? Note: a megaton explosion takes out* about 100 sq km absolutely. Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions. Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with devastating results No megaton explosions? |
#146
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote: On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran the entire grid once. You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate dispatch requirements. We were discussing high capacity , do keep up. You really dont understand the subject do you? Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers. hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and down. Or having some gas. Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute for pumped storage Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover extended periods of excess demand. Hydrogen offers the potential to provide months of storage. Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as well do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump water up. |
#147
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 11:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:02, Pancho wrote: On 20/01/2020 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:17:29 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 14:42, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:37:34 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing* months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. AND: Where is the capacity coming from? Unreliables, supported by nuclear? Bear in mind that whatever unreliable is being used as the primary generator, when the 'battery' (in whatever form that might be) gets substantially discharged, not only will the primary generators have to supply the ongoing day-to-day demand, they will also have to recharge that 'battery' PDQ, in anticipation of another generation-free period in a week or so's time. How much extra generating capacity that might need, I don't know, but substantial, I would think. * That problem doesn't arise with nuclear. A large battery gives plenty of time for a battery to recharge, two months is a big battery. I don't understand what you're saying there. A large 'battery', of whatever type, would take a long time to recharge from flat, when speed would be of the essence in time for the next lull in the weather with no generation from unreliables. The idea of a battery is to smooth out variance. To allow for supply to match demand. With a big enough battery we just need average energy production to match average energy demand. Without a big enough battery we need overcapacity. Hasn't this point been made many times? Actually the problem does occur with nuclear, too. You need rapid dispatch to counter the variability of demand. But nuclear is dispatchable; not ideal (they're best run flat-out AIUI), but it's not difficult. Yes, but is it optimal? You would need enough nuclear capacity to match maximum demand, also turning it down can cause difficulty. At some point it might be cheaper to have fewer nuclear power stations generating full all the time. When they have spare capacity they generate hydrogen, in periods of high demand they use the hydrogen to fuel rapid dispatch generators. No point. Cheaper to add a little more pumped storage Or gas. I'm pretty sure you have already pointed out we cannot have months of energy stored in pump storage. Yes we could use natural gas or burn coal, but the idea we are discussing is to avoid CO2 emissions. |
#148
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Ray wrote: But has found that magic money tree may said didn't exist? Don't need a magic money tree, just stop sending billions a year to the EU. Have you looked at the net costs of us leaving the EU so far? Irrelevant, that's a one off cost. Makes our net EU contribution look like a drop in the ocean... More lies, because the net EU contribution continues each year. And the EU should have been told that Article 50 says nothing about any exit fee and so they should shove that demand where the sun don't shine, sideways. |
#149
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , The Natural Philosopher wrote: About 1000 more peole have died from gas explosions than from nuclear radiation. Given gas has been around rather longer than nuclear power, hardly a surprise? Just as true even if you only include the time since power generation by nukes has been possible. |
#150
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
"Pancho" wrote in message ... On 20/01/2020 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:17:29 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 14:42, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:37:34 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. AND: Where is the capacity coming from? Unreliables, supported by nuclear? Bear in mind that whatever unreliable is being used as the primary generator, when the 'battery' (in whatever form that might be) gets substantially discharged, not only will the primary generators have to supply the ongoing day-to-day demand, they will also have to recharge that 'battery' PDQ, in anticipation of another generation-free period in a week or so's time. How much extra generating capacity that might need, I don't know, but substantial, I would think. That problem doesn't arise with nuclear. A large battery gives plenty of time for a battery to recharge, two months is a big battery. I don't understand what you're saying there. A large 'battery', of whatever type, would take a long time to recharge from flat, when speed would be of the essence in time for the next lull in the weather with no generation from unreliables. The idea of a battery is to smooth out variance. To allow for supply to match demand. With a big enough battery we just need average energy production to match average energy demand. Without a big enough battery we need overcapacity. Hasn't this point been made many times? Actually the problem does occur with nuclear, too. You need rapid dispatch to counter the variability of demand. But nuclear is dispatchable; not ideal (they're best run flat-out AIUI), but it's not difficult. Yes, but is it optimal? You would need enough nuclear capacity to match maximum demand, also turning it down can cause difficulty. At some point it might be cheaper to have fewer nuclear power stations generating full all the time. When they have spare capacity they generate hydrogen, in periods of high demand they use the hydrogen to fuel rapid dispatch generators. The french system proves that you dont need the hydrogen, |
#151
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
"Pancho" wrote in message ... On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote: On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran the entire grid once. You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate dispatch requirements. We were discussing high capacity , do keep up. You really dont understand the subject do you? Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers. hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and down. Or having some gas. Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute for pumped storage Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover extended periods of excess demand. Hydrogen offers the potential to provide months of storage. Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as well do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump water up. Neither do the french and their system works fine. |
#152
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 14:12, Rod Speed wrote:
"Pancho" wrote in message ... On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote: On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran the entire grid once. You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate dispatch requirements. We were discussing high capacity , do keep up. You really dont understand the subject do you? Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers. hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and down. Or having some gas. Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute for pumped storage Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover extended periods of excess demand. Hydrogen offers the potential to provide months of storage. Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as well do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump water up. Neither do the french and their system works fine. The French do have significantly more mountains than the UK. They have significantly more hydro power. The French also burn coal and gas to produce electricity. They import electricity from the UK during cold snaps. The French also use fossil fuels for heating. Actually the CO2 emissions per capita between the UK(5.55) and France(5.13) aren't that different. Surprisingly similar in fact. I guess the UK benefited a lot from switching from coal to gas. So yes France uses a lot of Nuclear power but they have not achieved especially low CO2 emissions. see: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/france-co2-emissions/ https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/uk-co2-emissions/ |
#153
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
In article ,
Ray wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Ray wrote: But has found that magic money tree may said didn't exist? Don't need a magic money tree, just stop sending billions a year to the EU. Have you looked at the net costs of us leaving the EU so far? Irrelevant, that's a one off cost. Makes our net EU contribution look like a drop in the ocean... More lies, because the net EU contribution continues each year. And you think the reduction in our income due to saying we will leave and leaving the EU is a one off too? Pity most industrialists and other experts don't agree with you. And the EU should have been told that Article 50 says nothing about any exit fee and so they should shove that demand where the sun don't shine, sideways. You're the one who decides such things, then? -- *Virtual reality is its own reward * Dave Plowman London SW To e-mail, change noise into sound. |
#154
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Ray wrote: "Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message ... In article , Ray wrote: But has found that magic money tree may said didn't exist? Don't need a magic money tree, just stop sending billions a year to the EU. Have you looked at the net costs of us leaving the EU so far? Irrelevant, that's a one off cost. Makes our net EU contribution look like a drop in the ocean... More lies, because the net EU contribution continues each year. And you think the reduction in our income due to saying we will leave and leaving the EU is a one off too? It hasnt been established that there will be any reduction on the UK income, thats just another Project Fear claim., And that has nothing to do with govt money trees anyway. Pity most industrialists and other experts don't agree with you. Those are the so called experts that couldnt even get changing to the euro right, or even manage to see 2008 coming either. And the EU should have been told that Article 50 says nothing about any exit fee and so they should shove that demand where the sun don't shine, sideways. You're the one who decides such things, then? Nope, those who do the brexit negotiations. Stupid to use remainers to do that. |
#155
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 04:30, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 19/01/2020 20:13, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 14:50, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 19/01/2020 13:37, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing* months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. To power the UK for a day, just on electricity, in winter, takes about 24 hours at an average of 35Gw = 840GWh In terms of nuclear warheads, that is 722 kilotons. 50 Hiroshimas. Would you rather live: (a) near a nuclear power station that cannot explode, only melt down inside a safe containment vessel? (b) near a megaton explosion capable hydrogen store? Note: a megaton explosion takes out* about 100 sq km absolutely. Remind me, how many gas wells have exploded with megaton explosions. Wells only a few. Storage facilities for gas...one or two with devastating results No megaton explosions, then. Gosh, I am surprised. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_explosion Note that nearly all of these killed more people than chernobyl and ALL of them killed more people than Fukushimas recator did. "Note: a megaton explosion takes out* about 100 sq km absolutely." The idea is to support what you actually claimed not start an irrelevant tangent. The point is that no one has been STUPID enough to build a seriously large hydrogen store of the sort that you are proposing since gas at far smaller levels has killed tens of thousands -- In todays liberal progressive conflict-free education system, everyone gets full Marx. |
#156
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 11:21, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 20/01/2020 11:02, Pancho wrote: On 20/01/2020 08:16, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 20:17:29 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 14:42, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:37:34 +0000, Chris Hogg wrote: On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 13:17:14 +0000, Pancho wrote: On 19/01/2020 12:53, Chris Hogg wrote: Lots of 'potential' storage solutions, such as compressed air into underground caverns, trundling very heavy weights on rail tracks up mountains, Tesla-type batteries everywhere and so on. But none of it comes near to pumped storage in terms of capacity, and that's very dependent on the right topography, most of which has already been used. Those other solutions may be OK for very short term peak-lopping, but none are capable of storing the amounts of energy needed to run the country for a several days at this time of year, OK, I was seeing quotes of hydrogen storage providing* months energy supply as opposed to a few hours for pumped storage. The main difference being hydrogen is 40% efficient where as pumped is 80% efficient. But how and where are they going to store a month's worth of hydrogen? The volume would be absolutely huge, even if compressed. The phrase 'greens don't do sums' is occasionally trotted out on this NG. That looks like a classic example of just that. AND: Where is the capacity coming from? Unreliables, supported by nuclear? Bear in mind that whatever unreliable is being used as the primary generator, when the 'battery' (in whatever form that might be) gets substantially discharged, not only will the primary generators have to supply the ongoing day-to-day demand, they will also have to recharge that 'battery' PDQ, in anticipation of another generation-free period in a week or so's time. How much extra generating capacity that might need, I don't know, but substantial, I would think. * That problem doesn't arise with nuclear. A large battery gives plenty of time for a battery to recharge, two months is a big battery. I don't understand what you're saying there. A large 'battery', of whatever type, would take a long time to recharge from flat, when speed would be of the essence in time for the next lull in the weather with no generation from unreliables. The idea of a battery is to smooth out variance. To allow for supply to match demand. With a big enough battery we just need average energy production to match average energy demand. Without a big enough battery we need overcapacity. Hasn't this point been made many times? Actually the problem does occur with nuclear, too. You need rapid dispatch to counter the variability of demand. But nuclear is dispatchable; not ideal (they're best run flat-out AIUI), but it's not difficult. Yes, but is it optimal? You would need enough nuclear capacity to match maximum demand, also turning it down can cause difficulty. At some point it might be cheaper to have fewer nuclear power stations generating full all the time. When they have spare capacity they generate hydrogen, in periods of high demand they use the hydrogen to fuel rapid dispatch generators. No point. Cheaper to add a little more pumped storage Or gas. I'm pretty sure you have already pointed out we cannot have months of energy stored in pump storage. We donmt NEED to. we just need enough for daily peaks, with nuclear. Only with renewable energy do we need a winters worth. Yes we could use natural gas or burn coal, but the idea we are discussing is to avoid CO2 emissions. Then use nukes. And pumped strorage. That is all you actually NEED. -- If I had all the money I've spent on drink... ...I'd spend it on drink. Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End) |
#157
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 11:18, Pancho wrote:
On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote: On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran the entire grid once. You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate dispatch requirements. We were discussing high capacity , do keep up. You really dont understand the subject do you? Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers. hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and down. Or having some gas. Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute for pumped storage Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover extended periods of excess demand. SSigh. Thats why you have dispatcahable nukes Hydrogen offers the potential to provide months of storage. And I have pointed out the unbelieveable risks and costs assocaited with that incredibly stupid iudea Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as well do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump water up. We do actually. Just. In the end its all cost benefit analysis driven. How much do you value CO2 emission at? The higher the cost of then the more nukes and the less gas power. *Renewables are never the cost effective option*, ever. -- If I had all the money I've spent on drink... ...I'd spend it on drink. Sir Henry (at Rawlinson's End) |
#158
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
"Pancho" wrote in message ... On 20/01/2020 14:12, Rod Speed wrote: "Pancho" wrote in message ... On 20/01/2020 11:09, The Natural Philosopher wrote: On 20/01/2020 11:04, Pancho wrote: On 20/01/2020 04:32, The Natural Philosopher wrote: Nuclear is as capable of rapid dispatch as coal was and coal ran the entire grid once. You can store a lot of energy in a big steam boiler And in the UK we have enough hydro to cover the intermediate dispatch requirements. We were discussing high capacity , do keep up. You really dont understand the subject do you? Very short term dispatch is catered for by the rotating masses of the turbines: That covers a powerstation tripping Minute level dispatch is catered for by hydro and steam in boilers. hpor level dispatch is catered for by turning the nukes up and down. Or having some gas. Renewables contribute zero to all of this and batteries and hydroigen are an expensive inegffficent (and dangerous) substitute for pumped storage Pumped storage only lasts for hours, this is not enough to cover extended periods of excess demand. Hydrogen offers the potential to provide months of storage. Hydrogen is expensive but if you have over capacity you might as well do something with it. We do not have enough mountains to pump water up. Neither do the french and their system works fine. The French do have significantly more mountains than the UK. That may well be true, but given https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...power_stations it doesnt appear that they have any more pumped storage than the UK and use the different fuel rod approach for handling the varying load on their system instead of pumped storage. But that doesnt actually list the MWh of their's. They have significantly more hydro power. Thats a separate issue to how best to handle the varying load on nukes. The French also use fossil fuels for heating. Another separate issue to varying load on the nukes. |
#159
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 15:01, Pancho wrote:
Actually the CO2 emissions per capita between the UK(5.55) and France(5.13) aren't that different. Surprisingly similar in fact. I guess the UK benefited a lot from switching from coal to gas. Complete lie. As far as the grid goes they emit 6 times less than us and ten times less than germany. -- A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. |
#160
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Hydrogen engines
On 20/01/2020 15:27, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Pancho wrote: So yes France uses a* lot of Nuclear power but they have not achieved especially low CO2 emissions. Prolly helps their balance of payments, however, as they can export some of those nuclear volts. Pancho is simply lying. The Frencah have the lowest emissions in Europe bar none on electricity production. Germany is the highest. Also rans are sweden and switzerland with a nuclear hydro mix. -- A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Opposed piston Diesel engines / was interesting engines | Metalworking | |||
Nine new engines? -- six new transmissions? -- 60 new engines and transmissions? | Metalworking | |||
Nine new engines? -- six new transmissions? -- 60 new engines and transmissions? | Metalworking | |||
Nine new engines? -- six new transmissions? -- 60 new engines and transmissions? | Metalworking | |||
Are 2-cycle engines or 4 cylce engines 'better'? | Home Repair |