New Mars Forums

Official discussion forum of The Mars Society and MarsNews.com

You are not logged in.

Announcement

Announcement: As a reader of NewMars forum, we have opportunities for you to assist with technical discussions in several initiatives underway. NewMars needs volunteers with appropriate education, skills, talent, motivation and generosity of spirit as a highly valued member. Write to newmarsmember * gmail.com to tell us about your ability's to help contribute to NewMars and become a registered member.

#51 2017-11-21 05:33:35

Terraformer
Member
From: Logres
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,362
Website

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

We're still going to need nuclear as a replacement for oil in shipping. Fortunately, we have quite a lot of experience using nuclear reactors aboard vessels. It would require governments to allow their facilities to be used by civilian shipping companies for a while, though, in order to bootstrap them to a point where it's viable to have dedicated ones. Plus companies wouldn't be able to hire a crew from a third world country for peanuts, and they'd have to have a detachment of police onboard. But it would be feasible.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#52 2017-11-21 12:37:28

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 4,615

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

There are fundamental points of knowledge that must be understood when it comes to use of Uranium and water coolant versus Thorium and molten salt coolant.  The reason all major nuclear accidents associated with generation of electric power released radioactive materials into the environment is that pressurized water is an inexcusably poor coolant that becomes rocket fuel if pressure is not maintained.  The Hydrogen explosions from dissociated water molecules, not nuclear explosions from the radioactive materials themselves, are what caused the breaches of the containment vessels.



The use of solid fuel rods containing a U235 / U238 mix is what produces much of the long-lived transuranics and the actinide contaminated materials from fuel reprocessing is what produces the majority of the long-lived radioactive waste.  In a Thorium reactor, the U233 stays in the reactor until it's energy content has been depleted because the fuel is a powder mixed with a molten salt.  There happen to be relatively inexpensive and simple chemical processes that can separate nearly 100% of the waste and U233 produced from Th232.  In point of fact, the processes involved were so effective that men were able to handle the storage containers with their bare hands just days after they were filled with enough radioactive waste material to kill them in a minutes to matter of hours.

If there is no water in the reactor, then the possibility of producing rocket fuel from reactor coolant does not exist.  Hydrogen is one of the best rocket fuels in existence.  It's "good" for rockets because the explosion it creates when mixed with Oxygen is so energetic.  It's "bad" for nuclear reactors for the same reason.  If there is no requirement for the reactor to operate at hundreds of atmospheres of pressure, then there is no requirement for enormous and expensive pressure vessels that always fail when enough rocket fuel is produced inside them.

If the fuel doesn't have to be removed from the reactor every 18 months and reprocessed, then the quantities of nuclear waste that have to be transported and stored drops off a cliff, although this is obviously "bad" for the people who make money reprocessing nuclear fuels.  On average, less than 2% of the energy content of the Uranium in the fuel rods is consumed before the rods are removed from the reactor as a result of cracking and associated expansion.  Again, use of solid fuel pellets is an inexcusably poor method for extracting heat from fissioning Uranium.  All other heat engines use liquids (natural gas or petroleum distillates) or powders (coal) because the objective is complete consumption of the fuel to extract as much thermal energy as is practical.

Any technology sufficiently advanced is indistinguishable from magic.  That's the real issue with nuclear power.  It's voodoo for ignorant people that other people with anti-human agendas use to scare the children and the adults who never grew up.

If we could use slave labor again because we didn't have a mandated minimum wage, we could install PV for a lot less money here in the USA, too.  If the money used was cash instead of loans, then the cost would be lower still.  If utilities didn't have to pay for land use, then the cost would be lower still.  Saudi Arabia is not a good example to use for those reasons, but people with agendas will use any piece of information that supports their cause, no matter how irrelevant it is to the rest of the world and basic math be damned.

When we're all driving electric cars and flying electric aircraft, how much more demand for electrical power will we require after we've extracted all the Lithium in the world and still can't satisfy demand.  What about recycling?  How much energy will that require?  Irrespective of what estimate A, B, or C says about how much Lithium there is in the world, there is a real price tag associated with extracting and recycling it.  Up to 90% of the Lead in Lead-acid batteries is recycled and we're still mining Lead.  Incidentally, there's also plenty of Uranium and Thorium in sea water, but extracting it would be very costly as a function of the energy required to do so.  All of this leads me to believe that Lithium-ion is not the battery technology of the future, even for mobile applications, and won't last more than a few decades at current consumption levels at current pricing, absent a recycling infrastructure that simply doesn't exist.  Of course the recycling infrastructure could be built.  Again, at what cost.

We're going to keep guzzling fossil fuels at a record rate because all this Bravo Sierra about how well solar power actually works as of today is just that if the cost for everything else is factored in, in the same way that solar proponents factor in the cost of everything to use nuclear power.  It's pretty clear to me that solar advocates don't really give a damn about climate change because they're building new fossil fuel powered plants to make up the energy deficit that equivalent cost solar and wind solutions create, at fantastic cost.  They're always quick to cherry pick data points about what things cost in ideal scenarios (Saudi Arabia - slave labor, government owned corporation with ties to the Royal family, highest levels of insolation in the world) because when the rest of the aggregate of data is used their arguments fall flat.

If a gas powered plant produces 50% less CO2 than a coal powered plant per MWh of electricity produced, but you double your demand for power through widespread use of solar without batteries and electric cars, what is your net reduction in CO2?  Who here has seen that corporate parking lot where every parking space comes equipped with solar powered superchargers so absolutely everyone can recharge their electric car during the day when the sun is shining so we can avoid "filling up" at night when the electricity has to come from a fossil fuel source?  I've been to a lot of corporate headquarters around the country and a handful have the superchargers for a handful of parking spaces, so that infrastructure has to be built.  Again, at what cost?

In the real world where grid batteries don't exist and every solar or wind power plant also comes with a brand new CO2 spewing gas turbine or coal power plant attached to it, this is just another scheme for making electrical power more expensive for the poor.  The few batteries that pretend to be grid batteries are obscenely expensive, supply an irrelevant fraction of demand, and STILL require a gas turbine or coal power plant.  It's all about perception, not the reality of what things actually cost or what they can realistically supply.

I just want to first spend the money required to make solar and batteries efficient and cost effective enough to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear and then mass manufacture products that are truly ready for prime time.  This is something that every country should be working on together to achieve ASAP.  I don't believe it would take decades to achieve it, either.  We went from not knowing much about nuclear energy to making atomic bombs in the span of a few years without the aid of modern technology.  We can do the same thing with solar power and batteries, we're just not trying because that would require real work and cooperation.  After we do that, we can roll out solar and battery power anywhere and everywhere.  You'll hear no objections from me and I will vigorously smack down any arguments against solar power that don't present basic math.  Until then, don't be sold a bill of goods from me or anyone else here.  Do some basic math and if a belief isn't supported basic math, then it's time to change that belief.

Right now, as of today, nuclear is still cheaper than other forms of generating electrical power in terms of total monetary costs and the impact to our environment if total output for money invested and emissions not generated is considered.  If Thorium fueled molten salt cooled reactors of the kind that India / China / Europeans are presently working on are implemented, then there won't be any cost argument that favors other forms of electrical power generation methods because those reactors solve all the traditional problems of Uranium fueled water cooled reactors, produce substantially more power from smaller reactors and offer additional benefits in terms of cost to operate as a function of reducing the number of refueling cycles and associated radioactive waste.

Offline

#53 2017-11-21 13:15:56

Terraformer
Member
From: Logres
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,362
Website

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

We don't need high energy density storage to go solar, though. What we need is cheap, scalable storage. If it get's 10 W-hr/kg, that's fine, as long it's cheap enough.

Solar panels already get ~15% efficiency. That's easily enough for current energy needs, even in America.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#54 2017-11-21 13:54:01

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 4,615

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Terraformer,

If cost is no issue as it relates to electrical power output or storage capacity and we're willing to use even more fossil fuels, which totally defeats this BS about solar panels helping to reduce "climate change", then we should just use the most efficient panels that money can buy.  It's only millions per kW produced and if it's good enough for NASA, then it's good enough for the rest of us.  We're all made of money over here, right?  It may never make a lick of difference, as it relates to CO2 output, but at least we'll all feel good about doing out part to reduce CO2 emissions while doing absolutely nothing of the sort and we'll make these con artists rich at the same time.  That sounds exactly like our game, except we're ordinarily playing it while fighting a war so this should be a walk in the park by way of comparison.

Offline

#55 2017-11-21 15:06:53

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,743
Website

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

I keep looking at technology for where I live. My city is Winnipeg, just 60 miles (100km) north of the border with North Dakota. Comparing weather statistics to Russia, there isn't any city west of the Ural mountains as cold as here. Looking at the average daily high and average daily low for each month, 12 months per year, the closest match in Russia is Omsk or Tomsk in southern Siberia.

I would like to heat my home with solar panels on the roof, windmill in the back yard, geothermal heat pump, well insulated house, and batteries in the basement for energy storage. This is where energy density becomes an issue. To do this with a modern 2 story house, where solar panel area is limited to the roof of that house, requires a lot of power. This is why I have argued for gallium-indium-nitride photovoltaic. A papers published in the journal Science in the fall of year 2000 described this with 2, 3, and 38 junctions. A later paper calculated efficiency for 2 through 8 junctions. Efficiency of 8 junctions is 70.2% while 38 junctions is 72.0%, so 8 junctions is optimal for this chemistry. With that efficiency, a house like this would work here. With lower efficiency (lower energy density) much larger solar arrays are necessary. City homes do not have a lot of yard space for solar arrays. And if you want surplus power to charge an electric vehicle, that requires the roof of the garage as well.

Elon Musk has pitched his solar shingles, configured to look like Spanish roofing tiles that are trendy in southern California. His system uses much lower photovoltaic efficiency, and only replaces a small proportion of roofing tiles. I'm sure that would work in southern California where home heating is not an issue, but won't work here.

Last edited by RobertDyck (2017-11-21 15:18:44)

Offline

#56 2017-11-21 16:44:19

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

I've posted the evidence of sharp cost reductions in both solar and battery storage, which are set to continue.  Electricity grids aren't changed overnight. But clearly the future belongs to solar and storage. This will first be felt in the high insolation countries - like Mexico and Saudi Arabia - as we see happening already.  Australia will probably be next - we see Musk's operation moving in there.  I think solar plus storage will dominate the whole of the tropical and sub-tropical zone within 10-15 years. Thereafter we will see increasing domination in the temperate zone as well. Within 30 years, there will be hardly any carbon emissions from energy generation per se.

I think billions are being ploughed into solar and storage research and development because there are tens of billions to be made from getting it right.


kbd512 wrote:

If a gas powered plant produces 50% less CO2 than a coal powered plant per MWh of electricity produced, but you double your demand for power through widespread use of solar without batteries and electric cars, what is your net reduction in CO2?  Who here has seen that corporate parking lot where every parking space comes equipped with solar powered superchargers so absolutely everyone can recharge their electric car during the day when the sun is shining so we can avoid "filling up" at night when the electricity has to come from a fossil fuel source?  I've been to a lot of corporate headquarters around the country and a handful have the superchargers for a handful of parking spaces, so that infrastructure has to be built.  Again, at what cost?

In the real world where grid batteries don't exist and every solar or wind power plant also comes with a brand new CO2 spewing gas turbine or coal power plant attached to it, this is just another scheme for making electrical power more expensive for the poor.  The few batteries that pretend to be grid batteries are obscenely expensive, supply an irrelevant fraction of demand, and STILL require a gas turbine or coal power plant.  It's all about perception, not the reality of what things actually cost or what they can realistically supply.

I just want to first spend the money required to make solar and batteries efficient and cost effective enough to compete with fossil fuels and nuclear and then mass manufacture products that are truly ready for prime time.  This is something that every country should be working on together to achieve ASAP.  I don't believe it would take decades to achieve it, either.  We went from not knowing much about nuclear energy to making atomic bombs in the span of a few years without the aid of modern technology.  We can do the same thing with solar power and batteries, we're just not trying because that would require real work and cooperation.  After we do that, we can roll out solar and battery power anywhere and everywhere.  You'll hear no objections from me and I will vigorously smack down any arguments against solar power that don't present basic math.  Until then, don't be sold a bill of goods from me or anyone else here.  Do some basic math and if a belief isn't supported basic math, then it's time to change that belief.

Right now, as of today, nuclear is still cheaper than other forms of generating electrical power in terms of total monetary costs and the impact to our environment if total output for money invested and emissions not generated is considered.  If Thorium fueled molten salt cooled reactors of the kind that India / China / Europeans are presently working on are implemented, then there won't be any cost argument that favors other forms of electrical power generation methods because those reactors solve all the traditional problems of Uranium fueled water cooled reactors, produce substantially more power from smaller reactors and offer additional benefits in terms of cost to operate as a function of reducing the number of refueling cycles and associated radioactive waste.

Last edited by louis (2017-11-21 16:55:21)


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#57 2017-11-21 17:17:13

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Shipping is often overlooked but does represent 5% of carbon emissions, so if you want to get those emissions down you do have to think about alternatives. One of course is biofuel. 

The biggest container ships have installed power of about 70 Mw...that's a lot!

But they do carry a lot of mass - 180,000 tonnes or more, so plenty of scope for carrying heavy batteries.

4.6 tonnes of batteries to run it for one hour... Maybe you could carry 10000 tonnes of batteries to run it for 2173 hours = 90 days. That would cover most ocean journeys by these container ships. Once you get to your destination, you recharge the batteries from the local grid which in turn runs on renewable energy.

There have been experimental ships that use wind power, solar power and wave power - a triple power system.  It might be possible to reduce the battery tonnage by using those power sources. 





Terraformer wrote:

We're still going to need nuclear as a replacement for oil in shipping. Fortunately, we have quite a lot of experience using nuclear reactors aboard vessels. It would require governments to allow their facilities to be used by civilian shipping companies for a while, though, in order to bootstrap them to a point where it's viable to have dedicated ones. Plus companies wouldn't be able to hire a crew from a third world country for peanuts, and they'd have to have a detachment of police onboard. But it would be feasible.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#58 2017-11-21 17:44:27

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Lithium is not the only game in town...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … ithium-ion

There might be another price drop from a return to alkaline.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#59 2017-11-21 19:07:53

Antius
Member
From: Cumbria, UK
Registered: 2007-05-22
Posts: 1,003

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Solar PV modules are artificially cheap at present, because Chinese state owned companies are dumping them on the western world at a price that has nothing to do with their actual manufacturing costs.  This has been driven by huge overproduction combined with a slowdown in investment in China, leading to excess capacity.  The dumping has pushed most European and many US panel manufacturers out of business.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/busi … anels.html

Of course, the problem with any temporary glut is that it ultimately ends.  This will happen when the Chinese economic ponzi scheme blows up or when the Chinese realise that it no longer makes sense to sell things for less than they cost to make.  Question is, which will come first and when?  At the rate at which Chinese debt is soaring, that is anyone's guess:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/chinese-d … ity-2017-9

European investment in renewable energy has collapsed since 2011.  Chinese investment shows signs of decline as well, with 2015 looking like a peak year.

http://euanmearns.com/worldwide-investm … ow-for-it/

Many people with an ideological fixation on renewable energy are all too happy to accept recent price drops as evidence that their idealistic obsession is about to storm the world.  The reality is that price reductions are occurring due to competitive pressures on manufacturers, due to Chinese state endorsed dumping, elimination of subsidies and competitive auctions.

Last edited by Antius (2017-11-21 19:48:08)

Offline

#60 2017-11-21 19:51:29

RobertDyck
Moderator
From: Winnipeg, Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 6,743
Website

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Antius wrote:

Solar PV modules are artificially cheap at present, because Chinese state owned companies are dumping them on the western world at a price that has nothing to do with their actual manufacturing costs.

Whenever anyone uses the word "dumping", I'm highly skeptical. Remember one Canadian steel company decided to invest in new equipment in 1992. All American and Canadian steel companies were using obsolete furnaces from the beginning of World War 2, with no upgrades. This was the first upgrade in half a century. All steel companies had invested their retained earnings by playing stock market. This one Canadian company, Stelco, sold their stocks in other companies to invest in new equipment. They also took out a business loan. The last furnace lasted 50 years, they estimated the new furnace would last 25 years because technology is accelerating, but they amortized their business loan over only 10 years. The new furnace used less coal, produced fewer carbon emissions, removed more impurities so the steel was stronger, they used fewer employees, it was safer for employees so they estimated less down-time due to injuries. They subsidized employee health plans so this lowered their cost for health insurance. They were able to sell steel for a lower price per pound than any competitor, either American or other Canadian steel producers, and it was a higher quality product. Why would anyone buy anywhere else? Of course that earned them a larger market share. They were able to pay their bank loan payments, pay operating expenses, and had a profit at the end of the year to pay shareholders.

But a group of US steel companies led by a company called "US Steel" complained. They accused Stelco of "dumping". This was before NAFTA, when Canada and US had a bi-national free trade agreement. The bi-national trade commission heard the complaints, ruled this was fair competition so refused to take action. But US Steel didn't like that so appealed to the state court of Virginia. The state court agreed to hear the case. First, this was already heard by the bi-national trade commission; how does a lower court get off overruling a higher court? US Steel claimed it was dumping based on the claim that no company can take out a business loan longer than 3 years. That's obviously absurd! But the state court ruled it was dumping, so put heavy duties on all Canadian steel. Not just steel from Stelco, but all Canadian companies. As a result Stelco failed. US Steel executed a hostile take-over of Stelco. The Canadian government allowed the take-over on condition they keep the Canadian foundry in operation. But just 3 months after US Steel took over, the foundry was closed, everyone lost their jobs.

When Bill Clinton approached Canada to add Mexico to the free trade zone, Canada didn't want to. But because of the Stelco case, Canada insisted on binding dispute resolution rules. So Canada agreed in exchange for getting those rules. So this means a state court like Virginia will not have jurisdiction. Today, President Trump wants to amend NAFTA by removing those rules. The only reason Canada agreed to sign NAFTA was those rules. There's no way Canada will allow them to be removed.

So now there's an accusation that a Chinese company is "dumping". We want solar panel prices to come down, so this isn't a problem. And China has ridiculously low wages, allowing them to manufacture at equally ridiculously low prices. Sorry, don't believe the accusation of "dumping".

Offline

#61 2017-11-21 20:59:25

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,099

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

All the more reason to build on mars with insitu steel....

Back to Nuclear to which Nasa has continued to work on the kilopower system as a deliverable to mars.

NASA's Kilopower project to test providing energy to pioneering manned missions to Mars

kilopower-project-nasa-380.jpg

The pioneering Kilopower reactor represents a small and simple approach for long-duration, Sun-independent electric power for space or extraterrestrial surfaces.

Offering prolonged life and reliability, such technology could produce from one to 10 kilowatts of electrical power, continuously for 10 years or more, Mason pointed out. The prototype power system uses a solid, cast uranium-235 reactor core, about the size of a paper towel roll. Reactor heat is transferred via passive sodium heat pipes, with that heat then converted to electricity by high-efficiency Stirling engines.

NASA’s Kilopower Program Can Help Colonize Mars

Kilopower hardware will be put through detailed, step-by-step testing which will last about 28 hours. The testing will be conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) Nevada National Security Site.

    “The upcoming Nevada testing will answer a lot of technical questions to prove out the feasibility of this technology, with the goal of moving it to a Technology Readiness Level of 5. It’s a breadboard test in a vacuum environment, operating the equipment at the relevant conditions,

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi … 012354.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/directorates/space … Red_Planet

stmd_grc-2017-c-06805.jpg

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio … xploration

Offline

#62 2017-11-22 01:48:15

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Regarding your last link, in just four years the lowest recorded PV price has dropped from about 8 cents to 1.77 cents per KwH - when you have price reductions of the order of 75%, it is meaningless to talk about investment "levelling" off. Also, the world energy system has had to "digest" the new solar, and so is having to invest in transmission as well. A lot of the transmission investment in China relates to solar. 

Is there a real "glut" in Chinese solar?  I am not sure. If they are producing below price they cannot continue doing so forever. We all know the Chinese cheat.  However, if you know anything about PV production you will know how it has become increasingly automated. Ultimately any labour cost advantage China has will be eroded, so you are down to state aid in various disguised forms.  I doubt that is going to be more than marginal in the long run.  In other words, the price reductions are not fictional, they reflect real changes in production and the delivery technology - huge massive cost improvements.  There may be a glut. But you always get that  in industries where there is massive technological change and it can spur innovation as the only way to make a decent profit is to further innovate and get your costs down.

Also, let's not forget for decades in the 20th century you had huge state aid for coal in many countries (including the UK) in various forms.  It didn't mean there was a coal "bubble" that popped or that the lights went out or that economies didn't expand at a rapid rate.



Antius wrote:

Solar PV modules are artificially cheap at present, because Chinese state owned companies are dumping them on the western world at a price that has nothing to do with their actual manufacturing costs.  This has been driven by huge overproduction combined with a slowdown in investment in China, leading to excess capacity.  The dumping has pushed most European and many US panel manufacturers out of business.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/08/busi … anels.html

Of course, the problem with any temporary glut is that it ultimately ends.  This will happen when the Chinese economic ponzi scheme blows up or when the Chinese realise that it no longer makes sense to sell things for less than they cost to make.  Question is, which will come first and when?  At the rate at which Chinese debt is soaring, that is anyone's guess:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/chinese-d … ity-2017-9

European investment in renewable energy has collapsed since 2011.  Chinese investment shows signs of decline as well, with 2015 looking like a peak year.

http://euanmearns.com/worldwide-investm … ow-for-it/

Many people with an ideological fixation on renewable energy are all too happy to accept recent price drops as evidence that their idealistic obsession is about to storm the world.  The reality is that price reductions are occurring due to competitive pressures on manufacturers, due to Chinese state endorsed dumping, elimination of subsidies and competitive auctions.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#63 2017-11-22 01:58:21

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Rule No. 1 for non-American countries is never believe a predatory US company's assurances about what they will do after they take over one of your country's companies.  We had the same in the UK with chocolate manufacture in the UK (a big deal here, we like our chocolate) - Kraft lied they would keep Cadbury's existing production in the UK.

So, yes I agree with you.  The Chinese might be dumping but then again they might not. Their government lies about so much all the time, it's difficult to tell.  If the US and other non-Chinese countries want to build up their own PV production they need to deploy a bit of protection and modernise their industries.

RobertDyck wrote:
Antius wrote:

Solar PV modules are artificially cheap at present, because Chinese state owned companies are dumping them on the western world at a price that has nothing to do with their actual manufacturing costs.

Whenever anyone uses the word "dumping", I'm highly skeptical. Remember one Canadian steel company decided to invest in new equipment in 1992. All American and Canadian steel companies were using obsolete furnaces from the beginning of World War 2, with no upgrades. This was the first upgrade in half a century. All steel companies had invested their retained earnings by playing stock market. This one Canadian company, Stelco, sold their stocks in other companies to invest in new equipment. They also took out a business loan. The last furnace lasted 50 years, they estimated the new furnace would last 25 years because technology is accelerating, but they amortized their business loan over only 10 years. The new furnace used less coal, produced fewer carbon emissions, removed more impurities so the steel was stronger, they used fewer employees, it was safer for employees so they estimated less down-time due to injuries. They subsidized employee health plans so this lowered their cost for health insurance. They were able to sell steel for a lower price per pound than any competitor, either American or other Canadian steel producers, and it was a higher quality product. Why would anyone buy anywhere else? Of course that earned them a larger market share. They were able to pay their bank loan payments, pay operating expenses, and had a profit at the end of the year to pay shareholders.

But a group of US steel companies led by a company called "US Steel" complained. They accused Stelco of "dumping". This was before NAFTA, when Canada and US had a bi-national free trade agreement. The bi-national trade commission heard the complaints, ruled this was fair competition so refused to take action. But US Steel didn't like that so appealed to the state court of Virginia. The state court agreed to hear the case. First, this was already heard by the bi-national trade commission; how does a lower court get off overruling a higher court? US Steel claimed it was dumping based on the claim that no company can take out a business loan longer than 3 years. That's obviously absurd! But the state court ruled it was dumping, so put heavy duties on all Canadian steel. Not just steel from Stelco, but all Canadian companies. As a result Stelco failed. US Steel executed a hostile take-over of Stelco. The Canadian government allowed the take-over on condition they keep the Canadian foundry in operation. But just 3 months after US Steel took over, the foundry was closed, everyone lost their jobs.

When Bill Clinton approached Canada to add Mexico to the free trade zone, Canada didn't want to. But because of the Stelco case, Canada insisted on binding dispute resolution rules. So Canada agreed in exchange for getting those rules. So this means a state court like Virginia will not have jurisdiction. Today, President Trump wants to amend NAFTA by removing those rules. The only reason Canada agreed to sign NAFTA was those rules. There's no way Canada will allow them to be removed.

So now there's an accusation that a Chinese company is "dumping". We want solar panel prices to come down, so this isn't a problem. And China has ridiculously low wages, allowing them to manufacture at equally ridiculously low prices. Sorry, don't believe the accusation of "dumping".


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#64 2017-11-23 14:58:51

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Will be interesting to see the impact of electric trucks.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ … 0-000.html

Electric battery trains are also becoming competitive:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/run- … -j0qwlxrmd

The days of elecrifying lines is probably over.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#65 2017-11-23 16:41:14

Terraformer
Member
From: Logres
Registered: 2007-08-27
Posts: 3,362
Website

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Trains are incredibly efficient. Running them off batteries - or better, flywheels - is quite feasible. We can always add in a small diesel generator as well.

The current UK government seems to have given up on electrification in favour of bi-mode trains. I think they have a point. Bi-mode trains will allow improved service on lines where electrification isn't feasible because of low bridges and other obstacles. We could even use short stretches of electrified line at stations to help boost them up to speed.


"I guarantee you that at some point, everything's going to go south on you, and you're going to say, 'This is it, this is how I end.' Now you can either accept that, or you can get to work." - Mark Watney

Offline

#66 2017-11-23 20:12:50

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

I think in the past the energy density of batteries made them uneconomic. But it looks like the economics have already changed for lighter engines and will change for bigger inter-city trains as well as time goes on. The days of despoiling the countryside with those steel gantries are probably over now.

Well I think you could also have induction charging of batteries along the track as well.

Terraformer wrote:

Trains are incredibly efficient. Running them off batteries - or better, flywheels - is quite feasible. We can always add in a small diesel generator as well.

The current UK government seems to have given up on electrification in favour of bi-mode trains. I think they have a point. Bi-mode trains will allow improved service on lines where electrification isn't feasible because of low bridges and other obstacles. We could even use short stretches of electrified line at stations to help boost them up to speed.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#67 2017-11-23 22:24:27

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,099

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

The rule one that you spoke of also is one that even occurs in the US when a company that make as simular product buys up another company that makes a competitor product as its done to cause the same effect to the company that is bought in that it will be destroyed via its own sale to the other.
Only batteries that are rechargeble will lead the way something that an alkaline will not do...

Offline

#68 2017-11-24 03:34:36

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Iconic Materials claim to have made a rechargeable alkaline battery.

http://www.digitaljournal.com/tech-and- … cle/499184


SpaceNut wrote:

The rule one that you spoke of also is one that even occurs in the US when a company that make as simular product buys up another company that makes a competitor product as its done to cause the same effect to the company that is bought in that it will be destroyed via its own sale to the other.
Only batteries that are rechargeble will lead the way something that an alkaline will not do...


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#69 2017-11-24 05:18:33

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3 … n-a-decade

An interesting report from Bloomberg on how the energy environment is changing rapidly.

With all these improvements in green energy price and technology, I wonder whether there would now be scope for the following approach:

Build a giant oil tanker-style floating craft with 500,000 tonnes of batteries on board.  So that's 500,000,000 Kgs. At 12 kwHs per kg, fully charged this floating battery could produce 6,000,000,000 KwHs or about 6,000 GwHs of electric power.  UK average electric power output is 11GwHs. So that would be enough to power the UK for something like 545 hours or 22 days.

The battery tanker heads south from the UK to the sunlit waters of the central Atlantic (3 to 4 day journey).  There, it unrolls huge arrays of flexible PV panelling stretching for hundreds of metres all around the vessel and maybe also tethered arial solar barrage balloons. It then recharges its batteries.  You would need 1200 million sq metres of PV panelling to recharge the batteries in one day (averaged out).  To recharge them over a year you would need 3.3 million sq. metres of PV panel or about 1800 metres by 1800 metres. Some trawler nets cover much bigger areas.

If it was one year recharging you would need something like 17 vessels working on a rota to generate enough electricity to serve the whole of the UK, with not a single wind turbine or other UK based facility involved. 

That sort of solution is looking more and more doable though no doubt in reality it would be unlikely that we would ever rely 100% on such a solution to the UK's electricity needs.

Last edited by louis (2017-11-24 07:47:23)


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#70 2017-11-24 09:12:20

Antius
Member
From: Cumbria, UK
Registered: 2007-05-22
Posts: 1,003

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

louis wrote:

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3 … n-a-decade

An interesting report from Bloomberg on how the energy environment is changing rapidly.

With all these improvements in green energy price and technology, I wonder whether there would now be scope for the following approach:

Build a giant oil tanker-style floating craft with 500,000 tonnes of batteries on board.  So that's 500,000,000 Kgs. At 12 kwHs per kg, fully charged this floating battery could produce 6,000,000,000 KwHs or about 6,000 GwHs of electric power.  UK average electric power output is 11GwHs. So that would be enough to power the UK for something like 545 hours or 22 days.

The battery tanker heads south from the UK to the sunlit waters of the central Atlantic (3 to 4 day journey).  There, it unrolls huge arrays of flexible PV panelling stretching for hundreds of metres all around the vessel and maybe also tethered arial solar barrage balloons. It then recharges its batteries.  You would need 1200 million sq metres of PV panelling to recharge the batteries in one day (averaged out).  To recharge them over a year you would need 3.3 million sq. metres of PV panel or about 1800 metres by 1800 metres. Some trawler nets cover much bigger areas.

If it was one year recharging you would need something like 17 vessels working on a rota to generate enough electricity to serve the whole of the UK, with not a single wind turbine or other UK based facility involved. 

That sort of solution is looking more and more doable though no doubt in reality it would be unlikely that we would ever rely 100% on such a solution to the UK's electricity needs.

Another similar solution would be a floating barge-tank full of salt phase-change material that could be melted using direct solar thermal power at a low latitude facility.  This could then be towed back to the UK and plugged into a shore mounted heat engine.  This would have lower energy density than state of the art Li-ion batteries, but would be much cheaper, as it would be a simple steel tank containing salt and a heat exchanger.

12kWh/kg (43MJ/kg) would be difficult to achieve using a battery system.  The energy density of petrol is about the same when burned in air, which is 95% of the mass of the reactants.  With a battery, you have two reactants contained and you are altering their oxidation states in a way that needs to be reversible.  You also have electrodes and containment vessels that need to remain intact and conductive.  This is why is very difficult to build a battery that achieves energy density much greater than 1MJ/kg.  They are feeble things.  A synthetic fuel is a possibility that would offer better energy storage density, but whole system energy efficiency tends to be poor, which is why we don't use synthetic hydrogen as a fuel on any practical scale.

Arguably, better than either of these options would be long-distance high-voltage DC cables under the ocean.  Intermittency could be managed on the UK side using a static storage facility of some kind.  Of course, that involves a lot more infrastructure and capital cost than having just one natural gas or nuclear power plant in the UK.  But the system could be made to work in principle at least.

Last edited by Antius (2017-11-24 09:20:44)

Offline

#71 2017-11-25 05:53:16

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

I took that from Wikipedia - "At 3 V, this gives 41.7 kJ per gram of lithium, or 11.6 kWh per kg." Sounds like I shouldn't have trusted WIkipedia! lol  What do you think is the top performance? 


Antius wrote:
louis wrote:

https://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/3 … n-a-decade

An interesting report from Bloomberg on how the energy environment is changing rapidly.

With all these improvements in green energy price and technology, I wonder whether there would now be scope for the following approach:

Build a giant oil tanker-style floating craft with 500,000 tonnes of batteries on board.  So that's 500,000,000 Kgs. At 12 kwHs per kg, fully charged this floating battery could produce 6,000,000,000 KwHs or about 6,000 GwHs of electric power.  UK average electric power output is 11GwHs. So that would be enough to power the UK for something like 545 hours or 22 days.

The battery tanker heads south from the UK to the sunlit waters of the central Atlantic (3 to 4 day journey).  There, it unrolls huge arrays of flexible PV panelling stretching for hundreds of metres all around the vessel and maybe also tethered arial solar barrage balloons. It then recharges its batteries.  You would need 1200 million sq metres of PV panelling to recharge the batteries in one day (averaged out).  To recharge them over a year you would need 3.3 million sq. metres of PV panel or about 1800 metres by 1800 metres. Some trawler nets cover much bigger areas.

If it was one year recharging you would need something like 17 vessels working on a rota to generate enough electricity to serve the whole of the UK, with not a single wind turbine or other UK based facility involved. 

That sort of solution is looking more and more doable though no doubt in reality it would be unlikely that we would ever rely 100% on such a solution to the UK's electricity needs.

Another similar solution would be a floating barge-tank full of salt phase-change material that could be melted using direct solar thermal power at a low latitude facility.  This could then be towed back to the UK and plugged into a shore mounted heat engine.  This would have lower energy density than state of the art Li-ion batteries, but would be much cheaper, as it would be a simple steel tank containing salt and a heat exchanger.

12kWh/kg (43MJ/kg) would be difficult to achieve using a battery system.  The energy density of petrol is about the same when burned in air, which is 95% of the mass of the reactants.  With a battery, you have two reactants contained and you are altering their oxidation states in a way that needs to be reversible.  You also have electrodes and containment vessels that need to remain intact and conductive.  This is why is very difficult to build a battery that achieves energy density much greater than 1MJ/kg.  They are feeble things.  A synthetic fuel is a possibility that would offer better energy storage density, but whole system energy efficiency tends to be poor, which is why we don't use synthetic hydrogen as a fuel on any practical scale.

Arguably, better than either of these options would be long-distance high-voltage DC cables under the ocean.  Intermittency could be managed on the UK side using a static storage facility of some kind.  Of course, that involves a lot more infrastructure and capital cost than having just one natural gas or nuclear power plant in the UK.  But the system could be made to work in principle at least.


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#72 2017-11-25 11:16:25

GW Johnson
Member
From: McGregor, Texas USA
Registered: 2011-12-04
Posts: 4,576
Website

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

As I understand it,  the problem with electric grid batteries is the same as the problem with battery-operated hand tools:  the battery life is still too short.  Several dozen to maybe a hundred or so charge/discharge cycles,  with the capacity decreasing all during that life.  What that means for a grid storage battery is full replacement of all those tons of batteries at intervals on the order of a year.  Now,  that would be rather expensive!

To fix that requires materials research that is underway but is not yet complete.  Most of this is being done by academia,  in small grant projects.  To achieve results faster would require something more akin to the old Manhattan project.  I don't see that being done,  which is why this battery life thing is still an issue. 

But if solved,  then there would be practical and affordable solutions to the otherwise-inherent intermittency problems associated with wind and solar.  Without such a solution,  there are very definite practical limits to how much of your generation can come from these intermittent sources:  something near 20%,  which relies on the sun shining or the wind blowing somewhere in your grid,  plus the reserve capacity you have to build in anyway.  It is for the most part grid resistance losses that limit this. 

Otherwise,  with subsidies in place for wind and solar to match those in place for fossil fuel (for over a century now),  the playing field is fairly level,  and the market can actually determine for you what works.  Right now,  even with incomplete covering of fossil extraction and pollution costs in the energy pricing,  natural gas is very definitely displacing coal as a power plant fuel,  and (at least here in Texas) wind is just as cheap or maybe a tad cheaper than natural gas. 

Texas isn't really experimenting with solar the same way,  but some other places are,  and they seem to be finding basically the same answer:  solar is almost as cheap as fossil,  depending upon exactly how you do it.  To date local rooftop solar looks very good,  and should be well-adapted to solving the grid resistive-loss problem with distributed generation.  I think the jury is still out for solar as a centralized plant. 

That being said,  these are still limited to at most about 20% of your mix,  because of the intermittency problem.  Solve the battery life problem,  and that limit goes away.  Specific energy density storage concerns are applicable to vehicle batteries,  not really a limitation on batteries at a centralized plant location.

Nuclear fission electricity so far has proven to be the most expensive of these.  However the reasons for that are as much bureaucratic as they are technical.  The waste disposal problem is serious,  large,  and still unsolved.  However,  it wold be much smaller in scope if we reprocessed fuel rods.  We are not doing that.  It would be smaller in scope still if we shifted to thorium breeder technology.  However,  that is not yet fully developed,  and it is nowhere near commercializable yet.  That's the technical side.

The bureaucratic side is a very sharp double-edged sword,  and so far lacks a hilt to grab onto.  The regulatory requirements (one edge of the sword) are so expensive and drawn-out over long times,  and thus are the major cause of high energy cost from fission plants.  Change that,  and things look a lot better.  The other edge of the sword is fundamentally-inadequate design requirements for these projects directly resulting in the radiation leaks and core meltdowns we have seen. 

In contrast,  the US Navy reactor program has tougher requirements to meet,  and has never suffered anything similar with its water-cooled reactor designs,  in spite of two submarines lost beyond crush depth,  with the wrecks striking the bottom at over 100 mph.  The only radiation accidents they ever had occurred with an experimental sodium-cooled reactor installed in USS Seawolf (SSN-585) in the late 1950's.  That experience led them to replace that power plant with the water-cooled design,  and it served successfully for decades. 

Hence my skepticism about experimental metal- or salt-cooled designs,  and with a good reason in history to point at.

The costly bureaucratic side of the problem could be solved by adopting and enforcing design and safety criteria similar to the Navy's,  so that all the other long,  drawn-out regulatory requirements could be reduced or eliminated.  Then nuclear electricity might begin to approach its potential as a low-cost source.  Solve the waste disposal problem more effectively,  and it gets better still. 

GW

Last edited by GW Johnson (2017-11-25 11:33:23)


GW Johnson
McGregor,  Texas

"There is nothing as expensive as a dead crew,  especially one dead from a bad management decision"

Offline

#73 2017-11-25 13:46:46

louis
Member
From: UK
Registered: 2008-03-24
Posts: 6,865

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

The Tesla Powerwall allows for 5000 cycles under warranty.

Also, I don't know if you saw my earlier posts but Mexico and Saudi Arabia are now able to deliver solar at under 2 cents per KwH. Of course, intermittency remains a challenge.

GW Johnson wrote:

As I understand it,  the problem with electric grid batteries is the same as the problem with battery-operated hand tools:  the battery life is still too short.  Several dozen to maybe a hundred or so charge/discharge cycles,  with the capacity decreasing all during that life.  What that means for a grid storage battery is full replacement of all those tons of batteries at intervals on the order of a year.  Now,  that would be rather expensive!

To fix that requires materials research that is underway but is not yet complete.  Most of this is being done by academia,  in small grant projects.  To achieve results faster would require something more akin to the old Manhattan project.  I don't see that being done,  which is why this battery life thing is still an issue. 

But if solved,  then there would be practical and affordable solutions to the otherwise-inherent intermittency problems associated with wind and solar.  Without such a solution,  there are very definite practical limits to how much of your generation can come from these intermittent sources:  something near 20%,  which relies on the sun shining or the wind blowing somewhere in your grid,  plus the reserve capacity you have to build in anyway.  It is for the most part grid resistance losses that limit this. 

Otherwise,  with subsidies in place for wind and solar to match those in place for fossil fuel (for over a century now),  the playing field is fairly level,  and the market can actually determine for you what works.  Right now,  even with incomplete covering of fossil extraction and pollution costs in the energy pricing,  natural gas is very definitely displacing coal as a power plant fuel,  and (at least here in Texas) wind is just as cheap or maybe a tad cheaper than natural gas. 

Texas isn't really experimenting with solar the same way,  but some other places are,  and they seem to be finding basically the same answer:  solar is almost as cheap as fossil,  depending upon exactly how you do it.  To date local rooftop solar looks very good,  and should be well-adapted to solving the grid resistive-loss problem with distributed generation.  I think the jury is still out for solar as a centralized plant. 

That being said,  these are still limited to at most about 20% of your mix,  because of the intermittency problem.  Solve the battery life problem,  and that limit goes away.  Specific energy density storage concerns are applicable to vehicle batteries,  not really a limitation on batteries at a centralized plant location.

Nuclear fission electricity so far has proven to be the most expensive of these.  However the reasons for that are as much bureaucratic as they are technical.  The waste disposal problem is serious,  large,  and still unsolved.  However,  it wold be much smaller in scope if we reprocessed fuel rods.  We are not doing that.  It would be smaller in scope still if we shifted to thorium breeder technology.  However,  that is not yet fully developed,  and it is nowhere near commercializable yet.  That's the technical side.

The bureaucratic side is a very sharp double-edged sword,  and so far lacks a hilt to grab onto.  The regulatory requirements (one edge of the sword) are so expensive and drawn-out over long times,  and thus are the major cause of high energy cost from fission plants.  Change that,  and things look a lot better.  The other edge of the sword is fundamentally-inadequate design requirements for these projects directly resulting in the radiation leaks and core meltdowns we have seen. 

In contrast,  the US Navy reactor program has tougher requirements to meet,  and has never suffered anything similar with its water-cooled reactor designs,  in spite of two submarines lost beyond crush depth,  with the wrecks striking the bottom at over 100 mph.  The only radiation accidents they ever had occurred with an experimental sodium-cooled reactor installed in USS Seawolf (SSN-585) in the late 1950's.  That experience led them to replace that power plant with the water-cooled design,  and it served successfully for decades. 

Hence my skepticism about experimental metal- or salt-cooled designs,  and with a good reason in history to point at.

The costly bureaucratic side of the problem could be solved by adopting and enforcing design and safety criteria similar to the Navy's,  so that all the other long,  drawn-out regulatory requirements could be reduced or eliminated.  Then nuclear electricity might begin to approach its potential as a low-cost source.  Solve the waste disposal problem more effectively,  and it gets better still. 

GW


Let's Go to Mars...Google on: Fast Track to Mars blogspot.com

Offline

#74 2017-11-25 15:41:23

kbd512
Administrator
Registered: 2015-01-02
Posts: 4,615

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

GW,

Regarding the safety of metal cooled reactors, EBR-II was metal cooled and never suffered a melt down, despite the coolant flow being intentionally cut off twice in the same day.  It shut itself down without incident in 5 minutes and was brought back to full power the same day, after which the coolant flow was again intentionally cut off in a different way and the reactor proceeded to power itself down again, all without any further human intervention.  Like ORNL's MSRE, it also operated at atmospheric pressure and did not require any water.  Fuel burn-up rate was about 99.5%, the wastes were reprocessed onsite, and the long lived wastes were fed back into the reactor for transmutation into isotopes with half lives measured in days.

It was intended to be fueled only once in 60 years.  The fuel is U238, which the reactor transmutes into Pu239, in the same way that MSRE transmuted Th232 into U233.  A 1GWe plant would require a 6 foot cubed U238 block every 60 years or so and would make use of existing U238 that the US has already mined and stored.  There's enough U238 in storage to provide 100% of the electrical power requirements of the US for the next several hundred years or thereabouts, even if all vehicles in operation are electric.

Offline

#75 2017-11-25 17:25:57

SpaceNut
Administrator
From: New Hampshire
Registered: 2004-07-22
Posts: 23,099

Re: Nuclear vs. Solar vs. Others

Tesla's Powerwall by the Numbers

The Powerwall comes in two sizes: 7 kWh ($3000) and 10 kWh ($3500). Both use Tesla’s Li-ion battery technology - no surprise there. Since there’s only a small price difference between the two, I’ll focus on the 10 kWh model. The first thing to note is that the Powerwall does not include an inverter - it’s just the battery bank, charge controller, and a liquid thermal control system that allows the unit to withstand temperatures from -20C (-4F) to 43C (110F). Tesla says that the device is compatible with “a growing list of inverters” without specifying which brands or models. The Powerwall can deliver 2 kW of continuous power and 3.3 kW of peak power. An inverter capable of handling that costs around $1500, give or take a few hundred. That brings the price tag up to $5000, not including installation. (It must be installed by a qualified electrician.) Powerwalls can be combined to create up to 90 kWh of storage - enough to meet the needs of virtually any residential customer. The storage system has a round-trip DC-DC efficiency of 92%. Factor in the typical efficiency of a good inverter, around 95%, and we’re looking at a total round-trip efficiency of 87%. That 10 kWh battery, for all practical purposes, provides 8.7 kWh of AC electricity.
If a person spent $3500 on the Powerwall and another $1500 on the inverter, it would take ten years (simple payback) for the unit to pay for itself. Since it has a 10 year warranty (and so do most inverters), it’s a break even situation at best.

*In reality, completely draining the battery every day shortens its life. A battery under those conditions would lose about 30% of its initial capacity after 500 charge-discharge cycles - not even two years of daily use. (Good thing there’s a ten-year warranty!) At a friendlier 80% depth of discharge, a Li-ion battery will survive about 1900 cycles (about five years) before losing a significant amount of its capacity.

https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/powerwall-specs

Residential Battery Storage — Tesla Powerwall x 4 vs Aquion Energy x 2 vs Iron Edison x 1
Tesla-Powerwall-vs-Competitors.png


    Powerwall: 92% efficiency, capacity = average of 90% rated 7 kWh over product life (due to assumed degradation over time), 5,000 cycles before degrading to 80% of rated capacity (theoretical “end of product life”). Also, SolarCity prices come from statements from SolarCity, the wholesale price comes from Tesla Energy, and the retail price from a distributor includes an assumed 20% markup.
    Aquion Energy S20P: 85% efficiency, capacity = average of 90% rated 2.366 kWh over product life (due to assumed degradation over time), 3,000 cycles before degrading to 80% of rated capacity (theoretical “end of product life”). Price from retailer linked above (and seems to be on sale).
    Aquion Energy M100-L082P: 85% efficiency, capacity = average of 90% rated 28.4 kWh over product life (due to assumed degradation over time), 3,000 cycles before degrading to 80% of rated capacity (theoretical “end of product life”). Price from retailer linked above (and seems to be on sale). Admittedly, far larger than most homes would need — more appropriate for some businesses.
    Iron Edison 24V Lithium Battery: 96% efficiency, capacity = average of 90% rated 4 kWh over product life (due to assumed degradation over time), 2,000 cycles before degrading to 80% of rated capacity (theoretical “end of product life”), 80% depth of discharge. Price from retailer linked above.

http://mragheb.com/NPRE%20498ES%20Energ … teries.pdf

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB