mspohr
Well-Known Member
i think this OP statement should have had /sarcasm marks to make it clear.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Prediction: Coal has fallen. Nuclear is next then Oil.
- Thread starter nwdiver
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Energy Environment Policy
I should modify my signature:
Ex-pat Briton. My posts will obviously never, ever contain irony or sarcasm.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Experts Doubt the Sun Is Actually Burning Coal
“If the sun were composed of coal, it would last at the present rate only 5,000 years. The sun, in all probability, is not a burning, but an incandescent, body. Its light is rather that of a glowing molten metal than that of a burning furnace. But it is impossible that the sun should constantly be giving out heat, without either losing heat or being supplied with new fuel. Assuming that the heat of the sun has been kept up by meteoric bodies falling into it, it is possible from the mass of the solar system to determine
“If the sun were composed of coal, it would last at the present rate only 5,000 years. The sun, in all probability, is not a burning, but an incandescent, body. Its light is rather that of a glowing molten metal than that of a burning furnace. But it is impossible that the sun should constantly be giving out heat, without either losing heat or being supplied with new fuel. Assuming that the heat of the sun has been kept up by meteoric bodies falling into it, it is possible from the mass of the solar system to determine
Dr. J
Active Member
SmartElectric
Active Member
Ontario has moved away from coal, with hydro and gas as the flexible power source.
Gas averaged 6% of production from 2019 Jan - today, wind was 8%, with hydro and nuclear the balance.
Notice how Ontario is able to balance the grid to obtain the lowest CO2 intensity.
One thing not shown, that Ontario exports GWh of production to US states in the overnight period due to inflexible nuclear.
While solar is 4%, it is not shown on graph due to most of the solar being on the distribution side (ie, on houses or buildings) and is effectively to the Ontario grid seen as a reduction in demand.
In March 2020, electricity pricing was switched to 10c/kWh (effectively what we normally pay for overnight rates) as a subsidy for people working from home during COVID. March was the lowest month for gas at 5% production due to the nuclear fleet able to accommodate the more flat usage (less peaks, more steady).
In 2019, gas was a
http://reports.ieso.ca/public/GenOutputbyFuelMonthly/PUB_GenOutputbyFuelMonthly_2019.xml
charted as:
Gas averaged 6% of production from 2019 Jan - today, wind was 8%, with hydro and nuclear the balance.
Notice how Ontario is able to balance the grid to obtain the lowest CO2 intensity.
One thing not shown, that Ontario exports GWh of production to US states in the overnight period due to inflexible nuclear.
While solar is 4%, it is not shown on graph due to most of the solar being on the distribution side (ie, on houses or buildings) and is effectively to the Ontario grid seen as a reduction in demand.
In March 2020, electricity pricing was switched to 10c/kWh (effectively what we normally pay for overnight rates) as a subsidy for people working from home during COVID. March was the lowest month for gas at 5% production due to the nuclear fleet able to accommodate the more flat usage (less peaks, more steady).
In 2019, gas was a
http://reports.ieso.ca/public/GenOutputbyFuelMonthly/PUB_GenOutputbyFuelMonthly_2019.xml
charted as:
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Another record sign up for utility battery storage. Coming online 2021!
A California Utility Just Bought a Record Amount of Battery Storage
A California Utility Just Bought a Record Amount of Battery Storage
Heck, let's add another 100MW/400MWh system in Southern California. 
California Gets Another 100MW Battery Project as Competition With Gas Peakers Heats Up
California Gets Another 100MW Battery Project as Competition With Gas Peakers Heats Up
SmartElectric
Active Member
It might be useful to see how the production type (Nuclear, Wind, etc) varies depending on month of the year.
Clearly Nuclear varies as much as any other type, including renewables, interesting eh, puts paid to the baseload myth.
I'm not a big advocate of nuclear but that is slightly misleading since nuclear plants intentionally schedule their outages to coincide with periods of low demand. That's why there's a dip from February to May. So the variablity in Nuclear is due to seasonal variability of demand not variability of nuclear.
On a related note that's why nuclear output could suffer significantly due to COVID-19 since it hit at the peak of refueling season. EDF is predicting up to a 30% decline in output due to refueling delays. Social Distancing is challenging when you have >100 technicians working to replace fuel rods.
Heck, let's add another 100MW/400MWh system in Southern California.
California Gets Another 100MW Battery Project as Competition With Gas Peakers Heats Up
I think this is part of the same project from your previous post. The previous post cited 730MWh of storage, but to be distributed across multiple sites (probably ~100MW per site) - all to support the same solar farm.
The article they linked to refers back to a press release that lists the 7 sites in the 770MW system:
SCE Grows Clean Energy Portfolio, Enhances System Reliability With 770 Megawatts of New Energy Storage Capacity
None of those sites are Los Angeles County, so this appears to be additional capacity.
When there was a debate over whether solar was literally coal powered....
Experts Doubt the Sun Is Actually Burning Coal
Experts Doubt the Sun Is Actually Burning Coal
Long Duration Breakthrough? Form Energy’s First Project Pushes Storage to 150 Hours
150 hour is 6.25 days of power!
150 hour is 6.25 days of power!
SmartElectric
Active Member
Releasing energy for 150 vs 4 hours doesn't tell you the size of the storage, just the size of the output tap... are they saying this is a 150 MWh storage system, ie, 1 MW over 150 hours?
The article is either intentionally obtuse, or Form deliberately didn't provide the right specifications in their marketing blurb that led to this article, they talk about watts, but not watt hours of storage, telling me the size of the fork is not good enough to judge the size of the cake.
The article seemed clear to me.
Each storage block is 1MW and 150MWh of storage, so a C-rate of 150.
They claim that it will be the same cost per MW as lithium ion, but ultra-cheap per MWh.
So, in battery terms, very low power density, but it doesn't matter for static storage, because the capacity would be so cheap.
SmartElectric
Active Member
My point, they never said 150 MWh in the article, it is left to the reader to parse and put the numbers together, and again, not clear.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
This seems clear
"Form's 1-megawatt project will do so for up to 150 hours, an unprecedented achievement for the storage industry."
OK, sorry, they say power in 1MW blocks, but it says for 150 hours, compared to 4 or 5 for batteries.
I think they just used power and hours because that's what matters for the grid, whereas for EVs, we don't think to much about power for anything other than charging, and focus on capacity.
To calculate C-rate, you take power output and divide by capacity. So the C-rate is actually 0.0067
Similar threads
