| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<v66c8r$28omo$4@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: ...!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> Newsgroups: uk.d-i-y,sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: OT: EV Charging Stations Stripped of Copper Cables Date: Thu, 4 Jul 2024 14:40:27 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 137 Message-ID: <v66c8r$28omo$4@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> <v65up1$2nm1f$2@dont-email.me> <v6607n$2najh$6@dont-email.me> <v662kt$2oj9r$1@dont-email.me> <v66aja$2phnn$2@dont-email.me> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Thu, 04 Jul 2024 16:40:28 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="74dcc32a7118e73f5294d618961d8688"; logging-data="2384600"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19jhVU36WXDi3lY56+UXxnwBZCzHESuNho=" User-Agent: Pan/0.146 (Hic habitat felicitas; 8107378 git@gitlab.gnome.org:GNOME/pan.git) Cancel-Lock: sha1:YsmvC0ooYnQvRkWUdqiKUlehJfg= X-No-Archive: Yes Bytes: 7243 On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 14:11:54 +0000, Smolley wrote: > On Thu, 04 Jul 2024 21:55:59 +1000, Bill Sloman wrote: > >> On 4/07/2024 9:15 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote: >>> On 04/07/2024 11:49, Bill Sloman wrote: >>>> 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. >>>> >>> It is not massive. >>> In fact its trivial. >> >> We've needed that kind of repository for some seventy years now, and >> the late Lou Vance, one of my friends from my time as an undergraduate, >> spent most of his post-Ph.D. in Australia's CSIRO Synroc project. >> >> https://www.ansto.gov.au/news/new-global-first-of-a-kind-ansto-synroc- facility >> >> We've got the technology. but we still haven't got any repository. >> >>> How long will the concrete bases of wind turbines last? >>> Will they ever be returned to Green Field Who will pay for it? >>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>> Of course it is More lies >>> >>>> "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." >>>> >>> Old tech. You can design a reactor to load follow, but it doesn't make >>> best use of capital when you have any hydro. >> >> So we are going to spend squillions to develop new tech which will >> still most of the flaws of what we've got now? Grow up. >> >>> Natrium have a perfectly sound idea for this >> >> https://www.terrapower.com/natrium/ >> >> It's a start-up, founded by Bill Gates, which is looking for venture >> capital. >> >> https://www.terrapower.com/terrapower-announces-830-million-secured- in-2022/ >> >> I'd wait until somebody from the Linux community got interested. >> >>>> 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. >>> >>> Battery storage is to replace the spinning mass of conventional >>> turbines. >> >> Ignorant nonsense. Battery-inverter combination are quite fast enough >> to do it very well, and the first big battery anywhere >> >> https://hornsdalepowerreserve.com.au/ >> >> surprised everybody by making a lot more money out of providing short >> term - cycle to cycle - grid stabilisation services than it did out of >> buying power from the grid when it was cheap and selling it back to >> grid when it wasn't. The longer-term buffer service still made quite >> enough money that the Australian electricity distribution companies are >> investing a lot of capital in buying and installing more of it. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowy_2.0_Pumped_Storage_Power_Station >> >> is the hydro-power version of that, and with 175 hours capacity it's >> huge. It's also coming on a lot more slowly than had been hoped. >> Buying loads of lithium ion batteries and wiring them up is much more >> predictable process than digging tunnels though rock. >> >>> It has absolutely no ability to keep a solar grid up overnight, or >>> wind grid operational in a flat calm. >> >> If it were big enough, it would. In practice, part of the industrial >> electricity market is flexible and you seem to be able to negotiate >> your way through the occasional period of flat calm. >> >>> And NONE of this gets figured into the PUBLISHED CLAIMS about wind >>> costs, since no wind farm meet the cost of any of it. >> >> Not that you can cite any such published claim. >> >>> Consumers do instead, >> >> More unsubstantiated ignorant assertions. You seem to have adopted >> Donald Trump's debating style of inventing your "facts" as you go >> along. >> >> -- >> Bill Sloman, Sydney > > Technology will arrive where the nuclear waste can be transported to the > sun. Are you aware of the mechanics involved ? I take it from the fact you suggested it you aren't.