The lack of general availability of 3 phase power in the USA - Page 10
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 89101112 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 259
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jim rozen View Post
    Duke Energy, coal ash pond failure, Dan River, Pat Mccrory governor, former Duke Energy CEO....?

    2014 Dan River coal ash spill - Wikipedia

    Yeah, we're gonna just shit in your drinking water to save money, and then just say 'oops sorry.' And folks wonder why there's a WAR ON COAL.

    You want coal-fired plants? OK, your land is their new ash dump site. Sorry!!!!!
    But "green" "renewable" energy necessitates coal / carbon fuels because demand at peak cannot be met due to lack of reliability (and it will always be so).

    Look at what the EPA did under Obama in Colorado....

    Gold King Mine spill: EPA says it won't pay $1.2 billion in damages over wastewater spill - CBS News

    ... and tell me how "government" is the solution.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    California
    Posts
    806
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    736
    Likes (Received)
    169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnctoolcat View Post
    I find it astounding that we aren’t planning more hydro-electric dams!

    It’s clean energy, and the region with a dam gets the huge benefit of having a lake for leisure and tourism.

    Yes, people would have to be relocated, but they are now for roads and such when necessary.

    Why not more hydro??
    people would have to be relocated [and would they have to ware some glitter like a star of biden ] and what about the poor fish .at the end of the day Nuclear just like the IC motor is the best bang for the buck . star of biden see scarecrow from wizard of oz

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    20,836
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    12213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 1yesca View Post
    .at the end of the day Nuclear just like the IC motor is the best bang for the buck
    Not for much longer.

    Graphene turns out to have several useful "cousins".

    Synthetic photosynthesis is working in the lab for quite some time, already.

    So is "mechanical" (nano-tech) dis-association of water to O2 & H off the oddities of outer-valence shell "fit" - same as Silver's outer- valence automagically breaks down O2 to nascent O.

    Photo synth does something PEV does not do directly, if at all:

    - Turns problematic CO2 into an asset, not a problem.

    - Can produce building-block useful materials or even FOODSTUFFs, same as NATURE has been doing for more than just a day or three.

    COAL.. will become more valuable for what can be MADE out of it than for burning.

    Nat gas already HAS. Plastics feedstock facilities are being built around Pittsburgh to take advantage of plentitude of nat gas, and the (relative) decline in NEED for heating. Off the back of more folks ADOPTING better insulation for bizness and residence alike to reduce their energy bills.

    "As usual" smart MONEY.. does the work.

    Governments? Just put up the barriers to progress.

    It's their job, waste, theft, friction, pointless wars, and OTHER herd insanity manipulation.

    What ELSE could they possibly do for their crust and NOT f**k up?

    Bore you with a never-ending saga of tragedy on Daytime Tee Vee?

    Oh...Wait..???

  4. #184
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    works great in a lab, until it's subject to the elements, as always.

    ...the rest is hopes and dreams. We need solutions for NOW, since NOW we're having blackouts because we based our power creation system on feelings instead of reliability.

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    20,836
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    12213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by APynckel View Post
    works great in a lab, until it's subject to the elements, as always.

    ...the rest is hopes and dreams. We need solutions for NOW, since NOW we're having blackouts because we based our power creation system on feelings instead of reliability.
    Whine for yourself... or DO something about it.. for yourself.

    "We" have superbly reliable power in the general Dominion Power service area.
    Broadly based. Solar PV included as well as nukes and pumped storage.

    "Hopes and dreams" becoming REALITY is what funded our retirements by age fifty. And still do. Full 27+ years on, we have greater net worth than when the last "paycheck" was had.

    Don't whine. Research. Then invest. It PAYS!

    Expect salvation off the back of OTHER PEOPLES good choices.. or MONEY?
    May as well play "Russian Roulette" .. with a loaded 12-bore single!

    Even THAT is cleaner, neater, cheaper a mess to clean up... than voting-in Democrats ... for their never-ending sagas of "INaction movie tragedy" .....entertainment value.. to the bored-to-tears and no longer give a s**t lumpen proletariat!

    Too many idiots. Too much time.



    We must be about due for an "ELE" asteroid strike "RESET"?

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    659
    Likes (Received)
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    I thought all Canadians had 3-Phase 600 volt service into their house....
    Not this Canadian. Altho he might wish he did, tis 2km away and approx $45thou funny money when I asked twenty years ago. I can live with what I have. :-)

    L7

  7. #187
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    659
    Likes (Received)
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnctoolcat View Post
    I find it astounding that we aren’t planning more hydro-electric dams!

    It’s clean energy, and the region with a dam gets the huge benefit of having a lake for leisure and tourism.

    Yes, people would have to be relocated, but they are now for roads and such when necessary.

    Why not more hydro??
    I agree. Central Canada has offered to build more to supply the US grid, but the northern US power rates at present are too low to make it economically rational.

    I’m mind boggled at the rate and scale China is building new dams. Consider the new Baihetan dam on the Jinsha river (upstream of Three Gorges). Or the planned dams and diversion of the Yarling Tsangpo river in Tibet before it makes its dive thru the Himalayas into India and becomes the Bramaputra River. Don’t care for the politics and lack of respect for humanity that China shows, but they do know how to get big projects done.

    L7
    Last edited by lucky7; 07-30-2021 at 05:30 PM. Reason: Spelling

  8. Likes SomeoneSomewhere liked this post
  9. #188
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    peekskill, NY
    Posts
    27,303
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6359

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by APynckel View Post
    ...
    ... and tell me how "government" is the solution.
    Please provide your address so Duke Energy can set up their new coal ash slurry pond.

  10. Likes digger doug liked this post
  11. #189
    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Country
    NEW ZEALAND
    Posts
    417
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    31
    Likes (Received)
    98

    Default

    Hydro and pumped hydro will make a damn good start, along with existing nukes. Add some demand management/price incentives and I expect you're most of the way there.

    Power is currently mostly cheaper at night, because there's more spare capacity at night. Turn that capacity off or stick a fat charge on it, and stick a few GW of solar on rooftops, and you've got a reversal so that daytime power is cheaper.

    You don't need to hit 100%. You want to get the easiest 95% and leave the last 5%, and go deal to another industry. Diminishing returns and all that.

    I seem to remember it being the gas plants in Texas that fell over in the cold, not the renewables...

  12. Likes JST, neilho liked this post
  13. #190
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SomeoneSomewhere View Post
    Hydro and pumped hydro will make a damn good start, along with existing nukes. Add some demand management/price incentives and I expect you're most of the way there.

    Power is currently mostly cheaper at night, because there's more spare capacity at night. Turn that capacity off or stick a fat charge on it, and stick a few GW of solar on rooftops, and you've got a reversal so that daytime power is cheaper.

    You don't need to hit 100%. You want to get the easiest 95% and leave the last 5%, and go deal to another industry. Diminishing returns and all that.

    I seem to remember it being the gas plants in Texas that fell over in the cold, not the renewables...
    Pumped hydro has been proven to not be efficient enough due to evaporation and frictional losses.

  14. #191
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Virginia
    Posts
    20,836
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    7561
    Likes (Received)
    12213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by APynckel View Post
    Pumped hydro has been proven to not be efficient enough due to evaporation and frictional losses.
    What a crock of ignorant shite!

    I have been reliant on it for ages. So have many others:

    "Because of the immense scale achieved through these applications, this is the most common type of grid-level energy storage based on megawatts installed today."

    Pumped Hydropower - Energy Storage Association

    Plenty more solid info where that came from.

    "About 95% of all utility-scale energy storage in the U.S. currently comes from pumped-storage hydro. The nation has about 40 operational pumped storage plants with a combined capacity of 22 GW."

    That's just the USA, BTW.

    And NEW installs continue:

    Four Projects Picked to Speed Up Pumped Storage Hydro Construction

  15. #192
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    22,364
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by apynckel View Post
    pumped hydro has been proven to not be efficient enough due to evaporation and frictional losses.
    w-o-w !!!!1

  16. #193
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thermite View Post
    What a crock of ignorant shite!

    I have been reliant on it for ages. So have many others:

    "Because of the immense scale achieved through these applications, this is the most common type of grid-level energy storage based on megawatts installed today."

    Pumped Hydropower - Energy Storage Association

    Plenty more solid info where that came from.

    "About 95% of all utility-scale energy storage in the U.S. currently comes from pumped-storage hydro. The nation has about 40 operational pumped storage plants with a combined capacity of 22 GW."

    That's just the USA, BTW.

    And NEW installs continue:

    Four Projects Picked to Speed Up Pumped Storage Hydro Construction
    Thermodynamics. How does it work?

    Reservoirs are already depleting, and there's only so many of them, and areas to have reservoirs.

  17. #194
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    St Louis
    Posts
    19,447
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    2447
    Likes (Received)
    3702

    Default

    ROTFLMAO............ Why would aluminum plants go there? Because they have power to spare. Power is cheap. Hydropower is available, and geothermal, I think hydro is considerably bigger than geothermal. Aluminum plants like that cheap power, one shut down here because they did not like the new power rates.

    Any industry that uses a lot of power likes cheap power. But, the GDP is not huge, I think they are 10th or so in aluminum production.

    Run a cable over there and you can buy some power too. The place IS a little far away, though. You might have noticed that.

    Quote Originally Posted by APynckel View Post
    Rest is spot on, nuclear replaces this.

    It SHOULD, but is viewed as equally evil as coal, or worse. Not building more, greenies want to shut down what we have. (Actually, the smart ones have figured out coal is a lot worse, so they are beginning to support it.) Could have added it.

    Pumped storage varies, but is generally about as efficient as a lead-acid battery... maybe 80%. That's decent for a peaking plant, considering that you can turn on the valves in a fairly short time (not instantly!) so it has good "short notice availability".

    But, the power was already generated at low efficiency (that pesky Carnot guy), then you get 80% of that.

    However, it is refilled overnight.......not too useful for overnight power. Read it:

    Taum Sauk | Ameren Missouri - Ameren Missouri

  18. #195
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Vershire, Vermont
    Posts
    2,800
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1967
    Likes (Received)
    926

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JST View Post
    ...The "sources" you posted include what can only be described as "loads"....
    Hydro is not a load. Wrong again.

    ....Pumped hydro is a relatively severely inefficient source...
    Agreed. But the financials work. Utilities have to pay some attention to that :-). It ain't all about efficiency.

    ...Nuclear could be done, but you "greenies" hate it so much that you killed the most promising development in nuclear energy, which, combined with using thorium, would provide many hundreds of years of power. That development also takes care of the vast majority of the "nuclear waste", since the reactors will "burn" the products down to a tiny fraction of the volume now generated (and truly "wasted", thanks to your silly laws).....
    You seem to have mistaken me for someone else. "You greenies"? "Your silly laws"? Nuclear exists, btw, and provides a very steady baseline source, but doesn't cover peak loads because the financials don't work. Other sources cover peak loads. Also a financial solution.

    Gonna be really hard to build more nukes. That's just a political and financial reality, right or wrong. Building more hydro dams, pretty much the same due to environmental consequences, right or wrong. Very difficult to even get an existing hydro dam licensed after the license lapsed. DAMHIKT.

    And yes, a 100% renewable utility/grid is possible, because it's been done. It exists. How much more proof of possibility do you need?

    What I mean by "one size does not fit all" is that every utility has a mix of energy sources and loads that vary, often by 2:1 or more. Managing the loads and inputs is what grid operators do and there're a variety of power sources available, based on availability and geography. Different utilities have different solutions to their different problems. Applying general and broadbrush principles to specific problems may be helpful as guidance, but solutions to local problems are harder to come by.

    What do you propose we do about rising atmospheric CO2 levels? Apparently, from your posts, continue to drive ICE cars and sneer at wind and solar because many people charge their electric cars at night.

    Try to understand the financials behind the existence of so much solar and wind and you might lose some opinionatedness, if that's a word. It's wicked complicated and above both our pay grades.

  19. Likes SomeoneSomewhere liked this post
  20. #196
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    659
    Likes (Received)
    660

    Default

    Suggest the main reason nuclear cannot be the main electricity source has nothing to do with politics or ‘greenies’. Simply, a reactor cannot be turned on and off as quickly as daily varying loads demand. Tis fantastic for base load and I have no problem with more reactors being built for same but once you get beyond base it needs to be another source.

    If anyone doesn’t understand why, suggest reading up on Xenon poisoning and neutron absorption.

    L7

  21. #197
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    peekskill, NY
    Posts
    27,303
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    6359

    Default

    Indian Point nuclear generating stations:

    Indian Point Energy Center - Wikipedia

    Closed for a variety of reasons, chief among them the availability of less expensive power via other methods, and the lack of profit for the plant operators. Related, obviously.

    It's an older plant and the upkeep costs have crept up, reducing profits. Energy companies don't make energy, they make money. Another perennial thorn in the side is diesel backup power for that plant - they've always had problems making that reliable as reliability costs money. I think indian point is a microcosm of the eventual problems with nuclear power un the US commercial market. It's just getting harder and harder to make money with this.

  22. #198
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lucky7 View Post
    Suggest the main reason nuclear cannot be the main electricity source has nothing to do with politics or ‘greenies’. Simply, a reactor cannot be turned on and off as quickly as daily varying loads demand. Tis fantastic for base load and I have no problem with more reactors being built for same but once you get beyond base it needs to be another source.

    If anyone doesn’t understand why, suggest reading up on Xenon poisoning and neutron absorption.

    L7
    This is false and nuclear subs / ships prove it. We just don't use "those types" of reactors in public utility, higher flux cores.

  23. #199
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Texas
    Posts
    41
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    14
    Likes (Received)
    3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jim rozen View Post
    Indian Point nuclear generating stations:

    Indian Point Energy Center - Wikipedia

    Closed for a variety of reasons, chief among them the availability of less expensive power via other methods, and the lack of profit for the plant operators. Related, obviously.

    It's an older plant and the upkeep costs have crept up, reducing profits. Energy companies don't make energy, they make money. Another perennial thorn in the side is diesel backup power for that plant - they've always had problems making that reliable as reliability costs money. I think indian point is a microcosm of the eventual problems with nuclear power un the US commercial market. It's just getting harder and harder to make money with this.

    .... what?

    Comparing just cost of energy in terms of $ / unit power is too narrow sighted to use as the only measurement for validity. Cost is manipulated anyways through government subsidies "propping up" renewables. Nuclear is cheaper than renewables, denser (in terms of land area usage for a given power output), SAFER, more scale able, less harmful to the local ecology, and advanced reactor tech is already in existence just waiting to be implemented. On top of that, the "waste" from a reactor would have (for all intents and purposes) already have been created through the natural decay process of the fuel over time, and in theory, we could still use spent fuel cooling down to help heat neighborhoods, rather than just letting it sit in a cask doing nothing.

    Let's not speak of spent fuel recycling and enrichment through breeding to create more fuel, and then the STUPID high thermal efficiency of molten salt / breeder reactors compared to current PWR's / BWR's.

  24. #200
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    1,694
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    659
    Likes (Received)
    660

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by APynckel View Post
    This is false and nuclear subs / ships prove it. We just don't use "those types" of reactors in public utility, higher flux cores.
    Arguing with basic laws of physics are we?

    Naval vessels have much easier methods of cooling than land based- ie can loose heat overboard. And in general are much smaller and nimble than utility reactors. I suspect, but don’t know for sure, that military reactors aren’t using same level of enrichment or type of fissile material. If you know more, kindly explain.

    L7


Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •