Estimated power generation costs

2011-05-25 02:51:03

#151

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
So you didn't cover conservation of momentum then?
Or maybe you can explain what you mean by 'loss via mechanical movement'.
A little thing called "friction." Or didn't they cover that in your mechanical engineering courses? Or are you assuming a lossless flywheel in you world of unicorns and glitter?

Ah, when you say 'mechanical movement' you mean 'friction'. Are you still sure you're an engineer?

As I said already, flywheels aren't very practical, but with roller bearings and an evacuated chamber they aren't bad, a few companies are pursuing them though.

I guess all you smart people know better than ABB.
http://www.abbaustralia.com.au/product/ … 67812.aspx

Jay wrote:
I guess thermodynamics wasn't a requirement.

Maybe if you'd studied it instead of heard about it third hand you wouldn't make statements like

Jay wrote:
Heat dissipates quickly

Still waiting to hear what your degree was.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-05-25 03:02:19)

Fuck Israel

2011-05-25 03:06:46

#152

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Dilbert_X wrote:
So you didn't cover conservation of momentum then?
Or maybe you can explain what you mean by 'loss via mechanical movement'.
A little thing called "friction." Or didn't they cover that in your mechanical engineering courses? Or are you assuming a lossless flywheel in you world of unicorns and glitter?
Ah, when you say 'mechanical movement' you mean 'friction'. Are you still sure you're an engineer?

Yes. Any time you have movement in the real world (ie, not in an "evacuated chamber" ) you have friction, and thus loss of energy.

As I said already, flywheels aren't very practical, but with roller bearings and an evacuated chamber they aren't bad, a few companies are pursuing them though.

I guess all you smart people know better than ABB.
http://www.abbaustralia.com.au/product/ … 67812.aspx

And your source mentions "charge memory" as a problem...which isn't really an issue any longer. Sounds like ABB needs to do its own research into the state of the world in batteries before it starts badmouthing them to tout its own product.

Just stop, Dilbert.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-25 03:12:47

#153

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Stop?

Because you mix up the most basic engineering terms?

Flywheels, with and without evacuated chambers, are already on the market and in use. Not sure what point you're making really.

http://www.northernriversit.com/article … b97f0c0580

New York to Have First Flywheel-Based Energy Storage System
Beacon Power Corporation recently start construction of the world's first 20MW flywheel energy storage plant in Stephentown, New York after it received a US43 million loan guarantee from U.S. Department of Energy. According to the company, their flywheel electricity storage systems will provide efficient, frequency regulation services to help maintain and improve stability of the New York mains power grid and also allow greater use of solar and wind energy..

The working principle of this system is not so complicated. It works by accelerating a flywheel ( the rotor) to very high speeds and keeping the energy in the system as rotational energy, which is converted back to electricity by slowing down the flywheel.

When is too much electricity on the grid, the flywheel batteries will absorb it and when there's not enough will use it by injecting the energy back into the mains grid. Beacon Power Corporation states that 30 to 50MW of fast response electricity storage can be expected to generate the same regulation effect as a combustion turbine of 100MW.

The company also said that by the end of this year, 4MW storage flywheel batteries at the plant is expected to be online and the rest of 16MW to be available by the first quarter of 2011

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-05-25 03:15:47)

Fuck Israel

2011-05-25 03:14:53

#154

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6238|...

Well conservation of energy using a flywheel in a vacuum should work reasonably but I don't think anyone is interested in constructing thousands of huge flywheels in 'evacuated chambers'.... doesn't seem practical or really feasible economically.

inane little opines

2011-05-25 03:16:45

#155

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Apparently constructing thousands of wind turbines is fine though.

Really, each wind turbine should be coupled to some form of energy storage.

Nice that we've gone from impossible, to feasible to demonstrated in just a few posts

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-05-25 03:18:12)

Fuck Israel

2011-05-25 03:18:52

#156

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6238|...

Ideally yes but that's also going to up the cost of using the wind turbines once more while on the other hand you can simply have a continuous process that delivers energy 24/7 directly.

inane little opines

2011-05-25 03:21:00

#157

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
Stop?

Because you mix up the most basic engineering terms?

Flywheels, with and without evacuated chambers, are already on the market and in use. Not sure what point you're making really.

http://www.northernriversit.com/article … b97f0c0580
New York to Have First Flywheel-Based Energy Storage System
Beacon Power Corporation recently start construction of the world

When have I "mixed up the most basic engineering terms"? Quick answer: I haven't.

I never said they weren't in use, Dilbert. You said they were better options than batteries, I'm arguing that they aren't, due to the mechanical loss realized in energy transfer both ways. It's probably an argument that they had when they decided on that particular project, and simply got a subsidy or something to weigh in on the flywheel's favor, cost-wise, over the long-term in order to showcase the technology.

Nice that we've gone from impossible, to feasible to demonstrated in just a few posts

Nobody ever said any of those things about your precious, either. We were arguing over the efficacy of the various storage methods.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-25 03:21:05

#158

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

However most countries don't need the same level of power 24/7.

Coal plants run at very low efficiencies at night for example, storage would help them too, it would also help with peak consumption damping.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-05-25 03:23:29)

Fuck Israel

2011-05-25 03:21:45

#159

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
When have I "mixed up the most basic engineering terms"? Quick answer: I haven't.

Mechanical movement =/= Friction

FEOS wrote:
I never said they weren't in use, Dilbert. You said they were better options than batteries, I'm arguing that they aren't, due to the mechanical loss realized in energy transfer both ways. It's probably an argument that they had when they decided on that particular project, and simply got a subsidy or something to weigh in on the flywheel's favor, cost-wise, over the long-term in order to showcase the technology.

Who is using batteries?
If their technology is better why didn't they get the subsidy?

Batteries have losses as well.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-05-25 03:22:54)

Fuck Israel

2011-05-25 03:23:01

#160

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
When have I "mixed up the most basic engineering terms"? Quick answer: I haven't.
Mechanical movement =/= Friction

On earth mechanical movement = friction, Dilbert.

ffs.

Did you even take engineering courses?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-25 03:25:36

#161

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

No, mechanical movement = mechanical movement. There may or may not be losses, on of which can be friction - which can be so trivial as to not be worth worrying about.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-05-25 03:26:08)

Fuck Israel

2011-05-25 03:30:01

#162

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6238|...

Dilbert_X wrote:
However most countries don't need the same level of power 24/7.

Coal plants run at very low efficiencies at night for example, storage would help them too, it would also help with peak consumption damping.

Don't they simply adjust production of energy in those plants at night to correspond with consumption? That being possible and all

Dilbert_X wrote:
No, mechanical movement = mechanical movement. There may or may not be losses, on of which can be friction - which can be so trivial as to not be worth worrying about.

Unless you're in space you always have friction

Last edited by Shocking (2011-05-25 03:30:42)

inane little opines

2011-05-25 03:30:39

#163

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
No, mechanical movement = mechanical movement. There may or may not be losses, on of which can be friction - which can be so trivial as to not be worth worrying about.

Unless you're using superconducting materials or some other cosmic shit...there will be friction. And it will rob energy from the equation.

When you're looking at short-term things like driving a car from point a to point b, it can be something "not worth worrying about." But when you're talking about producing, storing, and transmitting electricity for use, every loss must be taken into account, no matter how "trivial" someone like you thinks it is. Because every portion of every volt/amp lost is revenue lost to those who have paid for the infrastructure to generate, store, and transmit the energy to the customer.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-25 03:37:06

#164

Shocking: sorry you feel that way; +333|6238|...

FEOS wrote:
Unless you're using superconducting materials or some other cosmic shit...there will be friction. And it will rob energy from the equation.

When you're looking at short-term things like driving a car from point a to point b, it can be something "not worth worrying about." But when you're talking about producing, storing, and transmitting electricity for use, every loss must be taken into account, no matter how "trivial" someone like you thinks it is. Because every portion of every volt/amp lost is revenue lost to those who have paid for the infrastructure to generate, store, and transmit the energy to the customer.

Exactly, and that lost revenue will translate itself to the customer by an increase in price for energy.

In chemical engineering a 1 cent price increase can translate to millions of euros/dollars lost for a company using a continuous (or even just batch) process in a factory.

Every factory will pack their stuff and leave, which translates to economic loss for the entire country. It's just one more reason to move to China/India etc.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-05-25 03:45:17)

inane little opines

2011-05-25 05:11:24

#165

Spark: liquid fluoride thorium reactor; +874|6914|Canberra, AUS

Dilbert_X wrote:
No, mechanical movement = mechanical movement. There may or may not be losses, on of which can be friction - which can be so trivial as to not be worth worrying about.

wtf?!

The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
^{~ Richard Feynman}

2011-05-25 05:44:16

#166

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:
Don't they simply adjust production of energy in those plants at night to correspond with consumption? That being possible and all

Of course, but at any output other than the maximum they run at reduced efficiency, and can't be turned off entirely, hence most countries have night tariffs to try to encourage people to use electricity when they don't really need to, for example in storage or water heaters - oops they're unpossible because 'heat dissipates quickly'.

Unless you're in space you always have friction

Of course, every system has friction or other losses, does that mean everything is impossible and there is no point thinking beyond the status quo?

Fuck Israel

2011-05-25 05:50:20

#167

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Unless you're using superconducting materials or some other cosmic shit...there will be friction. And it will rob energy from the equation.

So?

When you're looking at short-term things like driving a car from point a to point b, it can be something "not worth worrying about." But when you're talking about producing, storing, and transmitting electricity for use, every loss must be taken into account, no matter how "trivial" someone like you thinks it is. Because every portion of every volt/amp lost is revenue lost to those who have paid for the infrastructure to generate, store, and transmit the energy to the customer.

How is friction in driving a car trivial? It eats a huge proportion of the energy used and the user pays throught the nose for it, but losses in the electrical distribution system suddenly aren't?

Energy storage would raise the efficiency of the overall energy system, reduce the spend on conventional generating infrastructure, and allow greater use of renewable inputs.

Protip: If you're concerned about efficiency and losses change to a 240V domestic system - you'll see efficiency gains and need much less copper infrastrucure in your home

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-05-25 05:56:03)

Fuck Israel

2011-05-25 12:57:57

#168

menzo: ̏̏̏̏̏̏̏̏&#; +616|6685|Amsterdam‫

the US can improve their efficiency by finally getting 230V 50Hz mains power

https://i231.photobucket.com/albums/ee37/menzo2003/fredbf2.png

2011-05-25 13:18:25

#169

Jay: Bork! Bork! Bork!; +2,006|5597|London, England

menzo wrote:
the US can improve their efficiency by finally getting 230V 50Hz mains power

You want to pay to have everyone replace their appliances, computers and everything else? No? Didn't think so. Don't be a Dilbert.

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

2011-05-25 13:22:14

#170

Winston_Churchill: Bazinga!; +521|6978|Toronto | Canada

menzo wrote:
the US can improve their efficiency by finally getting 230V 50Hz mains power

they should switch to metric first

2011-05-26 02:48:03

#171

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Unless you're using superconducting materials or some other cosmic shit...there will be friction. And it will rob energy from the equation.
So?
When you're looking at short-term things like driving a car from point a to point b, it can be something "not worth worrying about." But when you're talking about producing, storing, and transmitting electricity for use, every loss must be taken into account, no matter how "trivial" someone like you thinks it is. Because every portion of every volt/amp lost is revenue lost to those who have paid for the infrastructure to generate, store, and transmit the energy to the customer.
How is friction in driving a car trivial? It eats a huge proportion of the energy used and the user pays throught the nose for it, but losses in the electrical distribution system suddenly aren't?

Energy storage would raise the efficiency of the overall energy system, reduce the spend on conventional generating infrastructure, and allow greater use of renewable inputs.

Protip: If you're concerned about efficiency and losses change to a 240V domestic system - you'll see efficiency gains and need much less copper infrastrucure in your home

Of course energy storage as a general idea would. Nobody's arguing that point. Don't pretend that we are. You were arguing that a flywheel on a solar panel system made sense as a storage system. It doesn't.

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-26 03:58:47

#172

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

FEOS wrote:
Of course energy storage as a general idea would. Nobody's arguing that point. Don't pretend that we are. You were arguing that a flywheel on a solar panel system made sense as a storage system. It doesn't.

Thats where you're wrong, it only needs to store the energy for a few hours, to fill the time between the sun going down and people going to sleep.

Otherwise, as I said already, there are other more practical ways of storing energy for longer periods.

Winston_Churchill wrote:
they should switch to metric first

Not going to happen, they remember their Imperial past too fondly, I'm just surprised they made it to AC.

Fuck Israel

2011-05-26 04:18:11

#173

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6650|'Murka

Dilbert_X wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Of course energy storage as a general idea would. Nobody's arguing that point. Don't pretend that we are. You were arguing that a flywheel on a solar panel system made sense as a storage system. It doesn't.
Thats where you're wrong, it only needs to store the energy for a few hours, to fill the time between the sun going down and people going to sleep.

Otherwise, as I said already, there are other more practical ways of storing energy for longer periods.

And that's where you're wrong. Do you honestly think your home/business doesn't need power after you go to sleep?

“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular

2011-05-26 05:47:30

#174

Dilbert_X: The X stands for; +1,815|6345|eXtreme to the maX

Its very little compared with what they consume during the day.

Also, peak solar generation precedes peak consumption by 2-3 hours typically. Another reason storage is useful.

Fuck Israel

2011-05-26 09:20:22

#175

Cheeky_Ninja06: Member; +52|6971|Cambridge, England

Dilbert_X wrote:
Its very little compared with what they consume during the day.

What light pollution? Security systems, Servers, refrigeration, ventilation, god knows what else.

BF2S Forums Estimated power generation costs

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Shocking wrote:

FEOS wrote:

menzo wrote:

menzo wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Winston_Churchill wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

Board footer