Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Search results

  1. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    It would have to because of physics. The round trip efficiency of a battery isn't 100%. It's ~90%. So if you're not using curtailed RE you can either displace 10kWh of NG now or use a battery to displace 9kWh later. Energy storage is considered a green technology. But it actually increases...
  2. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    My point is that if done poorly it's very easy to INCREASE reliance on NG by adding batteries. Maybe not in terms of capacity but energy. Sure... maybe a large battery bank might allow the retirement of 1GW of gas capacity. But that's a meaningless victory if the capital invested in that...
  3. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    If the batteries are being used 'appropriately' the marginal cost of energy should be 0 or < 0. If the RE you're using to charge the battery could have displaced ~11kWh of NG at the time it was used to charge the battery and all you're doing with the battery is displacing 10kWh of NG later...
  4. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    I did... with the current cost of NG it's ~$30/MWh. Either going down every year as we get more renewables or possibly up slightly if the cost of NG rises faster than consumption falls. What other option is there? Any tool you're using to 'reduce blackouts' is going to have a generally low CF.
  5. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    I worked in a thermal plant for 6 years. They're ~an order of magnitude more complicated than a gas turbine. It's also a heat engine. Which means that on a good day for every 100MWh of heat you produce you have to dispose of ~65MWh. The cold start time of a gas turbine is minutes. The cold...
  6. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    The problem with NG is GWh not GW. We use NG for its GW then use wind and solar to keep reducing the annual GWh we get from NG even if the peak GW rises. I'm not advocating for getting more energy from NG. I'm advocating for getting more peak power from NG so we can allow wind and solar to do...
  7. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    I agree. That should be the end goal. Reinforces the point that we need to stop thinking of storage as providing reliability and think of it as avoiding curtailment. The ultimate curtailment avoidance is when 100% of your energy is from renewables because you're using surplus wind and solar...
  8. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    Why not just use NG? Why spend ~2x more for a GWh from thermal vs a GWh from wind or solar? It's not cheaper. New wind is ~$20/MWh now. It's unlikely that most thermal is $40/MWh. I'd love to know where the EIA got that number. IIRC Ivanpah is ~$160/MWh.
  9. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    Cost. The most economic purpose of storage isn't to provide reliable power, that's the role of gas turbines. The purpose of storage is to reduce renewable curtailment. $/$ it's simply FAR cheaper to just reduce emissions with wind and solar. Provide reliability with gas turbines. As...
  10. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    Because if demand increases or solar, wind drop... and it's already at 100%.... what meets demand? 'Base load' is just a marketing term invented by the nuclear industry to give them a purpose. Why have a costly, and artificial ceiling for wind and solar generation? If you can save $300M/yr by...
  11. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    Gas turbines provide an equal amount of comfort at ~1/15th the cost per GW ;) The most important factor is $/GW. Emissions can be solved with more solar, wind and storage. Fuel cost can be solved with more solar, wind and storage. If you have 'base load' weighing you down the economic...
  12. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    If you're curtailing generation you're curtailing generation. It's irrelevant whether it's curtailed due to lack to demand or because there's another generator meeting that demand. If it's not idle then it's not able to support wind and solar when needed. You still need another generator...
  13. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    ??? No. 90% CF means you're at 100% 90% of the time. The other 10% is maintenance. Basically if they can be operating they are... at 100%. That's why expensive thermal plants like nuclear are having such a hard time. Over half are losing money. If they're not needed for a few hours just...
  14. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    It is if it's required to be viable. If a 1GW plant NEEDS to sell ~8,000GWh/yr to pay the bills. That's... that's a problem. The ideal support for wind or solar is a generator that can economically sit idle until there isn't enough wind or solar. For example... South Texas Project is 2GW of...
  15. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    That's also likely with a CF of ~90%. And if you need a CF of ~90% to be remotely cost effective you're not really 'dispatchable'. Dispatchable resources need to be cheap enough to sit idle for weeks or months until needed.
  16. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    Coal, Geo, Nuclear and Solar thermal like Ivanpah all have the same problem. Heat. It's ridiculously expensive and absurdly inefficient to convert heat into electricity. Anything that needs to use heat as an intermediate step is a non-starter. Like you said. First principles.
  17. nwdiver

    Rheem ProTerra Electric Hybrid Hot Water deals

    And it pulls ~3A in heat pump mode.
  18. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    Yeah but wind employs ~90% fewer people per MWh. What good is that?
  19. nwdiver

    Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.

    A lot of utilities also run the gas lines. PG&E for example. My guess is that they would prefer to keep collecting the ~$20/mo gas connection fee than another $10/mo in kWh sales.
  20. nwdiver

    Go Fund Me for EV Charging in SE NM

    So much easier when you hire professionals. Our electric work is great... our concrete work is less than great.
  21. nwdiver

    Post Your Tesla Solar Layout

    That might be a good way to argue that they should run the strings independently.
  22. nwdiver

    Post Your Tesla Solar Layout

    They should be able to. The reduced efficiency would be mild. Probably < 0.5%. Not much at all if there aren't any shading issues. But IMHO independent MPPTs are valuable as a diagnostic tool. You can compare the strings to verify everything is ok. If they're parallel and you lose a bypass...
  23. nwdiver

    Post Your Tesla Solar Layout

    When is your install scheduled for. Be interesting to see if they do it. It's ~$20 in wire. Crazy that this is a thing....
  24. nwdiver

    Post Your Tesla Solar Layout

    It's unfortunate that you have shade on the West side... that's generally preferred to East. Well... it is what it is. Should be ok. I think the minimum startup voltage is ~60v That is dumb. I would request they run them separately. The extra wire is worth the cost.
  25. nwdiver

    Go Fund Me for EV Charging in SE NM

    Pouring concrete this weekend.
  26. nwdiver

    Green New Deal

    They made a documentary about that a few years ago ;)
  27. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    ???? Really? So you don't think CO2 levels spiking from 280 to >400 (soon almost certainly to >500ppm) >15x faster than it naturally occurs and to levels that have not existed in ~10M years doesn't have any significance?
  28. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    That's why I go with the consensus...
  29. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    ??? ERSSTv5 observations and ERSSTv5 ovservations each have a value of ~0C in ~1979... then increasingly diverge... they're different data sets. If what you're saying was true they would have the same divergence over all years.
  30. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    ???? That's what they are.... says it right there in the title. :)
  31. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    ??? Is there a point buried in there somewhere? Is global warming happening? Yes. Is it a problem? Yes. Should we do anything about it? Yes. ..... what's your point?
  32. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    You're the one posting it. I'm just asking what the source is. Why is that such a difficult question to answer? If you don't wish to defend it then maybe you should stop promoting it. Clearly it's not ovservations based on ERSSTv5... so what is it? Line of best fit for the actual ERSSTv5...
  33. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    Good to know... so.... what data was Spencer using?
  34. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    No... I'm not doing your homework for you. You're the one that cherrypicked a source that was ovviously flawed because it was as close to what you wanted to hear as you could find.... YOU ask Spencer. If I was to pivlish that post I would defnitily have some someone check it. ERSSTv5 isn't...
  35. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    We're 4 months into 2021. There's definetly no ERSSTv5 data for 2021. So for the forth time... where is that data coming from? Aside from that... assign a date to where the arrow is pointing. I read Jan '21. So the decline is 2020... not 2021. How can there be a steep decline in the year...
  36. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    ??? Seriously? A 'winter is still cold' argument? Yeah.... sea ice when it's near max it ALMOST gets to what the average used to be... yay?
  37. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    So.... 2020 was tied for the warmest year, yes?... is that what this shows? ;)
  38. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    Going with JPL on this one... Study: 2019 Sees Record Loss of Greenland Ice But... does it really matter if 2019 was the worst or slightly better than the worst year??? The trend could not be more clear....
  39. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    .... another data point that doesn't match reality... 2020 Tied for Warmest Year on Record, NASA Analysis Shows The most recent ERSSTv5 was published in ~2018... so.... how DOES his graph go past available data? So for the third time.... still no sign of exactly what data Spencer was using...
  40. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    ??? It's still losing Ice and 2019 was a record melt beating 2012... how exactly is that 'going back to normal'???
  41. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    Less and less every year. It's not 'recovering'.
  42. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    Since when is dying slower 'recovery'?
  43. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    Did you skip the day where they taught 'line of best fit'? A spike to 0.6C is not the same as trending toward 0.8C in 2020 as all but one graph does. Still no sign of whatever 'ERSSTv5 ovservation' data Spencer was using?
  44. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    Really? You think all these graphs are of the same data? REALLY? Probably 5/6 are... def not 6/6. Let's play a game... which one doesn't match... Pro-Tip: If there's a SUPER-ovvious typo in the title.... you should probably look for data somewhere else ;)
  45. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    Good to know... so where is it? If there's a ERSSTv5 I just want to know what it is... and why did they give it the exact same name as the other ERSSTv5? Is that just a really common name for data? Like the data version of 'John'?
  46. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    No one is suggesting there is. Climate sensitivity is based on a doubling of CO2. But just because the effect from 300 => 310 is greater than the effect from 400 => 410 doesn't mean going to 410 from 400 is harmless. Where is the ERSSTv5 data that matches the ovservations on Spencers graph...
  47. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    Why can't you find ERSSTv5 data the actually matches Spencers overlay of ERSSTv5 data? ;)
  48. nwdiver

    Climate Change Denial - Discuss

    There's legitimate debate surrounding how much of a positive forcing effect water vapor has but not over whether this IS a positive forcing effect.

About Us

Formed in 2006, Tesla Motors Club (TMC) was the first independent online Tesla community. Today it remains the largest and most dynamic community of Tesla enthusiasts. Learn more.

Do you value your experience at TMC? Consider becoming a Supporting Member of Tesla Motors Club. As a thank you for your contribution, you'll get nearly no ads in the Community and Groups sections. Additional perks are available depending on the level of contribution. Please visit the Account Upgrades page for more details.


SUPPORT TMC
Top