The answer to the question is no. Next stoopid question.
This article reminds of the sales pitches of high end 'audiophile cable' makers. Lots of tech talk but no actual basis. Throw in 'AI Tuning' for kicks.
So.. reducing necessary fuel consumption does not count because it's "only" used to stabilize the grid?
I'm not sure what you mean. Battery power comes from whatever sources are supplying the grid at the time of charge, and discharges to the grid. Unless the grid supply rations change dramatically, which they generally don't, then there is not shift away from the part that was supplied by any given fuel.
When a battery is used for ancillary support, nobody cares when it was charged. Did your source tell you what the supply mix was during both charge and discharge, or did it just stupidly assume, or worse, completely ignore that part? My guess is the latter.
I know the field. If you're going to be scared by PV production chemicals, you should be scared by nuclear waste. If you're not scared by nuclear waste, you shouldn't be scared by PV production either. Pick a level of scaredness and stick with it.
As I said, I'm not particularly "scared" of nuclear waste, I'm annoyed by it. Nuclear waste is not dealt with well. There should be no such thing as low-level nuclear waste; the "low level" stuff should be processed to remove and concentrate the actual radioactive elements, which should be then separated out and used. And storing used fuel at the bottom of swimming pools that have a pretty blue Cherenkov glow that nobody sees because they are guarded 24/7-- that is just plain silly.
As I said, I would be scared of it if it were not dealt with correctly, but at the moment (at least in the US), there isn't a whole lot of dumping of high-level radioactive waste in neighborhoods, so the fact that the US doesn't have a clue what to do with it isn't scary, just annoying. There's a lot of things that I'd be scared of when they are not dealt with correctly. If you want something to be realistically scared of, about 150 million tons of ammonia are used as fertilizer per year. Now, ammonia really is something to be scared of-- it's both reactive and poisonous. All that ammonia really should scare you.
Those 'annoyances' you mention are quite minor. Low level nuclear waste is essentially safe as is, it is not posing any risk at all to anyone in any practical sense. I think you just want to be annoyed by it. Fuel pools make perfect sense as place to store fuel prior to casking. Not sure why you think it is silly.
I suppose all waste is annoying.
Personally, I understand that everything has a trade off. The waste from PV manufacture, or any other thing we produce is a fact of life. Same for nuclear. So many people choose to complain about nuclear waste, typically with great ignorance as to its actual risk, but don't even think about the many other toxic items we handle every day and are much closer to impacting our lives. Its quite telling that if one dares to mention PV waste, it sets off the reactions we see here.
The benefits of nuclear certainly are worthy of a bit of 'annoyance'. Meanwhile, just like with everything else, we can continue to improve.
Not sure of the tone of that post, but it certainly is confusing. Particularly when it comes to having a point. Any 'tone' you impart is mostly of your own making. I can't provide you with one nor select what you choose to perceive. That you continue to get bent even after I said I had no implications is also perplexing. I guess you just want to assign that to me. Whatever.
The assertion was that chemicals used in photovoltaic panel production produced dangerous waste. They don't.
I stated 'chemicals used in production are decidedely not clean. This is absolutely true, multipole toxic chemicals are used in production of solar cells.
Not the particular ones named in the article, no. Nitrogen trifluoride is an interesting gas (although not one I'm "scared" of)-- but not one used in solar array production. It's more a chemical used in integrated circuit and microelectronics production, not commercial production solar arrays..
Yes, some of those chemicals are still used, and others as well. I'm not sure why you want to deny that toxic chemicals are used in PV production. silicon tetrachloride is a by product of cell production and highly toxic. Phosphorus oxychloride is another toxic chemical widely used in PV production. Those chemicals used in production don't just magically disappear after use. Just like nuclear waste, they must be properly handled.
I'm not particularly scared by nuclear waste. I'm annoyed by nuclear waste, since it is useful material that should be reprocessed and used, but I'm not particularly scared by it, unless you don't deal with it correctly.
Would you be scared of the toxic chemicals used in PV production if not dealt with correctly?
It had no 'tone'. It was a simple statement. At no point in it did I say I had a problem with that waste. Some folks sure don't like me bringing up those points though.
Actually I think it's more that you cannot write given you refuted a point with a cite, then agreed the cite isn't a problem, and now complained that no one can follow you.
I never said the cite was "a problem". It doesn't need to be a problem to be true.
Curtailment of wind and solar is tied much more to penetration than price atm. At this point, price is not even a factor, as most places place priority on wind and solar to help keep that cost lower LCOE. Again, regardless of the reason, curtailment or any other reduction in capacity factor increases LCOE of that generator.
But what is not irrellevent is the clear and obvious fact that curtailment, which reduced capacity factor, increases LCOE. Which was the point, not the convenient sidebar distraction that you are making of gas.
We were talking about renewables. My country has hardly any gas plant anyway, gas is expensive AS FUCK around here. Only a total idiot would burn gas in a power plant at these prices.
You're delusional. Norwegians, electric car owners and other opportunistic consumers will slurp it like there's no tomorrow.
Gas prices in your country are completely irrelevant to the point. Gas is cheap in many places, not so in others. In any place, highly curtailed gas cost more than non curtailed gas. Why is that so hard to understand?
Increasing demand doesn't eliminate the need to curtail high penetration intermittent renewables. Demand doesn't follow wind.
I'm not worried about solder. But clearly you didn't even take time to google PV production chemicals before responding.
I don't need to, because I actually know the technology. You seem to be not afraid of nuclear waste because it is "easy to manage, highly inert". Well, in turn, I'm not afraid of the chemicals named in that site
Let me help;
No, let me help. As I said, I actually know the technology. The chemicals named in that site are: "Hydrochloric acid, copper, trichlorosilane gas and silicon waste."
Hydrochloric acid: Wow, sounds scary! Acid! Well, uh, except just mix the waste with dilute sodium hydroxide, and it turns into salt and water.
copper: You know what? I'm not afraid of copper. Sorry. I even have it in my house-- it's in the wires!
trichlorosilane gas: Solar production don't want to waste the silane-- it's your feedstock-- but if there is waste? Burn it. It turns into silicon dioxide (sand), water, and hydrochloric acid (see above).
and silicon waste: Silicon is pretty inert.
Really. If you are not scared of nuclear waste, you should really really not be scared of solar array production waste. Use the same standards of "scaryness" for both.
(Several other chemicals are named later on in the article... which are not used in current technology panels.)
Can you not read? I never said I was scared of chemicals used in PV tech. And, BTW, most of those chemicals are still used, they are just used in lesser amounts.
Why are you scared of nuclear waste? You, nor anyone else with no business near it, are never likely to get anywhere near it. Can you say that for other toxic wastes that you don't fret about?
First, decreased capacity factor is quite rarely due to curtailment.
Wrong again. Natural gas is curtailed quite a bit so that it can serve to make up for wind/solar intermittance. Nat Gas would cost less if it were run full capability.
As penetration of wind and solar grow, curtailment will increase. In Germany, where wind is at about 16 percent of total annual generation, they are just beginning to see an increase in curtailment. In Texas, where it is less, they see occasional curtailment.
Your country's "prices" are not "costs". Price are irrelevant, as they can even be less than cost at times. But regardless, if solar panels in your country are curtailed, their LCOE will rise.
You've backed off, but still very wrong. It has a very direct and strong impact on LCOE. Cost of not using and asset is ALWAYS significant. Two windmills curtailed 50 percent of the time will always cost a lot more than one windmill not curtailed at all.
Nuclear fission reactors are clean and produce continuous power.
Nuclear is one of the key tools we have at our disposal to combat rising CO2 emissions. Some people have decided they don't want to use all the tools at our disposal because they hold their vision of "green power" as more important than actual CO2 reduction progress.
Completely false. A gas plant that is idled is more expensive LCOE that one that is run a lot. Wind power that is curtailed is more expensive than wind power that is not curtailed. There is a cost under utilization of a asset.
A recent case study showed they were able to save $35mil in fuel over a 6 month period from a $55mil battery bank. Seems to me that batteries pay for themselves.
Are you going to cite this wonderful study or just claim it exists?
Nuclear fission reactors are clean and produce continuous power.
They produce little carbon pollution and other particulates but they are decidedly NOT clean. Nuclear waste is the very definition of not clean. Manageable maybe but not clean and certainly dangerous.
Solar panels are decidedly not clean either. Chemicals used in production are certainly dangerous and quite nasty. Panels have limited life and no reasonable disposal or recycle method. I'll take the very tiny amount of space for easy to manage, highly inert spent nuclear fuel.
Oh yes. They are so clean you can't let people anywhere near neither the fuel nor the waste for hundreds of thousands of years, mining the fuel is a bloody environmental disaster and god help us if something actually bad happens.
Other than that, yeah, totally safe and clean.
Why not. You can get near the waste with proper shielding. You can sleep 2 meters from a spent fuel cask and your accumulated dose annually is still below the dose where there is any detectable impact on health.
Meanwhile, you cannot survive for even minutes in locations where towns used to exist, where people were displaced from their homes and tens of thousands of square miles of plant and animal life were completely wiped out. All by nice wonderful clean hydro power.
Yeah, lets fret over a relatively tiny waste site that you can safely live in.
Slashdot Mirror
Popular Mechanics is science fiction.
The answer to the question is no. Next stoopid question.
This article reminds of the sales pitches of high end 'audiophile cable' makers. Lots of tech talk but no actual basis. Throw in 'AI Tuning' for kicks.
So.. reducing necessary fuel consumption does not count because it's "only" used to stabilize the grid?
I'm not sure what you mean. Battery power comes from whatever sources are supplying the grid at the time of charge, and discharges to the grid. Unless the grid supply rations change dramatically, which they generally don't, then there is not shift away from the part that was supplied by any given fuel.
When a battery is used for ancillary support, nobody cares when it was charged. Did your source tell you what the supply mix was during both charge and discharge, or did it just stupidly assume, or worse, completely ignore that part? My guess is the latter.
Do you have a point about the waste discussion? I'm really not interested in your discussion of tones.
How about some VR goggles that place you in first class with real windows. Maybe even on a nicer plane.
I know the field. If you're going to be scared by PV production chemicals, you should be scared by nuclear waste. If you're not scared by nuclear waste, you shouldn't be scared by PV production either. Pick a level of scaredness and stick with it.
As I said, I'm not particularly "scared" of nuclear waste, I'm annoyed by it. Nuclear waste is not dealt with well. There should be no such thing as low-level nuclear waste; the "low level" stuff should be processed to remove and concentrate the actual radioactive elements, which should be then separated out and used. And storing used fuel at the bottom of swimming pools that have a pretty blue Cherenkov glow that nobody sees because they are guarded 24/7-- that is just plain silly.
As I said, I would be scared of it if it were not dealt with correctly, but at the moment (at least in the US), there isn't a whole lot of dumping of high-level radioactive waste in neighborhoods, so the fact that the US doesn't have a clue what to do with it isn't scary, just annoying. There's a lot of things that I'd be scared of when they are not dealt with correctly. If you want something to be realistically scared of, about 150 million tons of ammonia are used as fertilizer per year. Now, ammonia really is something to be scared of-- it's both reactive and poisonous. All that ammonia really should scare you.
Those 'annoyances' you mention are quite minor. Low level nuclear waste is essentially safe as is, it is not posing any risk at all to anyone in any practical sense. I think you just want to be annoyed by it. Fuel pools make perfect sense as place to store fuel prior to casking. Not sure why you think it is silly.
I suppose all waste is annoying.
Personally, I understand that everything has a trade off. The waste from PV manufacture, or any other thing we produce is a fact of life. Same for nuclear. So many people choose to complain about nuclear waste, typically with great ignorance as to its actual risk, but don't even think about the many other toxic items we handle every day and are much closer to impacting our lives. Its quite telling that if one dares to mention PV waste, it sets off the reactions we see here.
The benefits of nuclear certainly are worthy of a bit of 'annoyance'. Meanwhile, just like with everything else, we can continue to improve.
Not sure of the tone of that post, but it certainly is confusing. Particularly when it comes to having a point. Any 'tone' you impart is mostly of your own making. I can't provide you with one nor select what you choose to perceive. That you continue to get bent even after I said I had no implications is also perplexing. I guess you just want to assign that to me. Whatever.
The assertion was that chemicals used in photovoltaic panel production produced dangerous waste. They don't.
I stated 'chemicals used in production are decidedely not clean. This is absolutely true, multipole toxic chemicals are used in production of solar cells.
Not the particular ones named in the article, no. Nitrogen trifluoride is an interesting gas (although not one I'm "scared" of)-- but not one used in solar array production. It's more a chemical used in integrated circuit and microelectronics production, not commercial production solar arrays..
Yes, some of those chemicals are still used, and others as well. I'm not sure why you want to deny that toxic chemicals are used in PV production. silicon tetrachloride is a by product of cell production and highly toxic. Phosphorus oxychloride is another toxic chemical widely used in PV production. Those chemicals used in production don't just magically disappear after use. Just like nuclear waste, they must be properly handled.
I'm not particularly scared by nuclear waste. I'm annoyed by nuclear waste, since it is useful material that should be reprocessed and used, but I'm not particularly scared by it, unless you don't deal with it correctly.
Would you be scared of the toxic chemicals used in PV production if not dealt with correctly?
It had no 'tone'. It was a simple statement. At no point in it did I say I had a problem with that waste. Some folks sure don't like me bringing up those points though.
" even if only by the skin of it's teeth"
it's means it is. Why does this seem like such a baffling concept?
because it's?
Can you not read?
Actually I think it's more that you cannot write given you refuted a point with a cite, then agreed the cite isn't a problem, and now complained that no one can follow you.
I never said the cite was "a problem". It doesn't need to be a problem to be true.
There is no '$35mil in fuel savings' here. The South Australia battery case is one where they supply ancillary services for grid stability.
Curtailment of wind and solar is tied much more to penetration than price atm. At this point, price is not even a factor, as most places place priority on wind and solar to help keep that cost lower LCOE. Again, regardless of the reason, curtailment or any other reduction in capacity factor increases LCOE of that generator.
Whatever, but its quite clear that curtailment, thus reduction in capacity factor, increases LCOE. Which was the ONLY point.
But what is not irrellevent is the clear and obvious fact that curtailment, which reduced capacity factor, increases LCOE. Which was the point, not the convenient sidebar distraction that you are making of gas.
We were talking about renewables. My country has hardly any gas plant anyway, gas is expensive AS FUCK around here. Only a total idiot would burn gas in a power plant at these prices.
You're delusional. Norwegians, electric car owners and other opportunistic consumers will slurp it like there's no tomorrow.
Gas prices in your country are completely irrelevant to the point. Gas is cheap in many places, not so in others. In any place, highly curtailed gas cost more than non curtailed gas. Why is that so hard to understand?
Increasing demand doesn't eliminate the need to curtail high penetration intermittent renewables. Demand doesn't follow wind.
I'm not worried about solder. But clearly you didn't even take time to google PV production chemicals before responding.
I don't need to, because I actually know the technology. You seem to be not afraid of nuclear waste because it is "easy to manage, highly inert". Well, in turn, I'm not afraid of the chemicals named in that site
Let me help;
No, let me help. As I said, I actually know the technology. The chemicals named in that site are: "Hydrochloric acid, copper, trichlorosilane gas and silicon waste." Hydrochloric acid: Wow, sounds scary! Acid! Well, uh, except just mix the waste with dilute sodium hydroxide, and it turns into salt and water. copper: You know what? I'm not afraid of copper. Sorry. I even have it in my house-- it's in the wires! trichlorosilane gas: Solar production don't want to waste the silane-- it's your feedstock-- but if there is waste? Burn it. It turns into silicon dioxide (sand), water, and hydrochloric acid (see above). and silicon waste: Silicon is pretty inert.
Really. If you are not scared of nuclear waste, you should really really not be scared of solar array production waste. Use the same standards of "scaryness" for both.
(Several other chemicals are named later on in the article... which are not used in current technology panels.)
Can you not read? I never said I was scared of chemicals used in PV tech. And, BTW, most of those chemicals are still used, they are just used in lesser amounts. Why are you scared of nuclear waste? You, nor anyone else with no business near it, are never likely to get anywhere near it. Can you say that for other toxic wastes that you don't fret about?
Chemicals used in production are certainly dangerous and quite nasty.
They always are. You can go back into the jungle if you don't like our civilization.
An irrelevant comment. I can accept the need for chemicals, just as I can for nuclear waste. Education about risks helps.
I'm not worried about solder. But clearly you didn't even take time to google PV production chemicals before responding. Let me help;
https://www.chemservice.com/ne...
I'm not worried about those either. Just like I'm not worried about spent fuel. A little education goes a long way to quell fears.
First, decreased capacity factor is quite rarely due to curtailment.
Wrong again. Natural gas is curtailed quite a bit so that it can serve to make up for wind/solar intermittance. Nat Gas would cost less if it were run full capability.
As penetration of wind and solar grow, curtailment will increase. In Germany, where wind is at about 16 percent of total annual generation, they are just beginning to see an increase in curtailment. In Texas, where it is less, they see occasional curtailment.
Your country's "prices" are not "costs". Price are irrelevant, as they can even be less than cost at times. But regardless, if solar panels in your country are curtailed, their LCOE will rise.
Capacity factor has no strong connection to LCOE.
You've backed off, but still very wrong. It has a very direct and strong impact on LCOE. Cost of not using and asset is ALWAYS significant. Two windmills curtailed 50 percent of the time will always cost a lot more than one windmill not curtailed at all.
Nuclear fission reactors are clean and produce continuous power.
Nuclear is one of the key tools we have at our disposal to combat rising CO2 emissions. Some people have decided they don't want to use all the tools at our disposal because they hold their vision of "green power" as more important than actual CO2 reduction progress.
Capacity factor is irrelevant for levelized cost,
Completely false. A gas plant that is idled is more expensive LCOE that one that is run a lot. Wind power that is curtailed is more expensive than wind power that is not curtailed. There is a cost under utilization of a asset.
A recent case study showed they were able to save $35mil in fuel over a 6 month period from a $55mil battery bank. Seems to me that batteries pay for themselves.
Are you going to cite this wonderful study or just claim it exists?
Nuclear fission reactors are clean and produce continuous power.
They produce little carbon pollution and other particulates but they are decidedly NOT clean. Nuclear waste is the very definition of not clean. Manageable maybe but not clean and certainly dangerous.
Solar panels are decidedly not clean either. Chemicals used in production are certainly dangerous and quite nasty. Panels have limited life and no reasonable disposal or recycle method. I'll take the very tiny amount of space for easy to manage, highly inert spent nuclear fuel.
Oh yes. They are so clean you can't let people anywhere near neither the fuel nor the waste for hundreds of thousands of years, mining the fuel is a bloody environmental disaster and god help us if something actually bad happens.
Other than that, yeah, totally safe and clean.
Why not. You can get near the waste with proper shielding. You can sleep 2 meters from a spent fuel cask and your accumulated dose annually is still below the dose where there is any detectable impact on health.
Meanwhile, you cannot survive for even minutes in locations where towns used to exist, where people were displaced from their homes and tens of thousands of square miles of plant and animal life were completely wiped out. All by nice wonderful clean hydro power.
Yeah, lets fret over a relatively tiny waste site that you can safely live in.