4 ms·

> There is inherent waste to .. What has inherent waste to do with your reference to "Rejected Energy" ? What do you now understand of that graphic ? Transmiss

> There is inherent waste to .. What has inherent waste to do with your reference to "Rejected Energy" ? What do you now understand of that graphic ? Transmission losses are generally in the range 5-10% for modern grids. Your interpretation of that ambiguous reference wrongly indicated 66% losses. Thats not reasonable and doesn't support your advice on energy storage. I suggest gaining more familiarity with the general subject before judging it.

godelski 7y ago
The graphic's term for rejected energy includes a multitude of things. Thermodynamic loss is part of it but not all. It was mentioned because it is one of the easiest for people to understand. There has been another link provided that I have already referred you to that includes a more comprehensive breakdown. But yeah you can act all knowledgeable, or you can listen to the group leader of the LLNL staff that put this chart together using the same exact example I used.[0] I, again, will say that this is only a portion of the rejected energy. But thermodynamic loss (i.e. heating wires, heating your ICE engine, etc) is part of that rejected energy. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dlvECRfcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dlvECRfcI
- strainer 7y ago
  I watched the explanation of the chart and it is still ambiguous both what it is, and its purpose. That narrator explains: "Rejected energy is the portion of energy that goes into a process and comes out generally as waste heat" - waste heat is not just as you wrote: "part" of it, it is explained to be "generally" (all of) it. Really neither of us should need to clarify the difference between "part of" and "generally all" So then "rejected energy/waste heat" can not be used or as we are saying here -"accepted" by better battery storage, which was the opinion that you brought this ambiguous chart and presentation to explain. This chart is irrelevant to battery storage. Also, most of the energy in the chart is thermo-electric derived from fossil fuel and nuclear plant. Wind turbines and solar "reject" heat energy in completely different manner and lesser degree than thermo-electric plants - it is truly nonsensical to mix the two together under the vague heading of "rejected". It makes so little sense, I do wonder about the credentials or motivation of this LLNL to educate on energy issues.

godelski 7y ago

The graphic's term for rejected energy includes a multitude of things. Thermodynamic loss is part of it but not all. It was mentioned because it is one of the easiest for people to understand. There has been another link provided that I have already referred you to that includes a more comprehensive breakdown. But yeah you can act all knowledgeable, or you can listen to the group leader of the LLNL staff that put this chart together using the same exact example I used.[0] I, again, will say that this is only a portion of the rejected energy. But thermodynamic loss (i.e. heating wires, heating your ICE engine, etc) is part of that rejected energy. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dlvECRfcI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6dlvECRfcI

strainer 7y ago
I watched the explanation of the chart and it is still ambiguous both what it is, and its purpose. That narrator explains: "Rejected energy is the portion of energy that goes into a process and comes out generally as waste heat" - waste heat is not just as you wrote: "part" of it, it is explained to be "generally" (all of) it. Really neither of us should need to clarify the difference between "part of" and "generally all" So then "rejected energy/waste heat" can not be used or as we are saying here -"accepted" by better battery storage, which was the opinion that you brought this ambiguous chart and presentation to explain. This chart is irrelevant to battery storage. Also, most of the energy in the chart is thermo-electric derived from fossil fuel and nuclear plant. Wind turbines and solar "reject" heat energy in completely different manner and lesser degree than thermo-electric plants - it is truly nonsensical to mix the two together under the vague heading of "rejected". It makes so little sense, I do wonder about the credentials or motivation of this LLNL to educate on energy issues.