Scrutable

bjn wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 4:03 pm

IvanV wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 2:08 pm

I was writing just the other day what Britain needs for serious decarb is a large solar farm with large transmission capacity in the NW Sahara. And then I thought that difficult because Spain and France are in the way and not very cooperative about such things. I had thought a direct cable all the way from Morocco a bit unlikely.

Ahem... grumble beat you to it.

I also think I mentioned it in the old place, the insolation available in the Sahara is nuts, doing a back of a fag packet calculation as LPM did coming to a similar conclusion.

The Australians are funding a similar thing from there to Singapore.

What Grumble said was that the long undersea cable to the Sahara looked feasible if one to Norway was. I was addressing instead how desirable it would be if it was possible. The new information is that someone is seriously proposing it, so we have a more concrete basis for supposing it to be feasible.

I'm aware of the proposed Australia-ASEAN Power Link. Sun Cable is Singaporean, not Australian, though the Australians would fund the generation aspect. I recall seeing a call for tender from Sun Cable to advise on it, and we didn't touch it with a bargepole. Every detail you can think of is less promising than a Morocco-UK link. The subsea cable is longer. It's further on land before you get to the sea (why they are proposing to put the generation 800km from Darwin I don't know). It's smaller so there are fewer economies of scale. The places they are exporting to are already very sunny. A major earthquake reshaping the ocean bottom will happen on the line of cable, it's not a question of if but when. You have to twine your cable through the Indonesian islands to avoid any seriously deep bits of sea. You'll also have to be careful to avoid vulcanism around there.

I was somewhat dubious of the Australian thing. There is already a proposal for a combined solar and battery setup close by in Indonesia to supply Singapore. The capex is going to be way cheaper.

But there is all that lovely insolation in NW Australia crying out to be captured.

jimbob wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:33 pm

bjn wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:19 pm

Going back to Ivan, we aren't finished yet on price reductions from either wind, solar or batteries. We won't see another order of magnitude drop over the coming decades, but the prices will still come down regardless of how close the technology is to thermodynamic limits because of things that have nothing to do with thermodynamic efficiencies.

Just looking at wind turbines, power scales with the square of the turbine radius. So doubling the length of the turbine blade gets 4X the power. However, costs of wind turbines don't square as you scale them up, even better, the higher off the ground you are, the more consistent the wind flow, so you get a higher capacity factor. So the larger the turbine, the cheaper will be the electricity it produces, whether it's at the Betz Limit or not. This is why we are seeing monster turbines come out like the Halide-X with blades over 100m. People are continually pushing material science and turbine design to make even bigger beasts. On top of that you have price reductions due to industry learning curves and the cost of capital for operators continuing to drop. It's going to get cheaper. (Nature article, PDF)

Also from the availability of depreciated manufacturing capacity.

Siemens have just announced their next turbine. Up to 15MW, with a 220m rotor and a swept area of 39,000m^2. That’s about 10 acres!

Continuous incremental improvements will get us there.

I must also find the time to reply to Ivan about solar.

bjn wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:33 pm

jimbob wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 7:33 pm

bjn wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 22, 2021 8:19 pm

Going back to Ivan, we aren't finished yet on price reductions from either wind, solar or batteries. We won't see another order of magnitude drop over the coming decades, but the prices will still come down regardless of how close the technology is to thermodynamic limits because of things that have nothing to do with thermodynamic efficiencies.

Just looking at wind turbines, power scales with the square of the turbine radius. So doubling the length of the turbine blade gets 4X the power. However, costs of wind turbines don't square as you scale them up, even better, the higher off the ground you are, the more consistent the wind flow, so you get a higher capacity factor. So the larger the turbine, the cheaper will be the electricity it produces, whether it's at the Betz Limit or not. This is why we are seeing monster turbines come out like the Halide-X with blades over 100m. People are continually pushing material science and turbine design to make even bigger beasts. On top of that you have price reductions due to industry learning curves and the cost of capital for operators continuing to drop. It's going to get cheaper. (Nature article, PDF)

Also from the availability of depreciated manufacturing capacity.

Siemens have just announced their next turbine. Up to 15MW, with a 220m rotor and a swept area of 39,000m^2. That’s about 10 acres!

Continuous incremental improvements will get us there.

I must also find the time to reply to Ivan about solar.

That sounds so nuts I had to run the maths myself. I think I also don’t really know how big an acre is.

I find it really hard to imagine area vertically. Like, I can imagine a field, but I can't imagine a field turned on its side, up a big stick in the sky.

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:16 pm

I find it really hard to imagine area vertically. Like, I can imagine a field, but I can't imagine a field turned on its side, up a big stick in the sky.

It's for offshore, so it'll probably be far away and it'll only look small.

Good luck charging your EV at night with fresh solar power from a place due south.

Er... They can also drink in a charge during the day. They're not vampires you know.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:59 pm

Er... They can also drink in a charge during the day. They're not vampires you know.

You might want to drive it around during the day sometimes.

Er... they spend most of the day dozing in a parking space. They're not rushing around like squirrels you know.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:06 pm

Er... they spend most of the day dozing in a parking space. They're not rushing around like squirrels you know.

Sure. It's going to cost an awful lot to wire up a significant portion of parking spaces with chargers though. All those windswept business parks and underground garages around the country.. that's a lot of work.

It might be easier when they're self-driving so it can just drop you off at work and then go home, or to a nearby rented charger, to charge up. Tesla model 3 can be charged in about 40 minutes from a 440 volt charger, so they can be shared through the day.

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:48 pm

Good luck charging your EV at night with fresh solar power from a place due south.

The 20GWh battery and 3.6GW interconnect will do some of that.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:08 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:06 pm

Er... they spend most of the day dozing in a parking space. They're not rushing around like squirrels you know.

Sure. It's going to cost an awful lot to wire up a significant portion of parking spaces with chargers though. All those windswept business parks and underground garages around the country.. that's a lot of work.

It might be easier when they're self-driving so it can just drop you off at work and then go home, or to a nearby rented charger, to charge up. Tesla model 3 can be charged in about 40 minutes from a 440 volt charger, so they can be shared through the day.

In fact it's easier and more convenient to do a line of regular chargers than a single ultra fast. It's all about the kWh the local electrical system can supply.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:29 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:08 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:06 pm

Er... they spend most of the day dozing in a parking space. They're not rushing around like squirrels you know.

Sure. It's going to cost an awful lot to wire up a significant portion of parking spaces with chargers though. All those windswept business parks and underground garages around the country.. that's a lot of work.

It might be easier when they're self-driving so it can just drop you off at work and then go home, or to a nearby rented charger, to charge up. Tesla model 3 can be charged in about 40 minutes from a 440 volt charger, so they can be shared through the day.

In fact it's easier and more convenient to do a line of regular chargers than a single ultra fast. It's all about the kWh the local electrical system can supply.

Okay. What do you think it will cost to give daytime cover, say, 25% of the people who currently drive to work in the UK?

Grumble wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:53 pm

That sounds so nuts I had to run the maths myself. I think I also don’t really know how big an acre is.

An American football field, or the smallest legal soccer field, is just over one acre. An average soccer field is closer to 1.75 acres.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:59 pm

Er... They can also drink in a charge during the day. They're not vampires you know.

Indeed. And I expect that for office workers, it's much easier to have the company car park charge everyone's cars than to try to arrange charging at employee's homes, where they may not have a private parking space. It's also much more efficient to install 100 charging points in one car park than to go around to 100 houses and install one charger in each.

Home chargers aren’t particularly expensive when compared to a car. £300 for a 7kW CCS charge point, plus wiring. Given the money you’d save by charging at home on domestic rates, as opposed to charging at retail rates, if you can do it, you should.

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:22 pm

sTeamTraen wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 10:48 pm

Good luck charging your EV at night with fresh solar power from a place due south.

The 20GWh battery and 3.6GW interconnect will do some of that.

And wind turbines, and Norwegian hydro, and the ever diminishing quantities of gas we burn.

EVs are way more efficient than ICEs, you can charge them for near 100% coal and they still emit less CO2.

dyqik wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 29, 2021 12:53 am

Grumble wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 9:53 pm

That sounds so nuts I had to run the maths myself. I think I also don’t really know how big an acre is.

An American football field, or the smallest legal soccer field, is just over one acre. An average soccer field is closer to 1.75 acres.

Or, if you divided the UK up equally, we’d have about an acre each.

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:33 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:29 pm

sheldrake wrote: ↑

Tue Sep 28, 2021 11:08 pm

Sure. It's going to cost an awful lot to wire up a significant portion of parking spaces with chargers though. All those windswept business parks and underground garages around the country.. that's a lot of work.

It might be easier when they're self-driving so it can just drop you off at work and then go home, or to a nearby rented charger, to charge up. Tesla model 3 can be charged in about 40 minutes from a 440 volt charger, so they can be shared through the day.

In fact it's easier and more convenient to do a line of regular chargers than a single ultra fast. It's all about the kWh the local electrical system can supply.

Okay. What do you think it will cost to give daytime cover, say, 25% of the people who currently drive to work in the UK?

Negative. It's a reduction in cost.

Investments that reduce cost still involve spending up front. What do you think that outlay would be, and how long do you think it would take to repay it from the reduced cost (factoring in ongoing maintenance).

It worries me, because nonsense questions like those not only mean you haven't a clue about economics, they also show you know nothing about business.

As a basic introduction, just remember the following: "people like to save money". No, don't worry if this economic principle puzzles you at first. Just keep thinking about "people like to save money" until a glimmer of understanding reaches you. Then, when you feel comfortable with this, we'll move on to more advanced economics. It involves companies and governments so very tricky.

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 29, 2021 8:07 am

It worries me, because nonsense questions like those not only mean you haven't a clue about economics, they also show you know nothing about business.

As a basic introduction, just remember the following: "people like to save money". No, don't worry if this economic principle puzzles you at first. Just keep thinking about "people like to save money" until a glimmer of understanding reaches you. Then, when you feel comfortable with this, we'll move on to more advanced economics. It involves companies and governments so very tricky.

This reply is as stupid as it is rude.

Not all cost savings are worth the investment required. To work that out we have to use numbers.

Try again.

Once you've demonstrated a grasp of the fundamentals, then we'll talk about a more sophisticated thing; 'opportunity cost'.

1985. "Every office worker in the world will have their own personal computer!"

The Sheldrake morons of the day: "How much is that going to cost? Who'll pay for that? How long with it take to repay the investment from the reduced costs (factoring in ongoing maintenance)? I am very intelligent."

lpm wrote: ↑

Wed Sep 29, 2021 9:22 am

1985. "Every office worker in the world will have their own personal computer!"

The Sheldrake morons of the day: "How much is that going to cost? Who'll pay for that? How long with it take to repay the investment from the reduced costs (factoring in ongoing maintenance)? I am very intelligent."

Do you also remember the sinclair c5?

Not everything nerds are excited about is a good idea