Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Point out news stories, on the net or in mainstream media, related to polywell fusion.

Moderators: tonybarry, MSimon

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby happyjack27 » Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:31 pm

Yeah, that's part of why I said "REALLY?", because of the overt flame-baiting, among other things. I think we're done, though. As always, science and reason prevailed. Nothing to report, here.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby KitemanSA » Wed Jan 29, 2014 10:22 pm

happyjack27 wrote:
KitemanSA wrote:
swamijake wrote:Today the cheapest form of new generation is wind.
Only if you are allowed to externalize all the system costs.
could you expand on that? What do you mean by "externalize"? What are the "system costs"? How do those things for wind energy compare to same for other energy sources?
The system is required to provide electricity to all at the flip of a switch whenever THEY (the customers) want it. Since wind cannot do that, even marginally, there must be all sorts of other generation capacity to provide that capability to the customers. The value of a generation asset to the system equals the portion of the nameplate capacity of the asset that can reliably be used to provide the total capacity demanded by the customers. That value is called the "capacity credit (CC)". The externalized cost is basically the cost to the system of what is needed to provide that capability. It is (1-CC) times the cost of the system that needs to back up the asset, or 1/CC times the cost of the asset, which ever is lower. Since the CC for wind is in the low single digit percentages, the eternalized cost is basically the cost of the rest of the system that is needed to provide reliable back-up. Oh by the way, it is not just the capital cost but the added fuel and O&M costs too. So if including wind in the system necessitates the use of less efficient back-up sources, the added fuel costs are included in externalized cost.

Which leads to the question... if wind requires full capacity back-up, why bother with wind at all? Can you say pay-offs?

swamijake
Posts: 26
Joined: Tue Oct 01, 2013 4:09 pm
Location: Vancouver, B.C.

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby swamijake » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:42 pm

Sorry, but you are drastically wrong. Wind until the system hits about 30% of system capacity is the cheapest form of new installed energy. Full system cost included. After 30% you run into challenges with frequency stability and balancing that require more expensive additions, but take a look at North America and show me the market that is nearing 30% installed capacity? A new Natural Gas build requires about $65 a MWh or a substantial capacity payment. No one is building new coal but if you did it would need about 75 to 80$ due to equipment required for Mercury control (sorbent injection and electrostatic precipitator, sulfur control is established and cheap) no one really knows for Nukes as the capital costs are a crap shoot, solar in the south west needs about $85, more with out tax credits, wind PPA's with tax credits are being signed at $23 a MWh. That tax credit has expired so new PPAs will be about 45-50$ a MWh. That price includes the wind farm paying for their interconnection, transmission build, system balancing charges and transmission services. If you aren't actively involved in the Utility sector as a developer or market participant, you really have no idea what you are talking about. I look at full financial models of this stuff every day. As for the other nonsense in this thread, I suggest it is time for this thread to die until there is an actual update in the Project Tracker.

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby Tom Ligon » Wed Jan 29, 2014 11:49 pm

To answer the question in your bottom line, to cut down fuel costs, of course.

I'm running solar heat and hot water at my WV cabin. During spring, fall, and summer I have as much hot water as I want about 90% of the time. During winter I at least get pre-heating to a useful extent. The rest of the time a small electric point-of-use HWH makes up the difference.

The capital equipment cost of needing two systems is the pain, but fuel savings can be worthwhile. And the sensible approach (which nobody on either side seems to consider these days) is to make decisions as to the value of a given system purely on economic grounds. Does it make economic sense or not?




[quote="KitemanSAWhich leads to the question... if wind requires full capacity back-up, why bother with wind at all? Can you say pay-offs?[/quote]

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby happyjack27 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:02 am

Kiteman, one word: batteries.

Current chemical battery technology is yes, unsuitable for this application, due to the very high load and capacity and most of all charge/discharge rate. But the energy can be stored by differently means, such as kinetically. The only real theoretical bottlenecks are entropy and material wear.

And as mentioned above, even without batteries; even without being able to store the surplus efficiently for later use, you still have a reduction in fuel consumption. At most battery technology can only double that (speaking in the aggregate, of course).

Now any external system costs such as transmission you can cancel out, because all energy sources share this. I know it's not that simple, since costs grow linearly with distance, but generally speaking, we're going to be near a statistical break-even. On frequency regulation, however, I'm not going to diminish that, and I'll put that into the cost associated with the energy provider. If you're not 60 hertz on the grid, you're losing energy at the end point. And the energy at the end point is what you're worth ( the cost of transmission being handled by supply and demand forces).

So that, in my mind, is a counterpoint to wind an solar that stands: the cost of making sure you get a 60hz signalust be absorbed by the energy supplier, or at least divide out proportionally ( since he law of large numbers will reduce the aggregate effect).


Having said that, fuel is still a finite resource as compared to wind and solar. As such it's supply/demand ratio is bound to increase in proportion to both and increasing demand and decreasing supply, while wind and solar supply/demand ratio will increase in proportion to demand, but the supply will remain relatively constant.

Which tells you that, purely from a greedy perspective, futures in non-Renewables are the better investment. :D

ladajo
Posts: 6204
Joined: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:18 pm
Location: North East Coast

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby ladajo » Thu Jan 30, 2014 12:54 am

Sorry Bert, no news. But I would expect some soon. It would seem to be time.
The development of atomic power, though it could confer unimaginable blessings on mankind, is something that is dreaded by the owners of coal mines and oil wells. (Hazlitt)
What I want to do is to look up C. . . . I call him the Forgotten Man. (Sumner)

93143
Posts: 1131
Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 7:51 pm

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby 93143 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 1:02 am

If this keeps going, maybe it does deserve its own thread - though I'm not sure it'd accomplish much. I feel like I'm trying to stop a river with a frying pan, but it had to be said.

happyjack27 wrote:
93143 wrote:You do not get to declare your opponent's position unreasonable without saying why, and it doesn't much matter what that position is. That's not how rational discourse works.

The reason, of course, is that if someone else can strongly hold an erroneous opinion, so can you - and if you can't explain why you're right, you might very well not be.

Actually rational discourse works this way: the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim.

A claim that is extraordinary to you may not be to someone whose data set and biases differ from yours. You still don't get to ridicule it without saying why.

The saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is very easy to misunderstand and misuse. The usual interpretation (as seen on the internet, at least) is not philosophically sound and tends to reinforce intellectual bigotry.

his rejection of science lost him all his credibility.

This is a blatant false (or at least unsupported) equivalence, and I can't help but think you're aware of this fact.

you can start with providing evidence for the most extraordinary premise (since an argument can be no stronger than its weakest premise): industry has been destroyed. Ready, go...)

He already did that. You weren't listening.

You may not like his evidence, but if you're going to reject it you have to say why. (No, a false equivalence deliberately employed for rhetorical purposes doesn't count...)

Furthermore, I'm not supporting his argument. I'm criticizing your behaviour, and by implication that of everyone else who argues like you do.

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby happyjack27 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:03 am

93143 wrote:If this keeps going, maybe it does deserve its own thread - though I'm not sure it'd accomplish much. I feel like I'm trying to stop a river with a frying pan, but it had to be said.

happyjack27 wrote:
93143 wrote:You do not get to declare your opponent's position unreasonable without saying why, and it doesn't much matter what that position is. That's not how rational discourse works.

The reason, of course, is that if someone else can strongly hold an erroneous opinion, so can you - and if you can't explain why you're right, you might very well not be.

Actually rational discourse works this way: the burden of proof lies with the person making the extraordinary claim.

A claim that is extraordinary to you may not be to someone whose data set and biases differ from yours. You still don't get to ridicule it without saying why.

The saying "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is very easy to misunderstand and misuse. The usual interpretation (as seen on the internet, at least) is not philosophically sound and tends to reinforce intellectual bigotry.

his rejection of science lost him all his credibility.

This is a blatant false (or at least unsupported) equivalence, and I can't help but think you're aware of this fact.

you can start with providing evidence for the most extraordinary premise (since an argument can be no stronger than its weakest premise): industry has been destroyed. Ready, go...)

He already did that. You weren't listening.

You may not like his evidence, but if you're going to reject it you have to say why. (No, a false equivalence deliberately employed for rhetorical purposes doesn't count...)

Furthermore, I'm not supporting his argument. I'm criticizing your behaviour, and by implication that of everyone else who argues like you do.


Like I said, I think we're done here. As always, science and reason have prevailed.

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby happyjack27 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 2:14 am

ladajo wrote:Sorry Bert, no news. But I would expect some soon. It would seem to be time.


Has it really been two years now? I think we're all wondering what the hold up is. But end the year reporting period I would think would come soon. Failing that, what are the possible causes?

choff
Posts: 2432
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby choff » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:08 am

I'm hoping some day General Fusion has an open house and allows camera's, since I work around the Burnaby office all the time. As mentioned, using Kerrick makes coal a heck of a lot less messy, but you still need the oil and other byproducts even with fusion, Iran and Iraq are set to up production so it won't matter regardless.

Wind turbines and solar will always have their niche.
CHoff

choff
Posts: 2432
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 5:02 am
Location: Vancouver, Canada

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby choff » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:08 am

I'm hoping some day General Fusion has an open house and allows camera's, since I work around the Burnaby office all the time. As mentioned, using Kerrick makes coal a heck of a lot less messy, but you still need the oil and other byproducts even with fusion, Iran and Iraq are set to up production so it won't matter regardless.

Wind turbines and solar will always have their niche.
CHoff

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby happyjack27 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:23 am

"In an online debate, someone will eventually say something like 'people have a right to believe whatever they want.' That will signal that the debate is over and that person has lost." - Phelps' Law
Last edited by happyjack27 on Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:28 am, edited 1 time in total.

KitemanSA
Posts: 6114
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 3:05 pm
Location: OlyPen WA

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby KitemanSA » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:23 am

Tom Ligon wrote:To answer the question in your bottom line, to cut down fuel costs, of course.

I'm running solar heat and hot water at my WV cabin.
KitemanSA wrote: Which leads to the question... if wind requires full capacity back-up, why bother with wind at all? Can you say pay-offs?
Tom, the issue is wind, not solar thermal. Solar thermal is often useful in that the technology matches the need quite nicely. For wind, there are situations where the fuel costs go UP when you add wind turbines. But indeed the only plausible reason to install wind is to lower fuel usage, but that value stream is typically quite low so the installed cost needs to be that much lower to make it worthwhile.

happyjack27
Posts: 1435
Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby happyjack27 » Thu Jan 30, 2014 3:31 am

KitemanSA wrote:
Tom Ligon wrote:To answer the question in your bottom line, to cut down fuel costs, of course.

I'm running solar heat and hot water at my WV cabin.
KitemanSA wrote: Which leads to the question... if wind requires full capacity back-up, why bother with wind at all? Can you say pay-offs?
Tom, the issue is wind, not solar thermal. Solar thermal is often useful in that the technology matches the need quite nicely. For wind, there are situations where the fuel costs go UP when you add wind turbines. But indeed the only plausible reason to install wind is to lower fuel usage, but that value stream is typically quite low so the installed cost needs to be that much lower to make it worthwhile.


Okay. So it seems to me the question is: what time frame are we considering, when talking about amortization of costs? And does it really make sense, when you do the math in that time frame?

Tom Ligon
Posts: 1871
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2007 1:23 am
Location: Northern Virginia
Contact:

Re: Recovery.Gov Project Tracker

Postby Tom Ligon » Mon Feb 03, 2014 1:45 am

KitemanSA wrote: Tom, the issue is wind, not solar thermal. Solar thermal is often useful in that the technology matches the need quite nicely. For wind, there are situations where the fuel costs go UP when you add wind turbines. But indeed the only plausible reason to install wind is to lower fuel usage, but that value stream is typically quite low so the installed cost needs to be that much lower to make it worthwhile.


Yeah, I know it was about wind. I happen to think most wind installations are pretty stupid, not being installed for the economic reasons I cited but because politicians have created artificial incentives to do so. On my scale and at my location, if I thought wind was an intelligent option I'd have gone that way.

I've run into NIMBY arguments before that "wind produces no fossil fuel savings" on the argument that you still need the conventional plants backing them up. I hate to see a bad idea attacked for the wrong reasons, when there are so many better reasons. My observation is, as long as someone else is paying to put them in, the power grids (at least based on the lack of objection from EPRI) are happy to take the small amount of power presently being generated. Also clear that their business model can only handle so much of it without a huge infrastructure and economic overhaul, not presently getting much attention. Widespread customer cogeneration (the popular idea of most people making their meters run backwards at times) would not work quite like the uninformed would like to think.

So I wait impatiently for something that will actually give us what we really want, like Polywells, Tri-Alpha FRC reactors, or Focus Fusion machines on line and cranking out the gigawatts.


Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot] and 23 guests