An "ideal" transport of the future

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Moreno said:

Obviously, that solar power requires larger amount of relatively sophisticated materials than any other type of energy, including wind power.

This link isn't working for me. It's not obvious to me that solar uses more materials. Wind turbines are pretty big.

Do you have a citation or a calculation? 

[Moreno]

1 minute ago, swansont said:

This link isn't working for me. It's not obvious to me that solar uses more materials. Wind turbines are pretty big.

Do you have a citation or a calculation? 

Both wind turbines and solar cells receive the same amount of natural power per m2 (around 1000 W, at best) typically. But solar panels look more expensive per m2 than turbine blades.

Also, solar power is good for equatorial countries, while Northern countries have more wind resources than Sun. 

[DeoxyRiboRobert]

8 hours ago, swansont said:

That's not expensive.

They have to actually exist as a viable technology, plus flight is energy intensive.

"That's not expensive". Expensive is quite relative. The reason I said expensive is because it's just a blanket figure of how much it costs to produce that energy, not how much it would cost to the consumer, it's still twice the price of Nuclear.I'll go into more detail of as to the problems of Solar when I have some more time to respond, so probably lunch. 

[Area54]

8 hours ago, Moreno said:

Both wind turbines and solar cells receive the same amount of natural power per m2 (around 1000 W, at best) typically. But solar panels look more expensive per m2 than turbine blades.

Also, solar power is good for equatorial countries, while Northern countries have more wind resources than Sun. 

You are not providing any citations to support your statements. It would be helpful if you did.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

"That's not expensive". Expensive is quite relative. The reason I said expensive is because it's just a blanket figure of how much it costs to produce that energy, not how much it would cost to the consumer, it's still twice the price of Nuclear.I'll go into more detail of as to the problems of Solar when I have some more time to respond, so probably lunch. 

2.1 cents per kWh for nuclear is production cost, not electricity cost

"production costs do not include capital costs or financing charges, production costs are much lower than levelized costs."
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/

IOW, nuclear is cheap if you don't count how much it costs to build the plant, later decommission it and deal with the waste.

[Carrock]

12 hours ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

"That's not expensive". Expensive is quite relative. The reason I said expensive is because it's just a blanket figure of how much it costs to produce that energy, not how much it would cost to the consumer, it's still twice the price of Nuclear.I'll go into more detail of as to the problems of Solar when I have some more time to respond, so probably lunch. 

Wind power is naturally concentrated solar power, so I think this is a legitimate comparison.

From Offshore wind power cheaper than new nuclear (11th Sept)

 

Quote

 

Energy from offshore wind in the UK will be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear power for the first time.

The cost of subsidies for new offshore wind farms has halved since the last 2015 auction for clean energy projects

Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a guaranteed price of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour.

Nuclear firms said the UK still needed a mix of low-carbon energy, especially for when wind power was not available.

 

Interesting way to make the inability of nuclear plants to reduce output below about 60% into a virtue.

From https://www.oecd-nea.org/nea-news/2011/29-2/nea-news-29-2-load-following-e.pdf
 

Quote

 

It is often believed that nuclear power plants can-
not operate in manoeuvring regimes. In fact, most
of the currently operating NPPs were designed to
have strong manoeuvring capabilities (NEA, 2011).
However, operating an NPP at a constant power level
is simpler and less demanding on the plant’s equip-
ment and fuel.

..........

Another example is the German Konvoi reactors that were
designed for 15 000 cycles with daily power varia-
tions from 100% P r to 60% P r , and 100 000 cycles with
power variations from 100% P r to 80% P r (see Ludwig,
H., et al., 2010).

 

So during a summer night, nuclear supplies more than 100% of Britain's electricity needs; unlike wind or solar, it can't be switched off when not needed.

[DeoxyRiboRobert]

11 hours ago, swansont said:

2.1 cents per kWh for nuclear is production cost, not electricity cost

"production costs do not include capital costs or financing charges, production costs are much lower than levelized costs."
http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/analysis/electric-generating-costs-a-primer/

IOW, nuclear is cheap if you don't count how much it costs to build the plant, later decommission it and deal with the waste.

Actually after looking through some more research  it seems that Solar is actually significantly cheaper than Nuclear in certain conditions. My only major concern was it's availability, I thought that Solar energy for countries like mine (Scotland) would have to transport energy from other areas, however after looking at that it turns out to simply not be as big of a concern as one would think.

The only genuine concern I can find is the variation  (Source of Graph) in solar production as opposed to Nuclear. As you mentioned previously, Nuclear can't just simply be "Turned off". This pretty much encapsulates my general notion towards Nuclear power, it's constant. No matter as to what season it is, nuclear power is simply more constant. 

So on that note, I'll happily concede that Solar is cheaper on average than Nuclear, thanks for pointing that out.

 

Edited September 15, 2017 by DeoxyRiboRobert

[studiot]

52 minutes ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

Actually after looking through some more research  it seems that Solar is actually significantly cheaper than Nuclear in certain conditions. My only major concern was it's availability, I thought that Solar energy for countries like mine (Scotland) would have to transport energy from other areas, however after looking at that it turns out to simply not be as big of a concern as one would think.

The only genuine concern I can find is the variation  (Source of Graph) in solar production as opposed to Nuclear. As you mentioned previously, Nuclear can't just simply be "Turned off". This pretty much encapsulates my general notion towards Nuclear power, it's constant. No matter as to what season it is, nuclear power is simply more constant. 

So on that note, I'll happily concede that Solar is cheaper on average than Nuclear, thanks for pointing that out.

 

 

I find it very comforting at night when I want to turn the lights on, cook my dinner and watch the BBC, that nuclear is constant, unlike solar.

[DeoxyRiboRobert]

15 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

I find it very comforting at night when I want to turn the lights on, cook my dinner and watch the BBC, that nuclear is constant, unlike solar.

Solar does still generate electricity at night, just not as much as during the day. (moonlight)

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

Solar does still generate electricity at night, just not as much as during the day. (moonlight)

 

Not on the solar panels I am familiar with, and not when there is no Moon to speak of.

[DeoxyRiboRobert]

6 minutes ago, studiot said:

 

Not on the solar panels I am familiar with, and not when there is no Moon to speak of.

Fair enough I guess, it's a very area-orientated thing. I don't personally have any solar panels so I am not able to give any personal experiences from Scottish models. But yeah nevertheless thank Einstein for Nuclear, else we'd have lights out. 

[studiot]

6 minutes ago, DeoxyRiboRobert said:

Fair enough I guess, it's a very area-orientated thing. I don't personally have any solar panels so I am not able to give any personal experiences from Scottish models. But yeah nevertheless thank Einstein for Nuclear, else we'd have lights out. 

Actually I'm very much against Hinkley C - it is a complete and enormous waste of public money, when there are much better options available, whcih are also 24/7.

However the point about both solar and available wind is that they represent low density energy with substantial off periods.
(With apologies to those in the Americas and Asia suffering from more powerful winds)
You are close enough to Cruachan to understand the obvious implications of what to do about that.

Edited September 15, 2017 by studiot

[Externet]

On 9/14/2017 at 1:17 PM, Moreno said:

If you need a cumbersome device like on the photo what about flexibility? It may teleport you between stations but what if you need to park near a boutique?

That is capacity four.  You can install capacity ones inside these booths every block or in front of boutiques, or in offices, the barber shop, no parking needed...  Just dial its number and you show up there :