The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Are renewables and batteries part of the power generation & storage solution? > Comments

Are renewables and batteries part of the power generation & storage solution? : Comments

By Geoff Carmody, published 9/11/2017

How efficient are different types of batteries/energy sources? A key metric is 'energy density'.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
No. Renewables and batteries ARE the problem; a problem that didn't exist until the loons came up with global warming and idiotic claim that this natural phenomenon was caused by CO2. There was actually no 'problem' before the dim-witted politicians hopped on the band wagon and started to shut down coal - the biggest advantage we had over the rest of the world for cheap, efficient energy. Now, the very people who caused the problem in the first place are again lying to us by claiming that the can solve something we never had to suffer in the first place. Jail is the best place for them.
Posted by ttbn, Thursday, 9 November 2017 7:58:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"How efficient are different types of batteries/energy sources? A key metric is 'energy density'."

NO!

The key metrics are total system cost of electricity
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 9 November 2017 7:59:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Renewables….corruption Australian style!
Posted by diver dan, Thursday, 9 November 2017 8:16:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The most energy dense material on the planet is thorium! Thorium contains 200 times the energy of uranium and 2.000 times less waste.

Moreover the 1% waste produced by thorium, in walk away safe, molten salt, thorium reactors, is far less toxic, is stable within a decade and eminently suitable for long life space batteries.

Why in the name of economic sanity, would you use renewable part time, just so you can use a vastly more expensive form of intermittent energy?

Why!? Unless the real, unspoken goal, is to KILL THE ECONOMY?

Especially if your backup produces power with a PKH median under 2 cents!

Thorium needs no enrichment, but like all minerals needs some refining to produce the metal. And it needs kick starting with an isotope of thorium, thorium 303? Or enriched uranium!

A 350 MW walk away safe molten salt thorium reactor uses just one ton of its unenriched fuel for it entire operational life!

Whereas the solid fuelled uranium equivalent will use 2250+ tons. And rods that need to be moved every eighteen months and completely changed every 4.5 years, just to avoid becoming another Chernobyl!

Whereas the LFTR can just keep on keeping on and can even be left completely unattended for as long as 120 days.

Further, can be tasked with burning nuclear waste and or, weapons grade plutonium! [Objectors obviously prefer it be left in the weapons!?]

And as we burn the waste and very safely, earn annual billions for providing the service. We have enough thorium in our dirt to power the planet for a thousand years, and thousands more if we mine igneous rock.

Renewables are not as benign as the enthusiasts would have us believe. e.g., a wind turbine would have to turn for up to thirty years to offset the carbon produced during its manufacture?

And solar voltaic creates mountain of toxic waste that remains toxic and in the environment for centuries, is intermittent and unreliable without backup and mile of expensive transmission towers to make them viable/ and connected! TBC
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 9 November 2017 10:01:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There's no way we will power aluminium smelters and sewage systems with batteries. SA is installing the world's biggest battery of 129 Mwh which might give 30 MW or so for 4 hours. Trouble is in heatwaves the state uses 3100 MW for much of the day, then the next day.

Batteries may be economic for local grid frequency stabilisation and households with spare cash but not for bulk energy storage. Contrast SA's 129 Mwh 'giant' battery with Snowy 2 and its 350,000 Mwh of pumped hydro storage. Realtime generation to back up wind and solar will work out cheaper than energy storage even with expensive diesel and gas. The obvious replacement for coal baseload is nuclear. We prohibit that technology yet we have the most uranium.
Posted by Taswegian, Thursday, 9 November 2017 10:16:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I wanted an all electric car/ And yes please! I'd want batteries that would have a reliable range of at least 500 kilometres and rechargeable in just five minutes, as I take a comfort/coffee break.

Is there such a battery?

Maybe? Manufacture licences are apparently available?

And if half the hype is to be believed, that battery will be the sodium ion battery.

And apparently promises to be a very long life battery indeed. Just make absolutely sure they are double sealed and waterproof!

As for other options, none seems more promising or robust than very lightweight graphine capacitors?

Back to Thorium and economic sanity!

Thorium in a walk away safe, molten salt reactor, can have miracle cure Bismuth 213 harvested from the LFTR, while operational! Meaning the very short half life of just 45 hours of the alpha particle isotope, can be fully deployed to the maximum time saving effect.

It's attached to an antibody that then goes directly to the cancer cells! And more precise than the scatter gun effect of beta decay nuclear medicine, that not only kills some cancer cells but many perfectly healthy ones as well!

Not what one wants, if those cells are very important brain cells!

[Duh, wadda ya mean brain cells, what are dey? Hey, who turned da lights out!? Will somebody talk to me!] Understand?

Folk like high profile Mike Willisee will thank us, as will thousands of kids fighting for their lives against leukaemia and every adult with death sentence brain or pancreatic cancer!

Finally LFTR's do not need to be shut down for the occasional refuelling and will self moderate! Just routine maintenance.

The pioneer economies the ones to reap the tsunami of wealth creation that will ensue from energy with an energy price of PKH median of less than 2 cents!

All we risk is valuable time, as visionless, ignorance personified, pollies pointlessly prevaricate, in a science free bubble!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 9 November 2017 10:51:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Right on the money Taswegian.

The graphite crucibles in locally invented, single step steel smelting, in modern electrically powered arc furnaces, would or could be ruined by intermittent power supply!

Accomplished as the metal solidifies inside the crucibles, the intermittently powered contracting/expanding mineral cracks the graphite crucibles, rendering them worthless!

Add a couple of hundred million for a big enough battery array to prevent that! And essentially all we'd achieve is the death of metals smelting in this country!

The multi-million dollar nightmare that the renewable enthusiasts never ever contemplate, given such contemplation requires a brain! And normal human empathy!

Otherwise, and given an operation brain is employed? The unstated, manufacture base destroying objective?

How else are the animals to be brought back and the planet re-afforested, as we humans are allowed to wither on the vine? The real objective of the antinuclear brigade?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:20:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ttbn, aside from your own idiotic claim that proven facts are "idiotic claims", labelling batteries as the problem indicates a lack of thinking. Electricity costs have long fluctuated because of fluctuating demand. Battery technology has at last reached the stage where t's starting to become a cost effective solution.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,
"Thorium contains 200 times the energy of uranium"
From where did you get that figure? It looks highly suspicious to me, as thorium has to be converted into U233 to make it fissile.

And there's no such thing as thorium 303. Known isotopes range from 209 to 238, with well over 99% of naturally occurring thorium being the 232 isotope.

Thorium does have great potential as an energy source, but please stop spruiking it until you've made a genuine effort to understand it.
Posted by Aidan, Thursday, 9 November 2017 11:44:43 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well guys I'll let you know ow steel smelting goes on renewable/battery power/pumped-hydro my company is planning to just that.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 9 November 2017 12:50:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan:
Take one ton of fuel, burn 99% of it to over fifty years to produce an arbitrary figure of a trillion PKH?

Take 2550 Tons and burn all that you can of it, which for those who are able to understand very simple basic maths? That is at best, just 1% of it, for the same energy output over the same approximate number of years. Still with me?

Save those years, when the oxide reactor was shut down for partial or complete refuelling. So the energy component comparison is 1% of 2550 tons versus 99% of 1 ton!

With just 1% of the thorium cycle as vastly less toxic waste! While the oxide reactor, produces at least 99% of its fuel type as highly toxic waste with a half life of thousands of years!

So, I've probably underestimated in the 200 times more energy comparison?

And probably explains why a mental giant such as Aidan, had all the initial difficulty?

Aidan is immediately going for his calculator and preparing to crunch the numbers. Then show his workings and my initial mistake so the rest of you numbskulls can understand just how smart he really is!

Alvin Weinberg, inventor of and patent holder of the first nuclear reactor, spent twenty years of his life research then operating the world's first molten salt reactor, at Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Where he first tied uranium then thorium.

That reactor ran for close to five incident and accident free years!

And was after being starved of funding, shut down to serve the political imperatives of that paragon of virtue, President Nixon!

If you want to know more? Just type, Who will pay for the benefits of climate change? Into your search engine, then scroll, down to the bottom of the page for a comprehensive overview.

Or not. I just don't give a dam, what anyone thinks anymore! I'll just keep on trying to keep the bar stewards honest! And informed! Aidan is a really really nice bloke, just here to help!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Thursday, 9 November 2017 5:10:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The scalable energy source that dare not speak its name waits in the wings. see Michael Shellenberger with James Hansen at

https://unfccc.cloud.streamworld.de/webcast/james-hansen-nuclear-power-are-renewables-enough
Posted by Luciferase, Friday, 10 November 2017 2:18:12 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy