Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Bill Sloman <bill.sloman@ieee.org>
Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y,sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables
Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 20:49:58 +1000
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 54
Message-ID: <v65up1$2nm1f$2@dont-email.me>
References: <v64kvk$2cc3j$2@dont-email.me> <v655vt$2jju3$1@dont-email.me>
 <v65g26$2l5br$4@dont-email.me> <v65m9e$2mc0i$1@dont-email.me>
 <len6voFfsavU2@mid.individual.net> <v65rnf$2najh$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 12:50:10 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b48ff7a21875edccdc84d6fe64d1d249";
	logging-data="2873391"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1+wa3zUzKcdzTQqfl6QjMn6gyc+k/ZD/zE="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:HcLN29Nzc+YdyoOdcFujGlIqF/w=
X-Antivirus: Norton (VPS 240704-2, 4/7/2024), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <v65rnf$2najh$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3619

On 4/07/2024 7:58 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
> On 04/07/2024 10:06, alan_m wrote:
>> Another half truth by the industry. It's only cheaper when it works 
>> and if you ignore the backup required for when it doesn't and the 
>> extra infrastructure costs required to distribute it.
> 
> It isn't even cheaper then.
> Some of us have run the numbers...
> 
> Per gigawatt a wind turbine is cheaper than a nuclear power station but 
> that ignores
> - the shorter lifetime of the windmill
> - the capacity factor of the windmill
> - the massive maintenance cost associated with a windmill.

But you are happy to ignore the massive costs of providing secure 
storage for nuclear waste for the hundred's of thousands of years it 
take for the longer half-life isotopes to decay into stable isotopes.

> Before you even get into the ancillary crap needed to attempt to make a 
> silk purse out of a pigs ear...

It's actually a sow's ear. And a nuclear power station is no silk purse.

If you want a flexible power source, a nuclear power station isn't an 
option.

"The ability of a PWR to run at less than full power for much of the 
time depends on whether it is in the early part of its 18 to 24-month 
refuelling cycle or late in it, and whether it is designed with special 
control rods which diminish power levels throughout the core without 
shutting it down. Thus, though the ability on any individual PWR reactor 
to run on a sustained basis at low power decreases markedly as it 
progresses through the refuelling cycle, there is considerable scope for 
running a fleet of reactors in load-following mode. European Utility 
Requirements (EUR) since 2001 specify that new reactor designs must be 
capable of load-following between 50 and 100% of capacity with a rate of 
change of electric output of 3-5% per minute. The economic consequences 
are mainly due to diminished load factor of a capital-intensive plant."

Gas turbine power generators are much more flexible, and pumped and 
battery storage is even more flexible.

You can need quite a bit of it, but that gets figured into price of 
renewable energy, even if you aren't aware of it.

-- 
Bill Sloman, Sydney



-- 
This email has been checked for viruses by Norton antivirus software.
www.norton.com