continuous or pulsed power output?

[Brian H]

jamesr wrote:

The trick will be arranging that power circuitry to deliver the constant 50/60Hz 3phase output, as the pulse rate goes up and down to match power demand from the local/national grid.

that’s just about like keeping a flywheel at constant speed

The simple solutions are the best….

I’m at Culham (the site of the JET & MAST tokamaks) at the moment – they have a couple of huge flywheels. Although theirs are used to give a pulse of output rather than constant supply.
‘Grats on your promotion to Old Timerhood, young fella! :cheese:

[Wombat]

Barry Kirk wrote: Well excess power could go into storage for later use.

Same problem as solar and wind…

Except that the total cost of the electricity is quite a bit lower.

Would it make sense to have a couple of large central stations that would grab the excess off the grid and use electrolysis to create hydrogen?

Or go further and create Methane?

I live in Canberra, close to a massive hydroelectric system called Snowy Hydro (http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/). So fortunately any excess power generated in my area can simply pump water from the lower lakes to the higher lakes, and at peak times the water can be released back down through the generators for almost-instant extra power. My region’s power storage needs are already in place 🙂

[Brian H]

Wombat wrote:

Well excess power could go into storage for later use.

Same problem as solar and wind…

Except that the total cost of the electricity is quite a bit lower.

Would it make sense to have a couple of large central stations that would grab the excess off the grid and use electrolysis to create hydrogen?

Or go further and create Methane?

I live in Canberra, close to a massive hydroelectric system called Snowy Hydro (http://www.snowyhydro.com.au/). So fortunately any excess power generated in my area can simply pump water from the lower lakes to the higher lakes, and at peak times the water can be released back down through the generators for almost-instant extra power. My region’s power storage needs are already in place 🙂

And what do you pay per kwh for the existence of that infrastructure?

I keep trying to remind people of the pointlessness of installing or preserving gear and facilities etc. which will ultimately (i.e., once production capacity for FF generators ramps up to satisfy demand with reasonable delivery times (a few months?)) be undercut significantly by cheap direct power from FF sourcing. For load-matching, as long as there is enough to meet peak demands, pausing individual generators in the major clusters, (which could amount to ‘000s of machines to produce multi-gigawatts for urban or industrial centers, etc.) would be more than “fine” enough control.

And, Wombat, do you really think your water storage cycle at Canberra costs can compete with ¼-½¢/kwh?

In the end, you’ll probably end up dynamiting Snowy and letting the fish swim free again. :cheese:

[Wombat]

I have no idea what the hydro scheme currently costs! It was built in the 50s, it’s there and it works, that’s all I know. People were talking about storing excess for use at peak times and I know hydro can do that, which is why I mentioned it. You could be right about building spare FF units being cheaper than maintaining existing infrastructure, time will tell.

[Brian H]

Wombat wrote: I have no idea what the hydro scheme currently costs! It was built in the 50s, it’s there and it works, that’s all I know. People were talking about storing excess for use at peak times and I know hydro can do that, which is why I mentioned it. You could be right about building spare FF units being cheaper than maintaining existing infrastructure, time will tell.

Well, Snowy is making money now:

EVEN THOUGH it was forced to rely primarily on gas-fired generators and pumped storage at Tumut, Snowy Hydro was able to post record earnings in the year to June, partly thanks to the write-back of derivative contract values.

The net profit was a record $211.9 million, up from $95 million a year earlier, benefiting from adjustments in the book value of derivatives, which added $52 million to the bottom line this year, after taking away $61 million last year.

Apparently the going rate is 6-10¢/kwh. So, 20-40X the cost of generation for FF. Essentially, the net difference of substituting equivalent capacity with FF pays for the new generators in about 4 months to a year. Then, if you can break even on scrapping your existing facilities, you’re home free! :cheese:

If you’re SH’s CFO, what do you recommend?

Of course, the first thing to do is break all those stupid solar/small hydro/windmill feed-in contracts that pay small producers 44-80¢/kwh for their picayune trickles. :sick: 😆

[Wombat]

If your point is that a lot of existing power suppliers are going to go broke when FF goes mainstream then I expect you are right. That’s one of the reasons I’m not investing in wind power right now (the other reason is I have no spare money to invest hehe).

[Brian H]

Wombat wrote: If your point is that a lot of existing power suppliers are going to go broke when FF goes mainstream then I expect you are right. That’s one of the reasons I’m not investing in wind power right now (the other reason is I have no spare money to invest hehe).

Only if they hold onto their existing plant and refuse to replace it with FF. Of course, windies and sunnies are pretty much riding their subsidized technologies off a cliff.

[Author]

Posts