Comments on: The nuclear option: too slow, too costly http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/ now with extra source Sun, 12 Feb 2012 00:58:05 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Daniel http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-51643 Daniel Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:21:42 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-51643 Wanted to add some enriched plutonium into the mix, albeit at a late stage, and give you all some more heavy water to squirt at each other. Stanford Uni - CISAC Drell Lecture by Ariel Levite entitled 'A Moment of Truth for Nuclear Energy', dated 10/03/2009, lasting 1h26m. On I-Tunes for free and possibly also from Stanford direct. Sets out a summary of the rest of the world's rush for nuclear energy and also the significant problems that may arise, so quite relevant to our own national question. Strikes me as a bit more authoritative and candid than, for eg, Ziggy Switkowski or Paul Howes at Sydney Institute. Interesting comment chat so far, so please re-arm and free-fire ladies and gents, and ignore anyone who tells you that this is getting just a bit too emotional! To come in late on previous discussions, James Mac, can we be sure that the Chinese will let us build much solar etc over there in light of their own massive investment in that sector? My understanding is that for nuclear they let the french build a few reactors in joint venture and then took what they learned and started to build without continued french involvment (could be wrong though, as suggestions to the contrary are given in the Levite lecture). Wanted to add some enriched plutonium into the mix, albeit at a late stage, and give you all some more heavy water to squirt at each other.
Stanford Uni - CISAC Drell Lecture by Ariel Levite entitled ‘A Moment of Truth for Nuclear Energy’, dated 10/03/2009, lasting 1h26m. On I-Tunes for free and possibly also from Stanford direct. Sets out a summary of the rest of the world’s rush for nuclear energy and also the significant problems that may arise, so quite relevant to our own national question. Strikes me as a bit more authoritative and candid than, for eg, Ziggy Switkowski or Paul Howes at Sydney Institute.
Interesting comment chat so far, so please re-arm and free-fire ladies and gents, and ignore anyone who tells you that this is getting just a bit too emotional!

To come in late on previous discussions, James Mac, can we be sure that the Chinese will let us build much solar etc over there in light of their own massive investment in that sector? My understanding is that for nuclear they let the french build a few reactors in joint venture and then took what they learned and started to build without continued french involvment (could be wrong though, as suggestions to the contrary are given in the Levite lecture).

]]> By: Mark Duffett http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48572 Mark Duffett Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:37:18 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48572 @Meski, if I'm understanding <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/interpreting_results.html" rel="nofollow">this</a>correctly, the model tracking results assume optimal orientation at all times. @Meski, if I’m understanding thiscorrectly, the model tracking results assume optimal orientation at all times.

]]> By: meski http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48568 meski Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:31:39 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48568 Is that tracking using a simple time based system, or is it servoed to peak output? Is that tracking using a simple time based system, or is it servoed to peak output?

]]> By: Mark Duffett http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48561 Mark Duffett Fri, 27 Nov 2009 05:21:56 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48561 Okay, The Answer, <a href="http://www.nrel.gov/rredc/pvwatts/" rel="nofollow">from this most excellent site</a>. City: Adelaide PV System Specifications DC Rating (kW): 4.0 Hour = local time A= output (W) for fixed array B= output (W) for 2-axis tracking array Hour A B 6 0 1 7 57 500 8 555 1338 9 1173 1854 10 1815 2289 11 2250 2499 12 2479 2578 13 2590 2656 14 2472 2641 15 2144 2531 16 1664 2374 17 966 1949 18 266 1116 19 3 248 Sorry I don't think you can post images, otherwise this would be a graph. Apologies if the formatting is screwed. These figures are an average over the warmer months (i.e. when aircon is likely to be used for cooling); October-April inclusive. "The values reported for AC power are associated with the <em>preceding</em> hour; i.e., the hour ending at the time indicated. Time is reported as Local Standard Time (LST). Daylight Savings Time (DST) is not used." Draw your own conclusions. Okay, The Answer, from this most excellent site.

City: Adelaide
PV System Specifications DC Rating (kW): 4.0

Hour = local time
A= output (W) for fixed array
B= output (W) for 2-axis tracking array

Hour A B
6 0 1
7 57 500
8 555 1338
9 1173 1854
10 1815 2289
11 2250 2499
12 2479 2578
13 2590 2656
14 2472 2641
15 2144 2531
16 1664 2374
17 966 1949
18 266 1116
19 3 248

Sorry I don’t think you can post images, otherwise this would be a graph. Apologies if the formatting is screwed. These figures are an average over the warmer months (i.e. when aircon is likely to be used for cooling); October-April inclusive.

“The values reported for AC power are associated with the preceding hour; i.e., the hour ending at the time indicated. Time is reported as Local Standard Time (LST). Daylight Savings Time (DST) is not used.”

Draw your own conclusions.

]]> By: Evan Beaver http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48541 Evan Beaver Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:41:47 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48541 Yeah, don't worry about me. I'll just continue being one of those people who comes in at the end of a conversation and says 'what are you talking about'? Yeah, don’t worry about me. I’ll just continue being one of those people who comes in at the end of a conversation and says ‘what are you talking about’?

]]> By: meski http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48516 meski Fri, 27 Nov 2009 04:00:39 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48516 @Evan: I thought Ender's Bean[1] saying that tracking wasn't being used, and that it was a fixed array. [1] Yeah, deliberate Orson Scott Card reference :) @Evan: I thought Ender’s Bean[1] saying that tracking wasn’t being used, and that it was a fixed array.

[1] Yeah, deliberate Orson Scott Card reference :)

]]> By: Evan Beaver http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48512 Evan Beaver Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:46:29 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48512 This is interesting http://www.geo-dome.co.uk/article.asp?uname=solar_mirror This is interesting
http://www.geo-dome.co.uk/article.asp?uname=solar_mirror

]]> By: Evan Beaver http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48510 Evan Beaver Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:42:07 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48510 I don't think there is much efficiency lost if the panels track. As long as it hits the panel perpendicular it should be close to maximum efficiency. So, maximum output for a tracker should be from 11-3 or so (DLS time). I don’t think there is much efficiency lost if the panels track. As long as it hits the panel perpendicular it should be close to maximum efficiency. So, maximum output for a tracker should be from 11-3 or so (DLS time).

]]> By: Mark Duffett http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48496 Mark Duffett Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:11:56 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48496 Please don't condescend to me, Ender. There's a reason why I used the phrase 'local noon' in the first place, and why I said <em>around</em> 12 pm. The exact timing of local noon doesn't come within a bull's roar of invalidating my central point. Justin didn't seem to have any trouble accepting that peak demand generally occurs in mid-afternoon. Are you saying that it doesn't? And I have given information about when average peak demand is, albeit anecdotal. You're the one who initially asserted that peak demand coincides <em>exactly</em> with peak solar, how about you come up with some supporting evidence? Or you could just admit that your statement was wrong, and move on. Finally, it may only be a 'small amount of storage' in temporal terms, but it would have to be many, many megawatt-hours in energy terms. Not trivial, and adding mightily to the infrastructure required to support solar generation on an industrial scale. Please don’t condescend to me, Ender. There’s a reason why I used the phrase ‘local noon’ in the first place, and why I said around 12 pm. The exact timing of local noon doesn’t come within a bull’s roar of invalidating my central point.

Justin didn’t seem to have any trouble accepting that peak demand generally occurs in mid-afternoon. Are you saying that it doesn’t? And I have given information about when average peak demand is, albeit anecdotal. You’re the one who initially asserted that peak demand coincides exactly with peak solar, how about you come up with some supporting evidence?

Or you could just admit that your statement was wrong, and move on.

Finally, it may only be a ‘small amount of storage’ in temporal terms, but it would have to be many, many megawatt-hours in energy terms. Not trivial, and adding mightily to the infrastructure required to support solar generation on an industrial scale.

]]> By: Justin Wood http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48493 Justin Wood Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:06:20 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48493 @Mark Duffett, I could have made that clearer, this is true. <em>On the plane of array</em>, which is angled to maximise solar exposure to the PV panels (as a function of latitude), the peak PV output is commonly between noon and about 15:00. This is expressed in 'peak sun hours' -- and these do <em>tend to, on average</em> align with the peak grid loads in early to mid afternoon, especially in summer. Obviously it's not a trivial matter, and configurations maximising peak PV output in summer may be suboptimal for winter and the year as a whole. But the fundamental point is that the solar resource can indeed be used to maximum effect during the peak load periods. See for instance http://www.ergo.ee.unsw.edu.au/value%20of%20PV%20in%20summer%20peaks.pdf @Mark Duffett,
I could have made that clearer, this is true. On the plane of array, which is angled to maximise solar exposure to the PV panels (as a function of latitude), the peak PV output is commonly between noon and about 15:00. This is expressed in ‘peak sun hours’ — and these do tend to, on average align with the peak grid loads in early to mid afternoon, especially in summer.

Obviously it’s not a trivial matter, and configurations maximising peak PV output in summer may be suboptimal for winter and the year as a whole. But the fundamental point is that the solar resource can indeed be used to maximum effect during the peak load periods.

See for instance http://www.ergo.ee.unsw.edu.au/value%20of%20PV%20in%20summer%20peaks.pdf

]]> By: Stephen Gloor (Ender) http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48485 Stephen Gloor (Ender) Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:37:14 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48485 Mark Duffett - "Really? I would have thought it ‘pretty straightforward’ that maximum insolation is at local noon. Have a look here. " Why not have a look at what local noon really means. Hint : Local noon is not always 12:00pm Plus it only takes a small amount of storage to time-shift the peak. You also did not include any information about when average peak demand is. Mark Duffett - “Really? I would have thought it ‘pretty straightforward’ that maximum insolation is at local noon. Have a look here. “

Why not have a look at what local noon really means. Hint : Local noon is not always 12:00pm

Plus it only takes a small amount of storage to time-shift the peak. You also did not include any information about when average peak demand is.

]]> By: Mark Duffett http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48462 Mark Duffett Thu, 26 Nov 2009 22:44:34 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48462 @Justin <blockquote>Max sun around mid afternoon</blockquote> Really? I would have thought it 'pretty straightforward' that maximum insolation is at local noon. Have a look <a href="http://www.fas.org/irp/imint/docs/rst/Sect14/t_diurnal3_free.jpg" rel="nofollow">here</a>. If you can convince me that these graphs are a) wrong or b) can be interpreted in any way other than max insolation occurring around 12 pm, then you are a genius. Seriously. @Justin

Max sun around mid afternoon

Really? I would have thought it ‘pretty straightforward’ that maximum insolation is at local noon. Have a look here.

If you can convince me that these graphs are a) wrong or b) can be interpreted in any way other than max insolation occurring around 12 pm, then you are a genius.

Seriously.

]]> By: Justin Wood http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48381 Justin Wood Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:50:49 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48381 @Mark Duffett, I'm seriously amazed that you seriously doubt maximum solar insolation is correlated with peak demand. I would have thought this was pretty straightforward! All you need do is look at any Australian daily load profile and compare it with the corresponding peak sun hours profile (especially in summer). Max sun around mid afternoon, just like peak demand. <em>On average</em> of course. A few hot cloudy days really change nothing. @Mark Duffett,
I’m seriously amazed that you seriously doubt maximum solar insolation is correlated with peak demand. I would have thought this was pretty straightforward! All you need do is look at any Australian daily load profile and compare it with the corresponding peak sun hours profile (especially in summer).

Max sun around mid afternoon, just like peak demand. On average of course. A few hot cloudy days really change nothing.

]]> By: Mark Duffett http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48378 Mark Duffett Thu, 26 Nov 2009 06:46:18 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48378 @Ender <blockquote>it (solar) is there exactly when you need it</blockquote> I seriously doubt this. Did you notice my post @1:27 pm 25/11? @Ender

it (solar) is there exactly when you need it

I seriously doubt this. Did you notice my post @1:27 pm 25/11?

]]> By: meski http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48316 meski Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:19:23 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48316 Hot water is common gas fired, so that's possible. Balcony faces north. A/C is inverter type Hot water is common gas fired, so that’s possible.

Balcony faces north. A/C is inverter type

]]> By: Stephen Gloor (Ender) http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48313 Stephen Gloor (Ender) Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:10:03 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48313 Me Ski - "Why would a high CF not be required? " A fossil fuelled peaking generator will typically be used with a CF of 20%. The fact that it can have a 90%CF if you run it 24X7 is irrelevant as it is only required 20% of the time. Similarly a load following nuke, even though it can have a CF of 90% might only achieve 45% as this is all it is used. The other part of the theoretical CF is wasted because it is not required. The point is that often the low CF of solar looks bad compared to nuclear however more often than not it is there exactly when you need it increasing the value of the 20%CF. "Carpark is basement levels. Apartment’s already 4.5 or 5 efficiency rated - its 7th floor of 9 so the roof isn’t an issue, insulation wise." What about the windows? Is your air-con the highest efficiency possible? How about getting the body corporate to install a solar tube hot water system that services all apartments? Does your balcony, assuming you have one, face North? Me Ski - “Why would a high CF not be required? “

A fossil fuelled peaking generator will typically be used with a CF of 20%. The fact that it can have a 90%CF if you run it 24X7 is irrelevant as it is only required 20% of the time. Similarly a load following nuke, even though it can have a CF of 90% might only achieve 45% as this is all it is used. The other part of the theoretical CF is wasted because it is not required. The point is that often the low CF of solar looks bad compared to nuclear however more often than not it is there exactly when you need it increasing the value of the 20%CF.

“Carpark is basement levels. Apartment’s already 4.5 or 5 efficiency rated - its 7th floor of 9 so the roof isn’t an issue, insulation wise.”

What about the windows? Is your air-con the highest efficiency possible? How about getting the body corporate to install a solar tube hot water system that services all apartments? Does your balcony, assuming you have one, face North?

]]> By: meski http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48292 meski Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:48:26 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48292 @Ender: Why would a high CF not be required? Yes, different doped and constructed cells will give different efficiency, and that's fairly important for a limited space. Carpark is basement levels. Apartment's already 4.5 or 5 efficiency rated - its 7th floor of 9 so the roof isn't an issue, insulation wise. @Ender:

Why would a high CF not be required? Yes, different doped and constructed cells will give different efficiency, and that’s fairly important for a limited space.

Carpark is basement levels. Apartment’s already 4.5 or 5 efficiency rated - its 7th floor of 9 so the roof isn’t an issue, insulation wise.

]]> By: Stephen Gloor (Ender) http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48285 Stephen Gloor (Ender) Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:10:14 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48285 Mark Duffet - "I seem to recall there being a reduction in efficiency per degree increase in temperature (.2 -.4% depending on cell type) look it up on wiki, I’m tired of obfuscating links to avoid moderation." You are correct however this affects the voltage and it is not a reduction in efficiency. It used to be a problem where the output of the cells had to charge a battery at a fixed voltage. A lot of energy was wasted because the solar panel could put out for example 16V when the battery demanded 14V for charging. Nowadays all the grid tie inverters and new battery charging controllers use Maximum Power Point trackers. This means that the solar output voltage can vary all over the place decoupled from the output voltage. Mark Duffet - “I seem to recall there being a reduction in efficiency per degree increase in temperature (.2 -.4% depending on cell type) look it up on wiki, I’m tired of obfuscating links to avoid moderation.”

You are correct however this affects the voltage and it is not a reduction in efficiency. It used to be a problem where the output of the cells had to charge a battery at a fixed voltage. A lot of energy was wasted because the solar panel could put out for example 16V when the battery demanded 14V for charging.

Nowadays all the grid tie inverters and new battery charging controllers use Maximum Power Point trackers. This means that the solar output voltage can vary all over the place decoupled from the output voltage.

]]> By: Stephen Gloor (Ender) http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48283 Stephen Gloor (Ender) Thu, 26 Nov 2009 00:04:47 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48283 meski - "You quote CF for nuclear, where’s the CF for solar? 20%? Also, natural / lp gas isn’t renewable. What’s the current efficiency of PV? What you can buy *today* and that doesn’t require moving parts, like something to keep it aligned at optimal angle? Is that efficiency assuming that it will be fixed and not moving, or that it will be aligned by servos? Is that efficiency assuming it will be cleaned or are you presuming a pigeon-free environment? :)" You jammed a lot in there. The CF is about 20% however getting hung up on the CF can be misleading. Sometimes there is not much point having an 85% CF when it is not required. Rooftop solar panel do not have to have trackers. They do increase the yield however they cost about the same as another panel which would give the same yield anyway. You are confusing efficiency with yield. The efficiency is fixed by the cell chemistry. "Some of us live in apartments, which means no rooftop to speak of. The idea of finding space for 4.8 kW worth of PV cells to run my airconditioner is attractive, but just not on. (2 x split systems)" What about the car park? Does it have a roof? Some apartment dwellers are getting together to put a compact system on the roof and sharing the energy. Why not try to use your aircon less and put in some insulation or change some windows to double glazed. It is better to save the power rather than generate it. "I just want to see both sides through non rose coloured glasses. Not view the nuclear one through zaphod’s peril-sensitive glasses." I have always wanted a pair of those. meski - “You quote CF for nuclear, where’s the CF for solar? 20%? Also, natural / lp gas isn’t renewable. What’s the current efficiency of PV? What you can buy *today* and that doesn’t require moving parts, like something to keep it aligned at optimal angle? Is that efficiency assuming that it will be fixed and not moving, or that it will be aligned by servos? Is that efficiency assuming it will be cleaned or are you presuming a pigeon-free environment? :) “

You jammed a lot in there. The CF is about 20% however getting hung up on the CF can be misleading. Sometimes there is not much point having an 85% CF when it is not required. Rooftop solar panel do not have to have trackers. They do increase the yield however they cost about the same as another panel which would give the same yield anyway. You are confusing efficiency with yield. The efficiency is fixed by the cell chemistry.

“Some of us live in apartments, which means no rooftop to speak of. The idea of finding space for 4.8 kW worth of PV cells to run my airconditioner is attractive, but just not on. (2 x split systems)”

What about the car park? Does it have a roof? Some apartment dwellers are getting together to put a compact system on the roof and sharing the energy. Why not try to use your aircon less and put in some insulation or change some windows to double glazed. It is better to save the power rather than generate it.

“I just want to see both sides through non rose coloured glasses. Not view the nuclear one through zaphod’s peril-sensitive glasses.”

I have always wanted a pair of those.

]]> By: meski http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48161 meski Wed, 25 Nov 2009 04:52:12 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48161 The other side to baseload is industries (eg smelters) that can't shut down (economically) Smart timers for consumers are widely used now, for such things as off-peak water heating. The other side to baseload is industries (eg smelters) that can’t shut down (economically)

Smart timers for consumers are widely used now, for such things as off-peak water heating.

]]> By: Justin Wood http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48136 Justin Wood Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:50:57 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48136 @Stephen Gloor, <blockquote>It will be replaced with smart devices only turning on when the renewable grid is in surplus, instead of a dumb timed system we have now for dumb Victorian era power stations we cannot turn off.</blockquote> A colleague commented the other day over a beer that monolithic generation as 'baseload' is just another way of describing a plant that's <em>too inflexible to be shut down</em>... Also, hoping you could contact me, please? justin.wood [at] murdoch.edu.au @Stephen Gloor,

It will be replaced with smart devices only turning on when the renewable grid is in surplus, instead of a dumb timed system we have now for dumb Victorian era power stations we cannot turn off.

A colleague commented the other day over a beer that monolithic generation as ‘baseload’ is just another way of describing a plant that’s too inflexible to be shut down…

Also, hoping you could contact me, please? justin.wood [at] murdoch.edu.au

]]> By: meski http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48126 meski Wed, 25 Nov 2009 03:33:33 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48126 @Mark <shudder> I well remember those 'sultry' days from the Adelaide weather bureau. From my electronics background, I seem to recall there being a reduction in efficiency per degree increase in temperature (.2 -.4% depending on cell type) look it up on wiki, I'm tired of obfuscating links to avoid moderation. @Mark <shudder> I well remember those ‘sultry’ days from the Adelaide weather bureau. From my electronics background, I seem to recall there being a reduction in efficiency per degree increase in temperature (.2 -.4% depending on cell type) look it up on wiki, I’m tired of obfuscating links to avoid moderation.

]]> By: Mark Duffett http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48111 Mark Duffett Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:37:45 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48111 @Meski, funny you should mention those glasses; having just employed the phrase 'disaster area' a couple of times on <a href="http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/24/whats-really-behind-emissions-trading/#comments" rel="nofollow">another thread</a>. @Meski, funny you should mention those glasses; having just employed the phrase ‘disaster area’ a couple of times on another thread.

]]> By: Mark Duffett http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48105 Mark Duffett Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:27:37 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48105 @Ender, hot days are not necessarily sunny. Also the hottest part of the day usually occurs well after solar noon. And if households I've inhabited are any guide, most aircons are only turned on well into the afternoon, after the thermal inertia of the house (from overnight cooling) has been overcome. If memories (of Adelaide, Darwin and Alice Springs) serve, many of those cloudy, hot days ('sultry', the Met Bureau used to call it in Adelaide) are rather still as well. @Ender, hot days are not necessarily sunny. Also the hottest part of the day usually occurs well after solar noon. And if households I’ve inhabited are any guide, most aircons are only turned on well into the afternoon, after the thermal inertia of the house (from overnight cooling) has been overcome.

If memories (of Adelaide, Darwin and Alice Springs) serve, many of those cloudy, hot days (‘sultry’, the Met Bureau used to call it in Adelaide) are rather still as well.

]]> By: meski http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48101 meski Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:56:48 +0000 http://www.crikey.com.au/2009/11/19/the-nuclear-option-part-1-too-slow-too-costly/#comment-48101 @Ender: You quote CF for nuclear, where's the CF for solar? 20%? Also, natural / lp gas isn't renewable. What's the current efficiency of PV? What you can buy *today* and that doesn't require moving parts, like something to keep it aligned at optimal angle? Is that efficiency assuming that it will be fixed and not moving, or that it will be aligned by servos? Is that efficiency assuming it will be cleaned or are you presuming a pigeon-free environment? :) Some of us live in apartments, which means no rooftop to speak of. The idea of finding space for 4.8 kW worth of PV cells to run my airconditioner is attractive, but just not on. (2 x split systems) I just want to see both sides through non rose coloured glasses. Not view the nuclear one through zaphod's peril-sensitive glasses. @Ender: You quote CF for nuclear, where’s the CF for solar? 20%? Also, natural / lp gas isn’t renewable. What’s the current efficiency of PV? What you can buy *today* and that doesn’t require moving parts, like something to keep it aligned at optimal angle? Is that efficiency assuming that it will be fixed and not moving, or that it will be aligned by servos? Is that efficiency assuming it will be cleaned or are you presuming a pigeon-free environment? :)

Some of us live in apartments, which means no rooftop to speak of. The idea of finding space for 4.8 kW worth of PV cells to run my airconditioner is attractive, but just not on. (2 x split systems)

I just want to see both sides through non rose coloured glasses. Not view the nuclear one through zaphod’s peril-sensitive glasses.

]]>