World wide the amount of coal burned might not go down significantly
However over a course of 20 to 50 years coal burning will go down as close to zero as possible.
Germany wants to phase out coal till 2030, if the greens get their way, or till 2050 if the CDU/CSU get their way.
It is only a matter of few years and then wind and solar are in any respect cheaper than coal
so Verizon is technically correct
No they are not.
For watching a video that needs something like 1.5 Mbps bandwidth, on a line that already has 50 Mbps increasing that to 75 makes no difference at all.
Exactly the same
30 feet doesn't offer enough height to do anything.
Ofc it does. The hight is irrelevant if you have enough water.
Hint: check how tidal plants work
I would not believe all the nonsense you hear.
Germany is going to bankrupt itself trying... The cost of power there is already stupid high and it will only go higher.
It is not. Compared to our surrounding countries it is pretty on par, and since about 2 years power prices are dropping due to super cheap renewable power.
BTW, how much natural gas does Germany import from Russia? Isn't that part of the geo-political problem there?
A lot. But no it is no geo political problem. The geo political problem is a few 1000 km more in the east, especially in the Ukraine.
[About new solar power] There of course is great publicity whenever that happens, but you have to look a the numbers.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/...
What percentage of the world's power comes from solar? What was the percentage last year? What will it be next year?
First of all this is irrelevant, as main stream solar is a new thing. Obviously no one invested much into it 30 or 20 years ago, except germany, So the percentage "of the world" is meaningless.
Run the numbers and you'll find it is a fantasy.
Why don't you do that yourself? You easy figure a new wind plant with the same capacity as a new coal plant is cheaper. Solar is catching up quickly and in a decade or so a new solar plant is cheaper than a coal plant, too.
It takes a LOT of water and a LOT of height to make a LOT of power.
Yes and no. You can trade hight for amount of water and vice versa. It is no difference if I pump 1 gallon of water 100 feet uphill or 100 gallons 1 foot.
You need a lot more than a 100ft elevation
The actual elevation is irrelevant.
Hence there is plenty of space to build pumped storage. The reason why those places are not used are plenty:
o no need for pumped storage (the main reason, all developed nations already have enough of it)
o distance to either consumers or producers
o ecological
o general anti position of population
Considering that I still cook and dry the clothes in the summer, heating the water isn't a major user of gas.
Actually I believe it was clear from context that we talked about electricity
So bringing up the cheap gas is a bit of cheating, isn't it?
99% of grid management is done automatically.
The other 1% is only questioning yourself if you rather buy power or produce it yourself.
I worked for grid and power companies
Except for looking at the grid frequency and increase/decrease output of the plants connected to that part of the gird, you don't need to do much. All power plants connected to the grid (sub grid) have a specific role as in producing base power, load following or balancing power.
You know a day in advance which plant has to do what at a certain time in day, unless there is a malfunction. The only plants reacting in seconds are balancing power plants.
There is no complexity involved in that. However as the article you link implies: there is lots of options for improvement and to safe money.
Sigh
Over supply is handled no, not handled
If a piece of equipment is expecting 60Hz and is getting 65Hz or 70Hz it may be damaged. True but extremely unlikely, especially as the frequency wont exceed 61 or 62 Hz. Parts of the grid above that frequency get automatically disconnected from the rest of the grid.
That is a pretty dumb way of looking at it.
It might work in plain old C like that, but in most other languages you get a compiler error.
Locations with plenty of water and a large enough elevation change to matter are actually rare. They exist, and many of them are already being used.
They are neither rare nor used up.
They might be to far away from the next big power plant or city or simply be in another country, but the idea that all areas for pumped storage are used up is imply: nonsense
Computers
Powerplants
Gas and water pipeline Valves
Likely gasoline hoses at gas stations
That was the first 30 seconds thinking about it.
If I was a multi billionaire, or even just a single billionaire, I would set up a non profit organization, call it "Angel O'Spheres earth quake waring network" and fund it for 100 years. That would be my memorial/monument.
Sorry, the money you are talking about is retarded low
Managing a grid is not complex at all.
Building up a new one or adding new plants takes some thinking. But thats it.
No idea why you post so many nonsense about grids and electric power.
How exactly would you use pumped storage when
By building an artificial hill 30 feet high and putting the storage on top of it.
If you already have build 3 artificial lakes it would be a piece of cake, just use the stuf you dug out, and pile it up somewhere.
Man, even the old Egyptians and Chinese could do that!!
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
