3 ms·

>How about reduce that to 0 for night-time? No, GP is averaging out across the whole day. If you get 100W during daylight and 0W during night, you can average

>How about reduce that to 0 for night-time? No, GP is averaging out across the whole day. If you get 100W during daylight and 0W during night, you can average to 50W for an entire 24-hour period. GP took 30W as a conservative estimate, which is entirely reasonable.

macspoofing 6y ago
Thanks for clarification. But don't you find it misleading to amortize panel power generation across day and night? It makes it seem like you just need more panels to cover power demand in the evening and night .. when in reality, no amount of panels will ever work.
- jlevers 6y ago
  I think that if you consider storage, then you can in fact amortize panel power generation across day and night, because you need more panels during the day to create the extra power that will be used at night (when none of the panels are actively generating power).
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    Then you have to over-build your infrastructure, not just for daily intermittency but also seasonal intermittency. So you have to add that to your calculation. But this point is moot anyway, because there is no battery technology that is capable of that much storage.
EricE 6y ago
Where are you getting sufficient batteries in sufficient quantities to store that theoretical 50% overnight? And on top of that were are you getting the additional batteries to provide extra capacities for when the sun is shining at less than 100% of optimal? And then where are you getting all the materials for those batteries? And what are you doing with all the waste from those batteries once they end their serviceable lifespan? If you seriously are concerned about the latent costs with nuclear power plants then you should do more than gloss over the storage issues with solar. And many of your concerns about nuclear fall apart if you don't assume we would continue to build reactors with the issues you point out. There are new designs like micro molten salt reactors that address in pretty signifiant ways the concerns you note. A lot fewer construction materials, greatly simplified designs and designs that don't rely on active cooling to prevent a meltdown. Designs that if the reactor systems are interrupted, the reactors coast to a shutdown naturally. It's not science fiction - its proven technology we've had since the 50's that was refined in the 70's but squashed because of politics and fear mongering. Maybe after China starts eating our lunch we'll take it seriously? Ha - probably not even then, unfortunately.
- stopping 6y ago
  Did you accidentally reply to my comment? I didn't state any position on the issue, just offered a 3-sentence correction to someone else's comment.

macspoofing 6y ago

Thanks for clarification. But don't you find it misleading to amortize panel power generation across day and night? It makes it seem like you just need more panels to cover power demand in the evening and night .. when in reality, no amount of panels will ever work.

jlevers 6y ago
I think that if you consider storage, then you can in fact amortize panel power generation across day and night, because you need more panels during the day to create the extra power that will be used at night (when none of the panels are actively generating power).
- macspoofing 6y ago
  Then you have to over-build your infrastructure, not just for daily intermittency but also seasonal intermittency. So you have to add that to your calculation. But this point is moot anyway, because there is no battery technology that is capable of that much storage.

EricE 6y ago

Where are you getting sufficient batteries in sufficient quantities to store that theoretical 50% overnight? And on top of that were are you getting the additional batteries to provide extra capacities for when the sun is shining at less than 100% of optimal? And then where are you getting all the materials for those batteries? And what are you doing with all the waste from those batteries once they end their serviceable lifespan? If you seriously are concerned about the latent costs with nuclear power plants then you should do more than gloss over the storage issues with solar. And many of your concerns about nuclear fall apart if you don't assume we would continue to build reactors with the issues you point out. There are new designs like micro molten salt reactors that address in pretty signifiant ways the concerns you note. A lot fewer construction materials, greatly simplified designs and designs that don't rely on active cooling to prevent a meltdown. Designs that if the reactor systems are interrupted, the reactors coast to a shutdown naturally. It's not science fiction - its proven technology we've had since the 50's that was refined in the 70's but squashed because of politics and fear mongering. Maybe after China starts eating our lunch we'll take it seriously? Ha - probably not even then, unfortunately.

stopping 6y ago
Did you accidentally reply to my comment? I didn't state any position on the issue, just offered a 3-sentence correction to someone else's comment.