Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
For the out-of-band Slashdot experience (mostly headlines), follow us on Twitter, or Facebook. ×

Comment: Re:Logical Enough (Score 1) 213 213

by angel'o'sphere (#50015325) Attached to: Bill Gates Investing $2 Billion In Renewables

Ah, the wiki. Yes. But the wiki is wrong, hence I don't read it :D The article does not even try to use the correct terms, see below, as they are used/defined in the PDF you linked.

E.g. I quote: The spinning reserve is the extra generating capacity that is available by increasing the power output of generators that are already connected to the power system. For most generators, this increase in power output is achieved by increasing the torque applied to the turbine's rotor.[3]
That is not a spinning reserve. That is a simple load following plant.
So, the primary argument that a solar/wind based grid needs more of those 'spinning reserves' can only be considered true if you had a lot of mid range load following plants running with "reserves". (You implied we would need to build new ones)
Which would contradict the fact that we already have a three phase (primary, secondary, tertiary) reserve energy supply.

The PDF explained pretty clear what kind of reserve energies exist. And the name 'reserve' has a specific meaning, it does not mean what laymen think it means. I really doubt a country as advanced as the USA still has "spinning reserves" (in the classical sense, not in the sense the wiki implies). Germany definitely has not!

No, my country doesn't require 'undisrupted power supply' because that's a standard they can't meet.
The 'undisrupted power supply' is not the point. the point is getting back to power quickly and even more important: avoiding that power disruptions happen.
In Europe this is regulated. As I said, no idea about the USA, but I would wonder if it was not.
In other words if a power company plans to feed X GW into the grid, it is required by law to "back that up" with enough reserve power (the way how to do that and which amount fitting to X, is defined in the law).

Comment: Re:Nice but his arguments make not much sense (Score 1) 213 213

by angel'o'sphere (#50015207) Attached to: Bill Gates Investing $2 Billion In Renewables

How are you defining '100% production'? Because I'd be considering demand as well. The optimal point to store is when production is high and demand is low.

This is not happening in a meaningful way. Production of solar energy is high when the demand is high.
You can try to win an argument by pointing out that on certain weekends there might be a surplus.
Nevertheless that is neglectible looking at the over all grid.
Also I really doubt that Hawaii has already enough solar installed that it is physically possible to have a surplus on a very good day. For that your energy production by solar power would beed to be close to 80% of peak demand, minimum. And you would need to have an extraordinary situation where for some strange reason energy demand drops down significantly.

My point is simple: unless you have such situations OFTEN storage is not useful. And storage is certainly not NEEDED.

4. That being said, you can avoid some of the storage issues by installing enough baseload capability, such as nuclear, to cover things like night-time use.
Or you use wind power at night. Problems solved. Facepalm, that again was so easy. Or in case of Hawaii: wave plants.

3. I'm very well aware of the difference between GW and GWh. See where I use the term 'power' for GW, and 'energy' for GWh. With renewables you want to install enough generation to cover the energy needed, and enough storage to cover not just the peak power needs, because you still need enough energy to cover the whole peak that exceeds the power coming from renewables.
This is impossible. Don't you get that? Either there is a peak and you produce more POWER than you need at that peak, or you don't. If you produce less power, you can not store anything. Simple. As long as you do not produce constantly, every day for X hours more than you need at those hours, you can not store X hours of excess energy to use it at another time!!!!!

Comment: Re:Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? (Score 1) 213 213

by angel'o'sphere (#50014457) Attached to: Bill Gates Investing $2 Billion In Renewables

Reactors that can burn it up don't exist.
You mix up spent fuel with waste. A common misconception in the US.

Or show me a reactor that burns nitric acid ...
Or show me one that "burns" zirconium ... that is the main part of the alloy used for fuel rods.

There are none. Pretty simple. The idea you can "burn" real waste is a complete myth. The only thing you can do is build a reactor that hopefully never needs to be emptied as it breeds up more or less all materials put into it, so you avoid "waste" in the first place.
The other thing you can do is to place solids, that means obviously non liquids, into such a reactor. But before that works you need lots of research how to exactly do that.

Ah ... in case you never googled: all thorium reactors I'm aware of failed.

Comment: Re:Logical Enough (Score 1) 213 213

by angel'o'sphere (#50014167) Attached to: Bill Gates Investing $2 Billion In Renewables

Why the hell would the spinning reserves be law? That's an engineering issue, not a legal one.

Because it is law? At least in my country. And I'm pretty sure in your country as well. Or are the energy companies not by law required to guarantee undisrupted power supply for the population?

  You haven't provided a document for me to find a contradiction in.
Why should I? Stuff that does not exist can not be found. You can not proof a negative.

I provided sources saying that spinning reserve is a thing and that the demand for such is generally acknowledged to increase with solar power.
No you did not. The document you posted is about reserve energy. Not about spinning reserves. In fact everything mentioned in it has nothing to do with spinning reserves. Except I missed a half sentence somewhere hence I asked you to point out where that half sentence might be.

Not a citation, not even a definitive statement. Read the documents. What 'spinning reserve' today amounts to isn't an idling generator, but something like running 5 generators at 80% power rather than 4 at 100%
That is wrong. How do you come to that idea?

Comment: Re:Nice but his arguments make not much sense (Score 1) 213 213

by angel'o'sphere (#50014135) Attached to: Bill Gates Investing $2 Billion In Renewables

So why does Fairbanks, AK have their Battery Energy Storage System? To avoid outages, of course
I would ask them? Perhaps they are not connected to a grid and want to be self sufficient? Or they like to test nw technology?

As for renewables, more storage is practically required as renewables start exceeding about 40% of the supply.
No it is not. At which time of the day would you have surplus in such an amount that storing makes sense? There is none. Pretty simple.
What you perhaps mean is that you need more pumped storage to balance the grid when the amount of "undispatchable" renewals increase. But that is in terms of GW not GWh, so it is reaction time and not storage capacity that is needed.

So you install like 110% of the energy needs, and when production exceeds demand you store, and when demand exceeds production you drain. Simple enough. That is exactly what I said. And before you are close to 100% production or even significantly above, storage is *nice to have* but certainly not needed.

Comment: Re:"In cosmic terms, it was a close call." (Score 1) 84 84

Yes, because you claimed that 450,000 miles would be far away. It is not. An asteroid approaching earth makes like 40miles per second.
That means in 3 to 4 hours it has passed that distance.
So relatively speaking it is as close as Paris is to my home town ... 3h travel time.

Comment: Re:What plan? (Score 1) 84 84

Then link the peer reviewed paper, so we can also review it ;D

Essentially every space mission we have launched for the past several decades has had to navigate
Obviously. And obviously a nuclear missile wont be able to do that. That is my point. Just like our space probes you would need decades to get a nuke close enough to an asteroid to have any effect at all.

Comment: Re:Logical Enough (Score 1) 213 213

by angel'o'sphere (#50012927) Attached to: Bill Gates Investing $2 Billion In Renewables

Power Companies maintain something like 2% of the total grid demand as spinning reserves.

Just read the relevant law for that in your jurisdiction :D

And please point out in which part of the document you believe you have found a contradiction. I don't see any.

All the so called reserves in that document btw. are most certainly not "spinning reserves", I doubt that Germany has even a single "spinning reserve" plant in operation. Modern grids don't use that anymore, much to expensive and there are simpler means to have reserve power.

Comment: Re:Nice but his arguments make not much sense (Score 2) 213 213

by angel'o'sphere (#50012863) Attached to: Bill Gates Investing $2 Billion In Renewables

I suggest to reread, what I wrote, and grasp it.

When your production drops below your demand, you need storage

And how do you fill this storage?????

You can only fill it if there is one point, and possibly not a point but a duration, in time where you produce more than you need.

If you are not even close to produce what you need, then you certainly are not producing MORE than you need and then certainly you can not STORE ANYTHING for the time you are so afraid off, hence: before the grid is not close to 100% renewable production you don't need to worry about storage.

So try to grasp it: storage is not for DEMAND, it is to KEEP SURPLUS. We have no surplus yet, so we have nothing to store.

Comment: Re:Renewable versus fossil - where is nuclear? (Score 0) 213 213

by angel'o'sphere (#50012825) Attached to: Bill Gates Investing $2 Billion In Renewables

I di not attack you. Nor did I insult you. Learn to read.

I pointed out that that particular idea, which is not even yours, you picked it up somewhere and find it more trustworthy than simple common sense: that idea is idiotic.

If you want to make an idiot of your self by first spreading idiotic ideas and then claiming to be insulted when I, or someone else, points out that that particular idea is idiotic: than this is your fault. Not mine.

Loan-department manager: "There isn't any fine print. At these interest rates, we don't need it."