Conduction takes place through the heat exchanger walls. All the heat from the secondary to the tertiary circuit goes through the heat exchanger, it's not "minor". Most of the heat of the secondary circuit is not lost through any other way. Do you get off on being pig ignorant?
Really ? I'd love to see the heat transport calculations you used to justify that statement ?
Heh. The plant in TFA needs to reject 300 MW of heat. That's 125 kg of water evaporated per second. According to you, what surface area of water do you need for, say, 20 degree sea water to evaporate this amount of water?
Anyway in general cooling towers are used only when there is insufficient area to reject the heat such as lakes or small rivers
I know what they're used for, I mentioned them in the first place.:-p
And actually arctic waters would have a higher local increase in temperature
Of course they would, they're cooler to begin with. The properties of conductive heating in heat exchangers are *much* more important here than your "linear area of water heat cap/temp relationship".
You aren't actually an engineer or a scientist are you ? Well at least not an actual engineer, as opposed to what schools these days refer to as software engineers.
Please enlighten me, O accomplished power plant engineer.:-p
Especially since adding heat will speed evaporation which will limit the net temperature increase.
You might find that the equilibrium outside of Arctic waters is a bit higher that what you'd want. Yes, evaporation is nice, but you have to build cooling towers with forced water circulation to make it happen at reasonable temperatures for multi-100MW heat flux. Not to mention the air humidity difference being less favourable outside of the Arctic, too. Oh, and the inability to get rid of the heat by means of district heating throughout the year outside of the Arctic coast instead of dumping it into water.
There's nothing wrong about opposing known lies being presented by media as truths. The only problem is that this would require shutting down Fox News, and many people would be grievously butthurt if that happened.
Let's say you have a 1 GW array. That's around 4000000 panels. So you think that "A carload of punks with a shotguns from Walmart " would be able to seriously hamper its operation? Will they carry 4000000 rounds?
If we consider a more complex terror attack from the air then a cargo plane dumping gravel out a door would bust things up nicely.
Considering that the panels resist reasonably large hail at terminal velocity, probably not. Also, four million panels. If you have a 100-tonne-capable cargo airplane, that's 25 grams per panel...if you hit all of them by chance.
Or dumping fuel at low altitude and setting it alight. If they wanted to do a lot of damage then they could dump gravel on a first PV facility, dump fuel on a second, and then do a slide with the plane like they just batted a homerun on a third facility.
...with the payload capacity they don't have? You've already expended it on worthless gravel. Now you want to dump fuel for some strange reason (you want to make oil slicks?) and then you want to cause highly localized damage.
Perhaps in general, but at least the Powerwall for its announced price, considering its paper parameters, came out as the cheapest solution for the total kWhs pumped through the system from all the ones I've seen. Of course that's assuming one could actually buy it. However, for the purpose of "keeping lights and Wi-Fi on and gadgets charged", it's a total overkill.
Russians plan to use these things in Arctic ports. There it makes perfect sense to just dump the heat into harbor water - aside from electricity, you get antifreeze for free!
The nuclear figures seem correct regarding the material usage. The solar ones are ridiculous. The glass mass seems to correspond to the amount of panels necessary for a 1 TWh generation but the amount of concrete and steel are out of whack. This is how a ground installation around the panels looks like. According to the chart, it should comprise around 300 kg of concrete and around 500 kg of steel. But the actual datasheet says that this metallic structure only weighs 115 kg.
Ehm, aren't these nuclear barges supposed to be anchored in harbors? What does OTEC have to do with this? There's not going to be a 1000 meter vertical pipe protruding from the ship.
Your first link is ridiculous. Those figures are absolutely not right, at least for solar power. They seem to overestimate the material requirements for solar by a factor of about three, maybe somewhat more for rooftop installations. Somebody screwed up structural numbers there.
Slashdot Mirror
I take it you've never seen a kettle with a resistive element submerged in water. Got it.
So cooler inlet temperature of the tertiary in no way affects the performance of the plant. Not a little bit. Understood.
Conduction takes place through the heat exchanger walls. All the heat from the secondary to the tertiary circuit goes through the heat exchanger, it's not "minor". Most of the heat of the secondary circuit is not lost through any other way. Do you get off on being pig ignorant?
Why would a resistive element submerged in water heat the air? I mean, otherwise than through the water, in a way very different from a microwave.
So the transfer efficiency is very high.
As opposed to a resistive heating element in a kettle that magically loses heat?
Really ? I'd love to see the heat transport calculations you used to justify that statement ?
Heh. The plant in TFA needs to reject 300 MW of heat. That's 125 kg of water evaporated per second. According to you, what surface area of water do you need for, say, 20 degree sea water to evaporate this amount of water?
Anyway in general cooling towers are used only when there is insufficient area to reject the heat such as lakes or small rivers
I know what they're used for, I mentioned them in the first place. :-p
And actually arctic waters would have a higher local increase in temperature
Of course they would, they're cooler to begin with. The properties of conductive heating in heat exchangers are *much* more important here than your "linear area of water heat cap/temp relationship".
You aren't actually an engineer or a scientist are you ? Well at least not an actual engineer, as opposed to what schools these days refer to as software engineers.
Please enlighten me, O accomplished power plant engineer. :-p
Especially since adding heat will speed evaporation which will limit the net temperature increase.
You might find that the equilibrium outside of Arctic waters is a bit higher that what you'd want. Yes, evaporation is nice, but you have to build cooling towers with forced water circulation to make it happen at reasonable temperatures for multi-100MW heat flux. Not to mention the air humidity difference being less favourable outside of the Arctic, too. Oh, and the inability to get rid of the heat by means of district heating throughout the year outside of the Arctic coast instead of dumping it into water.
It's irrelevant if you dump a gigawatt of heat into water in a harbor?
There's nothing wrong about opposing known lies being presented by media as truths. The only problem is that this would require shutting down Fox News, and many people would be grievously butthurt if that happened.
OTEC already shows you that the heat exchange is doable
...in places where you're pumping it from the deep? That's not the places where such ships are supposed to be anchored.
Easy, you don't put these plants into hurricane-prone areas.
If we consider a more complex terror attack from the air then a cargo plane dumping gravel out a door would bust things up nicely.
Considering that the panels resist reasonably large hail at terminal velocity, probably not. Also, four million panels. If you have a 100-tonne-capable cargo airplane, that's 25 grams per panel...if you hit all of them by chance.
Or dumping fuel at low altitude and setting it alight. If they wanted to do a lot of damage then they could dump gravel on a first PV facility, dump fuel on a second, and then do a slide with the plane like they just batted a homerun on a third facility.
...with the payload capacity they don't have? You've already expended it on worthless gravel. Now you want to dump fuel for some strange reason (you want to make oil slicks?) and then you want to cause highly localized damage.
A stack of lead acid batteries
...is not going to last long. I've included that in my calculations in the past.
Perhaps in general, but at least the Powerwall for its announced price, considering its paper parameters, came out as the cheapest solution for the total kWhs pumped through the system from all the ones I've seen. Of course that's assuming one could actually buy it. However, for the purpose of "keeping lights and Wi-Fi on and gadgets charged", it's a total overkill.
You could build a reasonable system for a fifth of that. Or even less, depending on your requirements.
old imperative style programming, not things like pattern matching
Pattern matching is a control construct. How is it exclusive with imperative programming?
First, that chart is from the United States Department of Energy. I'm not aware of them being a bunch of cheerleaders for nuclear power.
That must be why they're in control of maintaining America's nuclear arsenal, right?
Performance instead of security.
Time to brush up on old jokes?
Russians plan to use these things in Arctic ports. There it makes perfect sense to just dump the heat into harbor water - aside from electricity, you get antifreeze for free!
The nuclear figures seem correct regarding the material usage. The solar ones are ridiculous. The glass mass seems to correspond to the amount of panels necessary for a 1 TWh generation but the amount of concrete and steel are out of whack. This is how a ground installation around the panels looks like. According to the chart, it should comprise around 300 kg of concrete and around 500 kg of steel. But the actual datasheet says that this metallic structure only weighs 115 kg.
In a sheltered harbor?
Ehm, aren't these nuclear barges supposed to be anchored in harbors? What does OTEC have to do with this? There's not going to be a 1000 meter vertical pipe protruding from the ship.
Fortunately we already have drones capable of killing Australians. Starfish-killing drones are new.
Your first link is ridiculous. Those figures are absolutely not right, at least for solar power. They seem to overestimate the material requirements for solar by a factor of about three, maybe somewhat more for rooftop installations. Somebody screwed up structural numbers there.
And how many jets would you need to crash to destroy a large PV plant?