3 ms·
> It does not matter how long you choose to sit around staring at them, they're doing their steady-state thing in the background, forever. This is simply not t
by amluto 2y ago
> It does not matter how long you choose to sit around staring at them, they're doing their steady-state thing in the background, forever.
This is simply not true. Very few power plants work like that, and Ivanpah is definitely an exception. (This is why the capacity factor isn’t 100%.)
> > capacity factor
> Fair enough, I inserted Wikipedia's value for planned/rated level of operation, rather than the much-reduced level it was actually operating under for various reasons.
No, and you might consider reading the article on capacity factor (and don’t stop at the first paragraph - read the section on renewables). If you put 1kW of solar panels on your roof, you are not getting 1kW times 1 year of energy every year — not even close.
And you are replying to my objection to:
> ~65 kilowatts provided per dead bird.
If Ivanpah could kill a bird, once, to produce 65 kW forever, that would be an unbelievably good tradeoff. But, of course, that’s not what Ivanpah does, and saying that years somehow enter the mix later on doesn’t make this statement any more coherent.
- amluto 2y ago> Very few power plants work like that, and Ivanpah is definitely an exception. I meant definitely not an exception.
- Terr_ 2y ago> > napkin math > Very few power plants work like that And most "napkin math" refers to a simplified calculation with rough guesses made in an impromptu or amateur fashion, like using a pen to write with no options nearby except a disposable paper napkin. > > canceling out the year > If Ivanpah could kill a bird, once, to produce 65 kW forever The context is to get ratios between (A) scope/benefit as indicated by wattage and (B) birds-deaths, and (C) coal-used. If you double the activity of each plant, you can expect one to double the fried-birds, and the other to double the coal-needed. It feels like I'm comparing dollars-costs of running electric versus gasoline engines of the same "horsepower", and you're unsatisfied because "a gallon of gasoline can't burn forever."
- amluto 2y ago> > > napkin math > > Very few power plants work like that > And most "napkin math" refers to a simplified calculation with rough guesses Assuming that it's always high noon when you're talking about solar power plants is more than a little rough for napkin math. > The context is to get ratios between (A) scope/benefit as indicated by wattage and (B) birds-deaths I give up. The wattage of a power plant is its benefit per unit time, and bird deaths are a detriment not per unit time. and (B) birds-deaths, and (C) coal-used. If you double the activity of each plant, you can expect one to double the fried-birds, and the other to double the coal-needed.