poweralert....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sinbad said:
UK average figures disagree with you.
Gas is the biggest single method of generation.

17478adefe6a4829d76e18275944e767.jpg
Click to expand...
Was actually just looking at that site :)
Doesn't disagree... They are GAS. Gas is not baseload. It switches on and off quickly.

The UK is using gas as a transition with wind as their renewable. There are days when they don't use much gas.

It's actually what I am advocating in SA, but with solar AND wind, and with gas or diesel as CCGT, and hydro storage and don't be stupid like Germany and keep the old nuclear running.
It's actually the cheapest way to do it nowadays.
 
richjdavies said:
For every now and then yes... You're getting it now.

Like using desalination plants for your water... Every now and then, when it didn't rain for 6 months...
Crazy to be burning toxic fuels when you get energy basically for free from the sun and wind!
Click to expand...

Draw a line across the bottom of the troughs on the Eskom demand graphs, there is your base load requirement.

Using peaking plants (OCGT's) to provide that amount of energy isn't efficient. Nuclear is the way if you don't want a significant carbon footprint. The nice thing about steam turning turbines is that the generators are readily scalable should that base load change, like during the winter
 
Segg said:
Draw a line across the bottom of the troughs on the Eskom demand graphs, there is your base load requirement.

Using peaking plants (OCGT's) to provide that amount of energy isn't efficient. Nuclear is the way if you don't want a significant carbon footprint. The nice thing about steam turning turbines is that the generators are readily scalable should that base load change, like during the winter
Click to expand...
No... The sun and wind can do that bit too, with help now and then from expensive means when they aren't working (the 5% of the time issue)
 
richjdavies said:
And strangely no load shedding just talk of it?

UK has had weeks powered with no coal at all and lots and lots of wind (and a bit of nuclear). Yes they prepared for it building a large amount of gas peaker plants -- to run when they need it, but most of the time it's switched off...
www.economist.com

Why Britain is a world leader in offshore wind

Its wind farms are key to the country’s net-zero hopes
www.economist.com www.economist.com

I'll do another water analogy. It's like watering your trees with rain.
The base loaders would say "oooohh noooo we need to water it with 400L municipal connection every day". I'd say, let the free rain water it most of the time and when it doesn't rain as much, then we use the pricey stuff. Flip for all the time theres no solar, wind or tidal for serious amount of time, you could burn diesel like Eskom and still be miles ahead!
Click to expand...
Here is a better analogy for you.

You have 1 worker he only charges 100 dollars a day, but he only works when he feels like it. So now you need another worker there to do the same job but he's 300 a day, now you keep him on standby as the first guy can do half a day and you'll still pay him 100 dollars, plus you'll still need to pay the 300 dollar guy. You'll probably have to pay a standby fee as well.
So no renewables are not free or cheap. One day maybe
 
  • Like
Reactions: Yuu
richjdavies said:
And...
To produce the 20,000GWh per month SA uses would need about 133GW of solar.
20,000GWh / 30 days = 660GWh/day
(i.e. 27GW is it was flat line - feels high?)

660GWh / 5 KWp/KWh = 133GW solar

1msqm = 200W give or take (1kW radiation per Sqm x 20% efficiency)

So 133,000,000KW / 0.2 = back to 660,000,000sqm

That would need 660m Sqm of panels... Which sounds a lot but that's only 660sqkm... I.e. a square 25km by 25km...

(Is that right?)
Click to expand...
There's no infrastructure, that requires a lot of expensive infrastructure to get it where it needs to be.
 
richjdavies said:
No... The sun and wind can do that bit too, with help now and then from expensive means when they aren't working (the 5% of the time issue)
Click to expand...
No the sun and wind cannot do that and ends up costing us the consumers more
 
richjdavies said:
Was actually just looking at that site :)
Doesn't disagree... They are GAS. Gas is not baseload. It switches on and off quickly.

The UK is using gas as a transition with wind as their renewable. There are days when they don't use much gas.

It's actually what I am advocating in SA, but with solar AND wind, and with gas or diesel as CCGT, and hydro storage and don't be stupid like Germany and keep the old nuclear running.
It's actually the cheapest way to do it nowadays.
Click to expand...
We don't have shallow offshore sea to install thousands of turbines though and I sure as hell don't want thousands of turbines all over the landscape.
 
Lupus said:
No the sun and wind cannot do that and ends up costing us the consumers more
Click to expand...
Used to be true. Not true anymore.
If you need to build new -- it will cost less to do it the renewables + peaker way than it will the base load way.

SA is in that situation. It needs new generation.
 
wingnut771 said:
We don't have shallow offshore sea to install thousands of turbines though and I sure as hell don't want thousands of turbines all over the landscape.
Click to expand...
Huh? Why not...
You're fine with huge areas of Mpumpulanga scorched earth with breathing and ash deaths and coal trucks killing people...
 
Lupus said:
Here is a better analogy for you.

You have 1 worker he only charges 100 dollars a day, but he only works when he feels like it. So now you need another worker there to do the same job but he's 300 a day, now you keep him on standby as the first guy can do half a day and you'll still pay him 100 dollars, plus you'll still need to pay the 300 dollar guy. You'll probably have to pay a standby fee as well.
So no renewables are not free or cheap. One day maybe
Click to expand...
Close. You only pay the 100 dollar guy when he delivers useful work and you can pay the 300 dollar guy by the minute and he doesn't mind.

And you're arguing I need a 200 dollar guy who I have to pay 24/7 and takes 2 weeks to roll on and off his shift :)
 
Lupus said:
There's no infrastructure, that requires a lot of expensive infrastructure to get it where it needs to be.
Click to expand...
Same for any new coal plant or new Karpowership too.

"I need wires" is the same for any new power plant anywhere.
 
richjdavies said:
Close. You only pay the 100 dollar guy when he delivers useful work and you can pay the 300 dollar guy by the minute and he doesn't mind.

And you're arguing I need a 200 dollar guy who I have to pay 24/7 and takes 2 weeks to roll on and off his shift :)
Click to expand...
No you're paying the 100 dollar guy all the time as he's got to be there, but you're also got to be sure to be able to pay the 300 dollar guy as well.
The work doesn't stop because the 100 dollar guy does.
 
Lupus said:
No you're paying the 100 dollar guy all the time as he's got to be there, but you're also got to be sure to be able to pay the 300 dollar guy as well.
The work doesn't stop because the 100 dollar guy does.
Click to expand...
You don't pay for power by the MW you pay by the MWh...

So no. You do pay the 100 dollar a day actually by how much we outputs (looks at all the REIPPS... Paid for output not capacity).
The 300 dollar per day guy is peaker plant. The whole point is your aiming to use him less... Overtime as your build. Peaker plants do need maintenance yes, so maybe you need to pay him a 30/day allowance even if he doesn't work

Still much cheaper than the slow moving 200 a day dude who you still have to pay on Christmas week when you don't want anything produced... And all night long. And he takes unscheduled months off, so you still need the 300 / day to cover those times too! Base load mentality when there isn't a "base demand" is just being used to the old way, no real logic behind it just feelings and resistance to change.
 
Last edited:
zolly said:
They reduced their 2,000MW buffer?
Click to expand...

I also noticed that. Must have strict instruction not to go higher but if something else fails its going to be a big jump.
 
richjdavies said:
You don't pay for power by the MW you pay by the MWh...

So no. You do pay the 100 dollar a day actually by how much we outputs (looks at all the REIPPS... Paid for output not capacity).
The 300 dollar per day guy is peaker plant. The whole point is your aiming to use him less... Overtime as your build. Peaker plants do need maintenance yes, so maybe you need to pay him a 30/day allowance even if he doesn't work

Still much cheaper than the slow moving 200 a day dude who you still have to pay on Christmas week when you don't want anything produced... And all night long.
Click to expand...
The infrastructure didn't just appear by magic also the consumer pays for them all at the end of the day as the power company builds the buffer into its fees.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Yuu
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X