NATO did not agree to anything. There was an agreement where Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed the following;
1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders. 2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine. 3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics. 4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine. 5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine. 6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
Nowhere is there a commitment to defend Ukraine against conventional forces.
Because it takes 2 reservoirs with height between them. You need a surface and sub-surface reservoir.The other issue is that you need to install the generators as low as possible. Running a generation turbine hundreds of feet below ground is not easy. Also, a few hundred feet is not enough drop to make it viable. The relevant height difference is between the top of the upper reservoir and the top of the lower reservoir. It does not matter how deep the lower reservoir is if it is filled almost to the level of the upper reservoir.
Why you're wasting my time with volumes of mindless drivel, I may never understand.
If you can't understand all the concepts involved then why are you so adamant that you are correct in thinking most of the losses are from evaporation? here is your original statement;
The power loss is overwhelmingly because of evaporation from the dam reservoir. If you're building a dedicated pumped-storage facility, particularly in the desert, you simply need to cover it and you can get those losses down to next to nothing.
And how does that, in your twisted mind, make the 87% figure less relevant?
Because it is inaccurate as shown by the figures for the individual American installations. For example the first two links I sent were from American plants. They showed efficiencies of 73% and 76% and that is far from 87%. What you were looking it is called a secondary source. You need to look at primary sources to get actual figures. It is a basic research technique.
No? Everyone else in the world seems to think Courtright Dam and Wishon Dam are... wait for it... dams.
You claim that there has been at least one dam that was built to produce electricity the conventional way and was converted to work with pumped storage. Here is your original statement;
But it's already built. Wherever there was a big river, dams have been constructed to take advantage of it, and they've been extremely profitable investments. Adding a pump to an existing dam to convert it to pumped-storage operation, is rather inexpensive.
None of the examples you have referred to have done that. Yes they are dams but they never were conventional run-of river dams. They are called off-river storage dams. Perhaps you could educate yourself about the difference.
Construction began in 1959 to coincide with the Hunterston A nuclear power station in Ayrshire. Cruachan uses electricity generated at night to pump water to the higher reservoir, which can then be released during the day to provide power as necessary.
It is a purpose built dam to work with a nearby nuclear plant and not a conversion.
This clearly shows that CV was able to detect street marks as soon as 2009.
Lane markings are very different from parking lot markings. Parking lot markings are much more complex and varied. Show me a video where a car found a parking spot by the lines on the ground. I do not think one exists.
It may not be "solved" as in "everybody will have it on every car tomorrow", but as in "the tech is proven, is there and it's evolving steadily".
We have also been evolving steadily toward fusion power and flying cars.
Most of your sources that just state total losses and don't bother to separate out the evaporative losses
You have no sources for evaporative loss numbers. Look up the efficiencies of electric motors and water turbines. They are nowhere near 100%.
How would you feel about a source for 87% real-world efficiency?
Sorry but your link was broken. The only link I can find that mentions efficiency of pumped storage is this one and it is a summary of all US pumped hydro storage. As far as I can find Hawaii has no pumped storage facilities. All I can find are proposals but no completed projects. How about an actual efficiency rating from a real US plant.
Overall plant cycle efficiency is today 73%.
Notice that it is in New York State so evaporation would be minimal. Or this one;
While generating electricity, the pump-generators produce 2,010 million kWh annually but consumes 2,642 million kWh when pumping.
On an annual basis, the power station generates 1,420 GWh of electricity and consumes 1,720 GWh in pumping mode.
82.5% So for real world figure all I can come up with are between 72% and 82.5% with most in the mid 70%. Don't you think that if evaporative losses were a big factor and easily remedied that these installations would not have done it by now?
And as for conversions of dams to pumped storage, the first one that comes up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Helms Pumped Storage Plant is a power station that uses Helms Creek canyon for off-river water storage. It never was a conventional dam.
If they are unrelated arguments the why did you puth them in the same paragraph? If they are unrelated then your following statement is unsupported; Recognizer parking marks: already done some years ago, it's basic computer vision technology.
So the second part has nothing to do with parking so why is it in the thread about parking?
The car uses an array of internal and external sensors to get its position: Audi claims they can be as accurate up to 10cm, but only if they have access to special laser sensors inside the parking structure (four of those scanners had been set up in the parking structure to support the demo). These might be redundant in the future, as the car maker is working on a laser sensor that will be integrated in the car itself (think the sensor tower on top of Google's self-driving car, but completely integrated in the chassis).
The self-parking system also needs access to the car park's management system, in order to find and allocate a free parking space and transmit the route to the car. Since most modern car parks have more than one level or are underground, GPS-based positioning is not really an option, so instead the management system uses Wi-Fi to transmit the route.
That's lots of infrastructure. In the second video the driver selected the spot and there was a car to park next to. The Volvo scenario has three strategically placed cars to mark the parking spot. Notice that the car drove across many painted lines, a no-no in most lots, and ignored many parking spots. That video looks very suspicious considering the car starts and ends in the exact same place every time. Running a car on a script with a simple algorithm to stop and wait for an obstacle to move is a trick.
I doubt that any of those vehicles given an open parking lot would know where to park. The forward parking problem is not "solved".
Try reading whole sentences. The following is a quote from this article.
Due to evaporation losses from the exposed water surface and mechanical efficiency losses during conversion, only between 70% and 85% of the electrical energy used to pump the water into the elevated reservoir can be regained in this process.
Pumps and turbines (often implemented as the same physical unit, actually) can be something like 90% efficient, so the round-trip storage comes at only modest cost.
First, the charging process in pumped hydro storage is affected by the pump efficiency that pumps the water into the upper reservoir at times of low electrical demand. The losses during discharging process on the other hand are caused by the turbine operation to generate electricity at peak load periods. The total charging and discharging rate is given by calculating the product of the efficiencies of pipe (friction losses) and the mechanical equipments
The hourly evaporation losses is assumed to be negligible because the amount of water evaporated is far too small compared to the total water volume in the reservoir
That paper quotes efficiency at 75 – 85 percent.
Here is an article stating that evaporative losses are minor;
North Eden Creek will be the primary source of water for the initial fill of the lower reservoir. Water rights will need to be secured, both for the initial fill and annual evaporation maintenance. The advantages of this system are that once the initial fill has occurred, the only water needed will be a small amount to offset annual evaporation from the reservoirs. The precipitation and evaporation balance will result in an annual water loss of approximately 0.2m over the total surface area of both reservoirs.
While higher in the desert evaporative losses do not effect cycle efficiency significantly. Need I go on? Yelling without up backing you statement with references just weakens your case.
Perhaps you should read what you referenced. High cost and low capacity killed it. It may not be viable for non-paper items as thay may be damaged. Also the tubes were only 7-8 inches in diameter. Letters bend while parcels don't.
The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land.
Unless you dig a nice big hole at the bottom that can hold a day's worth of water.
Do you even realize how much water that is? For example Taum Sauk is a 550MW plant that has a reservoir with 1.5billion gallons of water in it that would drain in 24 hours. A hole big enough to hold that water would be 46 acres and 100 feet deep. Digging a hole that big is not a viable solution. Can you show a reference where this has been done or even contemplated?
It's not like I imagined any of this. Dams ARE converted to pumped-storage.
References please.The only places I can find where conventional dams are used for pumped storage us where there is a lake close downstream and those locations are few and far between.
That's just a little bit high, but still a tiny fraction of the 35% losses previously stated,
You need to learn a bit of math. Ten percent is not a tiny fraction of 35%. It is in fact 29% of the loss. It also does not take into account moving water the horizontal distance between the lower reservoir and the upper reservoir. Most references to pumped storage efficiency refer to 70% to 85% efficiency. Losing up to 30% of the energy attempted to be stored is not a good thing. Add together the cost of electricity generation, losses during conversion and the cost of running the pumped hydro station and you get very expensive electricity.
I found a very interesting report from California ISO about the difficulties of integratong large amounts of solar into the grid. It is all about the Duck Chart. It revolves around how conventional supply has to adjust to compensate for the supply of solar based electricity. You can read the report to get the fine points but the issue is the steepness of the duck's neck. During the day solar can supply a lot of electricity. During that time demand on conventional supply is low. That is called the belly of the duck. As sundown occurs the production of solar drops off quickly but demand stays high. That rise is called the neck of the duck. That requires a lot of conventional power to need to come on line quickly. If not controlled correctly over/under supply can occur. Over supply is even more dangerous as it can damage equipment. Under supply causes brown/blackouts. As more solar is integrated and demand increases due to population growth and use of electric vehicles the neck gets steeper and the risk increases.
Part of the renewable integration analysis conducted by the ISO uncovered concerns about frequency response capabilities due to the displacement of conventional generators on the system. The 2020 33% studies show that in times of low load and high renewable generation, as much as 60% of the energy production would come from renewable generators that displace conventional generation and frequency response capability. Under these operating conditions, the grid may not be able to prevent frequency decline following the loss of a large conventional generator or transmission asset. This situation arises because renewable generators are not currently required to include automated frequency response capability and are operated at full output (they can not increase power). Without this automated capability,the system becomes increasingly exposed to blackouts when generation or transmission outages occur.
Times of low load and high supply occur daily around noon.
Peak demand on the PG&E grid in the Summer is 1200-1800 PDT
I am not sure if you are intentionally lying but here is the California outlook for supply and demand from PG&E. Notice the peak is between 5PM and 6PM and the demand does not drop off to noon levels until 11PM. Today's sunset in California is about 7PM so much of that higher energy use is after the sun goes down so angling the panels will not help much. Look a little further down the page I linked. Notice that between 5-6pm the supply from solar drops from 70% of noon maximum to 37% of maximum even though demand is at it's peak. The highers production of solar power is between 11AM and 3PM. Wouldn't it be good to store some of the electricity to be used during peak demand?
Adding a pump to an existing dam to convert it to pumped-storage operation, is rather inexpensive.
You have no idea how dams work. Water that leaves a dam flows down river and is not available to be pumped up again. Even if you added another dam to catch the water it would decrease the efficiency of the original dam as the drop would be decreased.
The power loss is overwhelmingly because of evaporation from the dam reservoir.
Again you need to look into facts before commenting. The no electric motor or generator is 100% efficient. For example, water turbines have an efficiency as high as 95%. Since that is for a turbine optimized for generation and pumped storage uses the same turbine to pump and it does to generate the efficiency would be less. Assuming losses from the pump are the same at least 10% of the electricity is lost due to converting the electricity into potential energy and back again.
First, {lease learn to use the quote tag to differentiate your words from the words you are commenting on.
One only needs a low reservoir (see the Taum Sauk).
I guess you didn't read about Taum Sauk very well (emphasis mine)
The pumped-storage hydroelectric plant was built to help meet peak power demands during the day. Electrical generators are turned by water flowing from a reservoir on top of Proffit Mountain into a lower reservoir on the East Fork of the Black River. At night, excess electricity on the power grid is used to pump water back to the mountaintop.
Taum Sauk uses two reservoirs, a high one top of Proffit Mountain and a low one on the East Fork of the Black River. All pumped storage uses 2 reservoirs as it stores the energy as potential energy in the difference in altitude of the higher and lower reservoirs. Using a natural lake as the low reservoir is still a second reservoir.
And, as it turns out, there is a (functionally) infinite supply of water in Lake Michigan and a functionally infinite amount of land with delta h on the West Coast of Michigan,
Too bad we do not have a functionally infinite supply of money to build these pumped water storage stations. Add the cost of the pumped storage to the cost of the electricity generation and you come up with some very expensive electricity.
Free storage? Wind and solar fueled generators, like all generators, sell the energy instantaneously.
What I think he is talking about is private installations that have installed panels and wing based generators. Mist of that power is used by the home or business. When they have excess power they sell it to the grid. When they do not have enough power they buy power from the grid. Their objective is to have a net zero bill at the end of the month. The energy they buy has to be generated by conventional means yet the energy they sell just means that the dispatch-able conventional energy is not used. The problems are as that the grid does not get paid for and the dispatch-able plants on standby do not get paid for.
It will be many years (more than a decade) before the percent of electricity we have to "throw away" due to inflexibility exceeds 2%,
You missed the point about storage completely. It is not about "throwing away" electricity. It is about having electricity available when it is needed. Wind based generators do not work in low or very high winds. Solar panels do not work at night and work at much lower levels in winter and during storms. Storage is need to cover for those times.
Yopu also missed a few more points; 1. Uganda has no State religion. 2. Though the original law called for the death penalty, what was passed was life in prison. 3. The law was passed by parliament not a referendum 4. The last election in Uganda was in 2006. This law was not even thought about when the people elected Parliament.
How is that different from citing a Muslim in a destabilized war-torn country?
I am citing the spiritual leader of a Muslim country whose last war was over 25 years ago. If they are not stable in 25 years there are big issues with the country.
Until these "laws" are repealed by the Muslim religion there will always be people who will use them to justify murder. One of the strengths of most other religions is that there is a head of that religion; Pope, Arch Bishop, Dahli Lama, etc. The problem I see is that any Imam can make any interpretation of the Qur'an and there is no one to overrule him. There are issues like the Branch Davidian but they never get as big as ISIS. Mainly because Christian leaders with authority denounce them. Where would that come from in the Muslim religion?
Where in the Old or New Testament does it say that people who will not convert will be put to the sword or people who convert from Christianity will also be killed. It says that in the Qur'an. That some Christians perverted the teachings is very different than these tenants being in the holy book.
Wasn't that long ago the Christians were the same.
Which shows that Christianity has evolved but the Muslim religion has not. Where in the last 100 years there has been a death sentence for converting from Christianity? The point is that entire countries are still following Sharia Laws now.
Slashdot Mirror
NATO did not agree to anything. There was an agreement where Russia, the U.S., and the UK confirmed the following;
1. Respect Ukrainian independence and sovereignty within its existing borders.
2. Refrain from the threat or use of force against Ukraine.
3. Refrain from using economic pressure on Ukraine in order to influence its politics.
4. Seek United Nations Security Council action if nuclear weapons are used against Ukraine.
5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against Ukraine.
6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding these commitments.
Nowhere is there a commitment to defend Ukraine against conventional forces.
Because it takes 2 reservoirs with height between them. You need a surface and sub-surface reservoir.The other issue is that you need to install the generators as low as possible. Running a generation turbine hundreds of feet below ground is not easy. Also, a few hundred feet is not enough drop to make it viable. The relevant height difference is between the top of the upper reservoir and the top of the lower reservoir. It does not matter how deep the lower reservoir is if it is filled almost to the level of the upper reservoir.
Why you're wasting my time with volumes of mindless drivel, I may never understand.
If you can't understand all the concepts involved then why are you so adamant that you are correct in thinking most of the losses are from evaporation? here is your original statement;
The power loss is overwhelmingly because of evaporation from the dam reservoir. If you're building a dedicated pumped-storage facility, particularly in the desert, you simply need to cover it and you can get those losses down to next to nothing.
And how does that, in your twisted mind, make the 87% figure less relevant?
Because it is inaccurate as shown by the figures for the individual American installations. For example the first two links I sent were from American plants. They showed efficiencies of 73% and 76% and that is far from 87%. What you were looking it is called a secondary source. You need to look at primary sources to get actual figures. It is a basic research technique.
No? Everyone else in the world seems to think Courtright Dam and Wishon Dam are... wait for it... dams.
You claim that there has been at least one dam that was built to produce electricity the conventional way and was converted to work with pumped storage. Here is your original statement;
But it's already built. Wherever there was a big river, dams have been constructed to take advantage of it, and they've been extremely profitable investments. Adding a pump to an existing dam to convert it to pumped-storage operation, is rather inexpensive.
None of the examples you have referred to have done that. Yes they are dams but they never were conventional run-of river dams. They are called off-river storage dams. Perhaps you could educate yourself about the difference.
Again, educate yourself before commenting.
Sorry but here is some information on the Cruachan Power Station;
Construction began in 1959 to coincide with the Hunterston A nuclear power station in Ayrshire. Cruachan uses electricity generated at night to pump water to the higher reservoir, which can then be released during the day to provide power as necessary.
It is a purpose built dam to work with a nearby nuclear plant and not a conversion.
This clearly shows that CV was able to detect street marks as soon as 2009.
Lane markings are very different from parking lot markings. Parking lot markings are much more complex and varied. Show me a video where a car found a parking spot by the lines on the ground. I do not think one exists.
It may not be "solved" as in "everybody will have it on every car tomorrow", but as in "the tech is proven, is there and it's evolving steadily".
We have also been evolving steadily toward fusion power and flying cars.
Most of your sources that just state total losses and don't bother to separate out the evaporative losses
You have no sources for evaporative loss numbers. Look up the efficiencies of electric motors and water turbines. They are nowhere near 100%.
How would you feel about a source for 87% real-world efficiency?
Sorry but your link was broken. The only link I can find that mentions efficiency of pumped storage is this one and it is a summary of all US pumped hydro storage. As far as I can find Hawaii has no pumped storage facilities. All I can find are proposals but no completed projects.
How about an actual efficiency rating from a real US plant.
Overall plant cycle efficiency is today 73%.
Notice that it is in New York State so evaporation would be minimal.
Or this one;
While generating electricity, the pump-generators produce 2,010 million kWh annually but consumes 2,642 million kWh when pumping.
2010/2642 = 76%
Or this one.
It generates about 1 million MWh annually and consumes about 20 percent more in pumping mode.
That would be 80% efficiency.
This one
The plant runs on average at 74–75% efficiency.
This one
The plant generates 737 GWh annually but consumes 1,021 GWh pumping.
That is 72% efficiency.
this one.
On an annual basis, the power station generates 1,420 GWh of electricity and consumes 1,720 GWh in pumping mode.
82.5%
So for real world figure all I can come up with are between 72% and 82.5% with most in the mid 70%. Don't you think that if evaporative losses were a big factor and easily remedied that these installations would not have done it by now?
And as for conversions of dams to pumped storage, the first one that comes up:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Helms Pumped Storage Plant is a power station that uses Helms Creek canyon for off-river water storage. It never was a conventional dam.
You don't know what you are talking about.
If they are unrelated arguments the why did you puth them in the same paragraph? If they are unrelated then your following statement is unsupported;
Recognizer parking marks: already done some years ago, it's basic computer vision technology.
So the second part has nothing to do with parking so why is it in the thread about parking?
Here is how the Audi did it.
The car uses an array of internal and external sensors to get its position: Audi claims they can be as accurate up to 10cm, but only if they have access to special laser sensors inside the parking structure (four of those scanners had been set up in the parking structure to support the demo). These might be redundant in the future, as the car maker is working on a laser sensor that will be integrated in the car itself (think the sensor tower on top of Google's self-driving car, but completely integrated in the chassis).
The self-parking system also needs access to the car park's management system, in order to find and allocate a free parking space and transmit the route to the car. Since most modern car parks have more than one level or are underground, GPS-based positioning is not really an option, so instead the management system uses Wi-Fi to transmit the route.
That's lots of infrastructure.
In the second video the driver selected the spot and there was a car to park next to.
The Volvo scenario has three strategically placed cars to mark the parking spot. Notice that the car drove across many painted lines, a no-no in most lots, and ignored many parking spots. That video looks very suspicious considering the car starts and ends in the exact same place every time. Running a car on a script with a simple algorithm to stop and wait for an obstacle to move is a trick.
I doubt that any of those vehicles given an open parking lot would know where to park. The forward parking problem is not "solved".
Try reading whole sentences. The following is a quote from this article.
Due to evaporation losses from the exposed water surface and mechanical efficiency losses during conversion, only between 70% and 85% of the electrical energy used to pump the water into the elevated reservoir can be regained in this process.
Here is a quote from another article
The cycle is generally about 80% efficient, with losses due to water evaporation and engine non-idealities.
And another article.
Pumps and turbines (often implemented as the same physical unit, actually) can be something like 90% efficient, so the round-trip storage comes at only modest cost.
Please note that 90% pump efficiency + 90% turbine efficiency equals 81% overall efficiency.
Here is another;
First, the charging process in pumped hydro storage is affected by the pump efficiency that pumps the water into the upper reservoir at times of low electrical demand. The losses during discharging process on the other hand are caused by the turbine operation to generate electricity at peak load periods. The total charging and discharging rate is given by calculating the product of the efficiencies of pipe (friction losses) and the mechanical equipments
The hourly evaporation losses is assumed to be negligible because the amount of water evaporated is far too small compared to the total water volume in the reservoir
That paper quotes efficiency at 75 – 85 percent.
Here is an article stating that evaporative losses are minor;
North Eden Creek will be the primary source of water for the initial fill of the lower reservoir. Water rights will need to be secured, both for the initial fill and annual evaporation maintenance. The advantages of this system are that once the initial fill has occurred, the only water needed will be a small amount to offset annual evaporation from the reservoirs. The precipitation and evaporation balance will result in an annual water loss of approximately 0.2m over the total surface area of both reservoirs.
While higher in the desert evaporative losses do not effect cycle efficiency significantly.
Need I go on? Yelling without up backing you statement with references just weakens your case.
Perhaps you should read what you referenced. High cost and low capacity killed it. It may not be viable for non-paper items as thay may be damaged. Also the tubes were only 7-8 inches in diameter. Letters bend while parcels don't.
Your airspace does end somewhere.
The law, in balancing the public interest in using the airspace for air navigation against the landowner's rights, declared that a landowner owns only so much of the airspace above their property as they may reasonably use in connection with their enjoyment of the underlying land.
Unless you dig a nice big hole at the bottom that can hold a day's worth of water.
Do you even realize how much water that is? For example Taum Sauk is a 550MW plant that has a reservoir with 1.5billion gallons of water in it that would drain in 24 hours. A hole big enough to hold that water would be 46 acres and 100 feet deep. Digging a hole that big is not a viable solution. Can you show a reference where this has been done or even contemplated?
It's not like I imagined any of this. Dams ARE converted to pumped-storage.
References please.The only places I can find where conventional dams are used for pumped storage us where there is a lake close downstream and those locations are few and far between.
That's just a little bit high, but still a tiny fraction of the 35% losses previously stated,
You need to learn a bit of math. Ten percent is not a tiny fraction of 35%. It is in fact 29% of the loss. It also does not take into account moving water the horizontal distance between the lower reservoir and the upper reservoir. Most references to pumped storage efficiency refer to 70% to 85% efficiency. Losing up to 30% of the energy attempted to be stored is not a good thing. Add together the cost of electricity generation, losses during conversion and the cost of running the pumped hydro station and you get very expensive electricity.
From the DARPA Urban Challenge web site.
A final test on the NQE B course required the robots to find an assigned parking spot between adjacent parked cars
Parking between two vehicles is not deciphering the lines on pavement and parking appropriately. It is using the vehicles to mark where to park.
I found a very interesting report from California ISO about the difficulties of integratong large amounts of solar into the grid. It is all about the Duck Chart. It revolves around how conventional supply has to adjust to compensate for the supply of solar based electricity. You can read the report to get the fine points but the issue is the steepness of the duck's neck. During the day solar can supply a lot of electricity. During that time demand on conventional supply is low. That is called the belly of the duck. As sundown occurs the production of solar drops off quickly but demand stays high. That rise is called the neck of the duck. That requires a lot of conventional power to need to come on line quickly. If not controlled correctly over/under supply can occur. Over supply is even more dangerous as it can damage equipment. Under supply causes brown/blackouts. As more solar is integrated and demand increases due to population growth and use of electric vehicles the neck gets steeper and the risk increases.
Part of the renewable integration analysis conducted by the ISO uncovered concerns about frequency response capabilities due to the displacement of conventional generators on the system. The 2020 33% studies show that in times of low load and high renewable generation, as much as 60% of the energy production would come from renewable generators that displace conventional generation and frequency response capability. Under these operating conditions, the grid may not be able to prevent frequency decline following the loss of a large conventional generator or transmission asset. This situation arises because renewable generators are not currently required to include automated frequency response capability and are operated at full output (they can not increase power). Without this automated capability,the system becomes increasingly exposed to blackouts when generation or transmission outages occur.
Times of low load and high supply occur daily around noon.
Peak demand on the PG&E grid in the Summer is 1200-1800 PDT
I am not sure if you are intentionally lying but here is the California outlook for supply and demand from PG&E. Notice the peak is between 5PM and 6PM and the demand does not drop off to noon levels until 11PM. Today's sunset in California is about 7PM so much of that higher energy use is after the sun goes down so angling the panels will not help much. Look a little further down the page I linked. Notice that between 5-6pm the supply from solar drops from 70% of noon maximum to 37% of maximum even though demand is at it's peak. The highers production of solar power is between 11AM and 3PM. Wouldn't it be good to store some of the electricity to be used during peak demand?
Adding a pump to an existing dam to convert it to pumped-storage operation, is rather inexpensive.
You have no idea how dams work. Water that leaves a dam flows down river and is not available to be pumped up again. Even if you added another dam to catch the water it would decrease the efficiency of the original dam as the drop would be decreased.
The power loss is overwhelmingly because of evaporation from the dam reservoir.
Again you need to look into facts before commenting. The no electric motor or generator is 100% efficient. For example, water turbines have an efficiency as high as 95%. Since that is for a turbine optimized for generation and pumped storage uses the same turbine to pump and it does to generate the efficiency would be less. Assuming losses from the pump are the same at least 10% of the electricity is lost due to converting the electricity into potential energy and back again.
First, {lease learn to use the quote tag to differentiate your words from the words you are commenting on.
One only needs a low reservoir (see the Taum Sauk).
I guess you didn't read about Taum Sauk very well (emphasis mine)
The pumped-storage hydroelectric plant was built to help meet peak power demands during the day. Electrical generators are turned by water flowing from a reservoir on top of Proffit Mountain into a lower reservoir on the East Fork of the Black River. At night, excess electricity on the power grid is used to pump water back to the mountaintop.
Taum Sauk uses two reservoirs, a high one top of Proffit Mountain and a low one on the East Fork of the Black River. All pumped storage uses 2 reservoirs as it stores the energy as potential energy in the difference in altitude of the higher and lower reservoirs. Using a natural lake as the low reservoir is still a second reservoir.
And, as it turns out, there is a (functionally) infinite supply of water in Lake Michigan and a functionally infinite amount of land with delta h on the West Coast of Michigan,
Too bad we do not have a functionally infinite supply of money to build these pumped water storage stations. Add the cost of the pumped storage to the cost of the electricity generation and you come up with some very expensive electricity.
Free storage? Wind and solar fueled generators, like all generators, sell the energy instantaneously.
What I think he is talking about is private installations that have installed panels and wing based generators. Mist of that power is used by the home or business. When they have excess power they sell it to the grid. When they do not have enough power they buy power from the grid. Their objective is to have a net zero bill at the end of the month. The energy they buy has to be generated by conventional means yet the energy they sell just means that the dispatch-able conventional energy is not used. The problems are as that the grid does not get paid for and the dispatch-able plants on standby do not get paid for.
It will be many years (more than a decade) before the percent of electricity we have to "throw away" due to inflexibility exceeds 2%,
You missed the point about storage completely. It is not about "throwing away" electricity. It is about having electricity available when it is needed. Wind based generators do not work in low or very high winds. Solar panels do not work at night and work at much lower levels in winter and during storms. Storage is need to cover for those times.
I guess you have never heard of the word "test". How do you know it was not God's plan to rescind the order at the last minute?
If God persisted Abraham should have killed God.
Is killing your only solution to a problem? By the way it is very difficult to kill an entity with no corporeal form that talks to you in you head.
Abraham's God is worse than ISIS.
Abraham's God is the same God as the ISIS God. Christians an Muslims follow the same entity though they use a different name.
It looks like the limits are in line with most of the world.
The Crusades were about control of land, mainly the Holy City, and not conversion of the people living there.
It celebrates that Abraham who, when God demanded Abraham murder his son, obliged blindly, putting his faith in God.
You should read more. Abraham was stopped at the last moment and a ram was sacrificed instead. Even you allude to the fact that Abraham had a choice.
Abraham chose badly
He could have turned his back on God and that would not be a death sentence.
Yopu also missed a few more points;
1. Uganda has no State religion.
2. Though the original law called for the death penalty, what was passed was life in prison.
3. The law was passed by parliament not a referendum
4. The last election in Uganda was in 2006. This law was not even thought about when the people elected Parliament.
You are a little behind the times. The Uganda Anti-Homosexuality Act, 2014 was struck down on 1 August 2014 by the Constitutional Court of Uganda.
How is that different from citing a Muslim in a destabilized war-torn country?
I am citing the spiritual leader of a Muslim country whose last war was over 25 years ago. If they are not stable in 25 years there are big issues with the country.
Until these "laws" are repealed by the Muslim religion there will always be people who will use them to justify murder. One of the strengths of most other religions is that there is a head of that religion; Pope, Arch Bishop, Dahli Lama, etc. The problem I see is that any Imam can make any interpretation of the Qur'an and there is no one to overrule him. There are issues like the Branch Davidian but they never get as big as ISIS. Mainly because Christian leaders with authority denounce them. Where would that come from in the Muslim religion?
Where in the Old or New Testament does it say that people who will not convert will be put to the sword or people who convert from Christianity will also be killed. It says that in the Qur'an. That some Christians perverted the teachings is very different than these tenants being in the holy book.
Wasn't that long ago the Christians were the same.
Which shows that Christianity has evolved but the Muslim religion has not. Where in the last 100 years there has been a death sentence for converting from Christianity? The point is that entire countries are still following Sharia Laws now.