SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Alighieri who wrote (183362)2/23/2004 4:47:55 PM
From: hmaly  Respond to of 1574856
 
Al Re Actually, an electricity generating system wouldn't have batteries either. When you are using more electricity than the system generates, then you pull from the grid. When you are generating more electricity than you are using, then you feed electricity into the grid, and your meter runs backwards.
Good points.


It is a good point. However, an even better point is that, by taking the storage out, solar can never be a stand alone, replacement for nuclear, or coal etc. Therefore, solar will remain a niche system, not a replacement; which was always mine, and Eric's point. A secondary point is that, if you go with nuclear, then the fuel savings for the nuclear plants aren't that great, because you can't lower the output very fast. And thirdly, when the basic electric system is built, the system is built to exceed normal expected capacity by I believe 20%; and I don't think the CUB will let you count solar input, as any of that 20%. So, the big costs of a nuke, is the plant, and infrastructure, not fuel, and solar won't alleviate any of the infrastructure costs. Solar will help lower the usage of the auxilliary plants however. Right now, AFAIK, the big plants , which are designed to run all out,produce 70- 80% of output, with the auxiliaries, kicking in when necessary, the final 20-30%. So,even under John's system,without storage, nuclear would still be the primary source.