mass elec. storage 'battery' rethink the term application.

[SDcampowneroper]

In definition Battery is stored energy, as in an artillery unit. That thought has been lost as today it is thought of only in the chemically reservation of electric power in units, credible to rvs and small unit chemically storage systems.
Where alternative power units like solar and wind could store their peak generation for peak usage times via 'battery' is not the mechanical but the physical.
A lake with water storage behind hydroelectric generators is a battery,
An underground salt cavern pressurized with compressed air is a battery
fluids heated, like salt or oil in daytime heating , release that energy at night, stored energy, a battery. Wind and solar will have to store that energy, pumping water back up into the lake, pressirizing the caverns, heating the oil and salt to store the energy for the nighttime demand to recharge fleets
Battery is a unit of energy storage , in projected electric mass transportation will require recharge primarily at night, when the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow.
The energy to provide for that will require sacrifice. changed downstream river flows, impacts of wind farms that pump water back up into the lake. increased solar heat reflectiion vs absorbed heat into the land, leading to higher daytime temps, cooler nights. disturbed air patterns.
Behind every well intentioned action there comes a reaction.

[dedmiston]

Just when I thought we'd run out of junk to argue about...

[gbopp]

I think the only point the OP was trying to make is, there's pros and cons to all types of energy. :h
But, I've been wrong before.

[Grit_dog]

Just when I thought the conversations couldn’t get any weirder around here....

My takeaway is good ole crude oil and ICE emissions are starting to not sound so bad again!

[valhalla360]

Gdetrailer wrote:

valhalla360 wrote:


I stopped reading after the first few paragraphs when you failed to make a point.

Care to summarize or at least put forward the main purpose at the start and then fill in the details after.

You slept through science class in school.

Summary in a nutshell.

Man does not "create" energy, we merely CONVERT one form of energy to a different form we can use.

EVERYTHING is a loss, every conversion from one energy to another is a LOSS, every conversion creates HEAT or some other unwanted after effects.

Batteries "store" energy, they do not "create" energy.

Charging a battery creates a LOSS in the form of heat.

Discharging a battery creates LOSS in the form of heat.

I would recommend you chug a couple of Redbulls and then reread the links I posted..

The information is there, just most folks tend to ignore the reality that all of those scientific minds that came before us were generations ahead of their time and yet we have learned nothing from their discoveries and put our "hope" into a massive future cluster with EV..

Are you saying the point is to regurgitate high school physics lessons? Already well aware of those...Still waiting on a point. Particularly one that relates to RVs.

Maybe work on your technical writing skills.

[Gdetrailer]

valhalla360 wrote:


I stopped reading after the first few paragraphs when you failed to make a point.

Care to summarize or at least put forward the main purpose at the start and then fill in the details after.

You slept through science class in school.

Summary in a nutshell.

Man does not "create" energy, we merely CONVERT one form of energy to a different form we can use.

EVERYTHING is a loss, every conversion from one energy to another is a LOSS, every conversion creates HEAT or some other unwanted after effects.

Batteries "store" energy, they do not "create" energy.

Charging a battery creates a LOSS in the form of heat.

Discharging a battery creates LOSS in the form of heat.

I would recommend you chug a couple of Redbulls and then reread the links I posted..

The information is there, just most folks tend to ignore the reality that all of those scientific minds that came before us were generations ahead of their time and yet we have learned nothing from their discoveries and put our "hope" into a massive future cluster with EV..

[Horsedoc]

Why is it necessary to copy/quote so much folks? None of you will change the other's minds about how you feel about a subject such as this.
If you must state an opinion, do so and move on.

[pianotuna]

Although the sun does not shine 24 hours in any one location, yet when it is 7 am on the east coast it is 4 am on the west cost. That time zone could be extended 200 miles east, and 200 miles west. That gives almost another time zone to capture energy from solar.

For wind, off shore makes a lot of sense.

I know transmission losses are high and should be avoided.

If there were solar on every house in USA it would mitigate the need for storage.

If there were a Nissan Leaf or other similar BEV, then storage could be largely local, or "personal". Or one could use "decommissioned" Tesla batteries, that are no longer providing sufficient range.

I'll have about 7.6 kwh of usable storage on my RV by the fall. I am paying for about 120 KWH per month at my Condo. So I'd have very nearly 2 days of storage. If I allowed for deeper cycling then I'd have 9.6 KWh of storage.

Nissan btw expects to produce 1 million electric vehicles per year in 2023.

[pianotuna]

valhalla360 wrote:

pianotuna wrote:
Any thinking person would want to know where the fuel is coming from, how long it will last, and what to do with the waste. But for the sake of brevity, just tell me about the waste storage world wide, agesilaus. How exactly do we safely store anything for 1000 to 10,000 years? (those numbers are suggested by the World Nuclear Association.

Other than fear mongering and some of the stupidity that results from it, storage is pretty simple. We have deep underground storage systems worked out and can easily handle a few thousand years of nuclear waste safely. They are well clear of any water sources and no risk of blowing up or other major issues.

The storage facility Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in USA has already had two "accidents". I did not mention the waste "blowing up", nor do I believe that is likely.

"Under its current permit with the State of New Mexico, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant was to be closed and decommissioned in four years." That is dated Oct 22, 2020.

So again, I ask, where will the waste be stored. Nimby will exert considerable force, whether justified or unjustified.

[Gdetrailer]

StirCrazy wrote:

larry cad wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
Too much Jane Fonda for you piano. Tell why do you think nuke plants are dangerous in the US?

"Dangerous"?? He didn't say dangerous, he said "HIGHLY" dangerous, as an example, the hundreds of people dropping dead every day from nuclear accidents!

you do know Ontrio has been running nuke plants for a lont time, right. aside from Hydro power it is the cleanest form of power.

Steve

Do YOU know WHERE all the spent rods are STORED?

HERE

Interim storage until permanent storage location can be found..

HERE

"When used nuclear fuel bundles are removed from a reactor, they are placed in a water-filled pool where their heat and radioactivity decrease. After seven to ten years, the bundles are placed in dry storage containers, silos or vaults. Dry storage is a proven technology that has been in use around the world since the 1980s.

Dry storage containers are made of reinforced high-density concrete about 510 millimetres (20 inches) thick and are lined inside and outside with 12.7-millimetre-thick (half-inch) steel plate. The thickness of concrete provides an effective barrier against radiation. "

BUT, the issue now becomes that the dry "storage" containers are not really designed for more than 50yrs of storage.. Then what?

"The dry storage containers have a minimum design life of 50 years. They are actively monitored, and studies indicate that with ongoing maintenance and inspections these containers can be safely used for much longer periods of time. After 50 years the life of the container could be extended, or the used fuel could be repackaged. These decisions will depend on a number of factors, including the timeline for implementing Adaptive Phased Management.

Although the used fuel's radioactivity decreases with time, chemical toxicity persists. The used fuel will remain a potential health risk for many hundreds of thousands of years. For this reason, it requires careful management.
Canada’s used nuclear fuel is currently safely managed in facilities licensed for interim storage. These facilities are located at nuclear reactor sites in Ontario, Quebec, and New Brunswick, and at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited's sites in Manitoba and Chalk River Laboratories in Ontario."

Storage search has narrowed..

HERE

"The hunt for a place to permanently store used nuclear fuel rods -- about 2.7 million bundles currently exist -- began in earnest in 2010, with 22 communities expressing interest.

The dangerous material is currently stored in pools of water or in vaults on site at reactors in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Manitoba.

The envisaged repository would be about 500 metres underground."

Clean?

Safe?

Yeah right, how would you love to be sitting on 2.7 MILLION bundles of highly radioactive spent fuel rods right under your nose?

THEY ARE sitting right under your nose.

EVERY Nuclear power plant by design MUST have some on site spent fuel rod storage as part of the process of operations.. At this moment every Nuclear power plant operating AND decommissioned plants have highly radioactive spent fuel rods sitting in pools and or dry storage on site.. Those rods WILL be deadly highly radioactive for HUNDRED OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS my friend.

WAKE UP FOLKS, Nuclear power is not safe, clean or environmentally friendly.. You are just trading one "poison" for another "poison" creating a huge mess for mankind to deal with many yrs down the road.

Hiding it in underground bunkers does not fix the problem, it only hides for so long and at this time there is no known safe and effective way to undo the process that makes those spent rods so highly radioactive.

[valhalla360]

Gdetrailer wrote:

SDcampowneroperator wrote:
In definition Battery is stored energy, as in an artillery unit. That thought has been lost as today it is thought of only in the chemically reservation of electric power in units, credible to rvs and small unit chemically storage systems.
Where alternative power units like solar and wind could store their peak generation for peak usage times via 'battery' is not the mechanical but the physical.
A lake with water storage behind hydroelectric generators is a battery,
An underground salt cavern pressurized with compressed air is a battery
fluids heated, like salt or oil in daytime heating , release that energy at night, stored energy, a battery. Wind and solar will have to store that energy, pumping water back up into the lake, pressirizing the caverns, heating the oil and salt to store the energy for the nighttime demand to recharge fleets
Battery is a unit of energy storage , in projected electric mass transportation will require recharge primarily at night, when the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow.
The energy to provide for that will require sacrifice. changed downstream river flows, impacts of wind farms that pump water back up into the lake. increased solar heat reflectiion vs absorbed heat into the land, leading to higher daytime temps, cooler nights. disturbed air patterns.
Behind every well intentioned action there comes a reaction.

A glimmer of hope that at least one person aside from myself gets it..

For those that don't..

Old-Biscuit wrote:
Point being???

valhalla360 wrote:
Not clear what the point of all this is.

You must have been napping in Science and Physics 101 in High School..

Newton's First law of Motion

HERE

Newton's Third Law of Motion

HERE

Newton's second law applies also but I didn't look that up, I will leave that for you to search for..

Newton's laws talk about physical stuff, movement, lack of movement, energy..

But there is an inherent issue with "energy loss" during conversion of one energy to another.

Example, roll a ball into another, IF the conversion was 100% you would EXPECT the ball to roll the SAME distance as the FIRST BALL..

The second ball, however DOES NOT ROLL THE SAME DISTANCE, IT STOPS SHORTER THAN THE FIRST BALL.

If the second ball were to roll longer than the first ball then we would have something called "OVER UNITY" which is also know as a "perpetual motion machine" which some of us fully understand to be completely IMPOSSIBLE. The reason it is impossible is due to the inherent friction (LOSS) in the "system".

The same thing that happens with physical things happens with electrical things, some losses are detrimental to the efficiency of the entire system and you fall short of 100% conversion..

Energy conversion loss

HERE

"When energy is transformed from one form to another, or moved from one place to another, or from one system to another there is energy loss. This means that when energy is converted to a different form, some of the input energy is turned into a highly disordered form of energy, like heat. Functionally, turning all of the input energy into the output energy is nigh impossible, unless one is deliberately turning energy into heat (like in a heater). As well, whenever electrical energy is transported through power lines, the energy into the power lines is always more than the energy that comes out at the other end. Energy losses are what prevent processes from ever being 100% efficient. "

Law of conservation of energy

HERE

"The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside. This is particularly confusing in the case of non-conservative forces, where energy is converted from mechanical energy into thermal energy, but the overall energy does remain the same. The only way to use energy is to transform energy from one form to another.

The amount of energy in any system, then, is determined by the following equation:

UT=Ui+W+Q

UT

is the total internal energy of a system.
Ui
is the initial internal energy of a system.
W
is the work done by or on the system.
Q

is the heat added to, or removed from, the system.

It is also possible to determine the change in internal energy of the system using the equation: ?U=W+Q

This is also a statement of the first law of thermodynamics.

While these equations are extremely powerful, they can make it hard to see the power of the statement. The takeaway message is that energy cannot be created from nothing. Society has to get energy from somewhere, although there are many sneaky places to get it from (some sources are primary fuels and some sources are primary energy flows).

Early in the 20th century, Einstein figured out that even mass is a form of energy (this is called mass-energy equivalence). The amount of mass directly relates to the amount of energy, as determined by the most famous formula in physics:

E=mc2

E

is the amount of energy in an object or system.
m
is the mass of the object or system.
c
is the speed of light, roughly 3×108m/s."

Op was pointing out that that all man is doing is trying to "store" energy in one form and converting to another usable form later.

The downside is EACH time man tries to make a conversion there IS an energy loss in that conversion that leads to LESS "efficiency".

Also note, WE CANNOT "CREATE" ENERGY, we only can CONVERT ENERGY.

Coal power plants, we CONVERT solid energy like coal into heat and electricity.

Gas power plants, we CONVERT gas vapor energy into heat and electricity.

Nuclear power plants, we CONVERT highly refined radioactive material into HEAT and electricity.

Wind power, we CONVERT WIND by DRAG into HEAT and electricity.

Solar power, we CONVERT Solar RADIATION into HEAT and electricity.. And YES, solar panels GIVE OFF RADIATED HEAT FROM THE SUN INTO THE AIR AND OBJECTS SURROUNDING THE PANELS.. Basically trapping MORE heat from the sun into the Earth!!!

Nuclear power is by far the most potentially destructive and dirty means of converting energy.. In order to make "fuel" for the reactor, it must be highly concentrated, then highly refined, this creates many other atomic materials that have very long "half lifes" that must be stored or used some way.. Then you have to spent fuel rods which so far, NONE have been "recycled" or reused.. Those fuel rods have half lives going into THOUSANDS OF YRS! And they are just sitting in highly contaminated water "pools" until they can be safely handled and put into a permanent BURIED storage facility..

But yet, folks are blind to the Laws that many of the great early Physics and Scientists discovered and understood that are still in effect today..

I stopped reading after the first few paragraphs when you failed to make a point.

Care to summarize or at least put forward the main purpose at the start and then fill in the details after.

[valhalla360]

pianotuna wrote:
Any thinking person would want to know where the fuel is coming from, how long it will last, and what to do with the waste. But for the sake of brevity, just tell me about the waste storage world wide, agesilaus. How exactly do we safely store anything for 1000 to 10,000 years? (those numbers are suggested by the World Nuclear Association.

Other than fear mongering and some of the stupidity that results from it, storage is pretty simple. We have deep underground storage systems worked out and can easily handle a few thousand years of nuclear waste safely. They are well clear of any water sources and no risk of blowing up or other major issues.

[StirCrazy]

larry cad wrote:

agesilaus wrote:
Too much Jane Fonda for you piano. Tell why do you think nuke plants are dangerous in the US?

"Dangerous"?? He didn't say dangerous, he said "HIGHLY" dangerous, as an example, the hundreds of people dropping dead every day from nuclear accidents!

you do know Ontrio has been running nuke plants for a lont time, right. aside from Hydro power it is the cleanest form of power.

Steve

[Gdetrailer]

SDcampowneroperator wrote:
In definition Battery is stored energy, as in an artillery unit. That thought has been lost as today it is thought of only in the chemically reservation of electric power in units, credible to rvs and small unit chemically storage systems.
Where alternative power units like solar and wind could store their peak generation for peak usage times via 'battery' is not the mechanical but the physical.
A lake with water storage behind hydroelectric generators is a battery,
An underground salt cavern pressurized with compressed air is a battery
fluids heated, like salt or oil in daytime heating , release that energy at night, stored energy, a battery. Wind and solar will have to store that energy, pumping water back up into the lake, pressirizing the caverns, heating the oil and salt to store the energy for the nighttime demand to recharge fleets
Battery is a unit of energy storage , in projected electric mass transportation will require recharge primarily at night, when the sun dont shine and the wind dont blow.
The energy to provide for that will require sacrifice. changed downstream river flows, impacts of wind farms that pump water back up into the lake. increased solar heat reflectiion vs absorbed heat into the land, leading to higher daytime temps, cooler nights. disturbed air patterns.
Behind every well intentioned action there comes a reaction.

A glimmer of hope that at least one person aside from myself gets it..

For those that don't..

Old-Biscuit wrote:
Point being???

valhalla360 wrote:
Not clear what the point of all this is.

You must have been napping in Science and Physics 101 in High School..

Newton's First law of Motion

HERE

Newton's Third Law of Motion

HERE

Newton's second law applies also but I didn't look that up, I will leave that for you to search for..

Newton's laws talk about physical stuff, movement, lack of movement, energy..

But there is an inherent issue with "energy loss" during conversion of one energy to another.

Example, roll a ball into another, IF the conversion was 100% you would EXPECT the ball to roll the SAME distance as the FIRST BALL..

The second ball, however DOES NOT ROLL THE SAME DISTANCE, IT STOPS SHORTER THAN THE FIRST BALL.

If the second ball were to roll longer than the first ball then we would have something called "OVER UNITY" which is also know as a "perpetual motion machine" which some of us fully understand to be completely IMPOSSIBLE. The reason it is impossible is due to the inherent friction (LOSS) in the "system".

The same thing that happens with physical things happens with electrical things, some losses are detrimental to the efficiency of the entire system and you fall short of 100% conversion..

Energy conversion loss

HERE

"When energy is transformed from one form to another, or moved from one place to another, or from one system to another there is energy loss. This means that when energy is converted to a different form, some of the input energy is turned into a highly disordered form of energy, like heat. Functionally, turning all of the input energy into the output energy is nigh impossible, unless one is deliberately turning energy into heat (like in a heater). As well, whenever electrical energy is transported through power lines, the energy into the power lines is always more than the energy that comes out at the other end. Energy losses are what prevent processes from ever being 100% efficient. "

Law of conservation of energy

HERE

"The law of conservation of energy states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted from one form of energy to another. This means that a system always has the same amount of energy, unless it's added from the outside. This is particularly confusing in the case of non-conservative forces, where energy is converted from mechanical energy into thermal energy, but the overall energy does remain the same. The only way to use energy is to transform energy from one form to another.

The amount of energy in any system, then, is determined by the following equation:

UT=Ui+W+Q

UT

is the total internal energy of a system.
Ui
is the initial internal energy of a system.
W
is the work done by or on the system.
Q

is the heat added to, or removed from, the system.

It is also possible to determine the change in internal energy of the system using the equation: ?U=W+Q

This is also a statement of the first law of thermodynamics.

While these equations are extremely powerful, they can make it hard to see the power of the statement. The takeaway message is that energy cannot be created from nothing. Society has to get energy from somewhere, although there are many sneaky places to get it from (some sources are primary fuels and some sources are primary energy flows).

Early in the 20th century, Einstein figured out that even mass is a form of energy (this is called mass-energy equivalence). The amount of mass directly relates to the amount of energy, as determined by the most famous formula in physics:

E=mc2

E

is the amount of energy in an object or system.
m
is the mass of the object or system.
c
is the speed of light, roughly 3×108m/s."

Op was pointing out that that all man is doing is trying to "store" energy in one form and converting to another usable form later.

The downside is EACH time man tries to make a conversion there IS an energy loss in that conversion that leads to LESS "efficiency".

Also note, WE CANNOT "CREATE" ENERGY, we only can CONVERT ENERGY.

Coal power plants, we CONVERT solid energy like coal into heat and electricity.

Gas power plants, we CONVERT gas vapor energy into heat and electricity.

Nuclear power plants, we CONVERT highly refined radioactive material into HEAT and electricity.

Wind power, we CONVERT WIND by DRAG into HEAT and electricity.

Solar power, we CONVERT Solar RADIATION into HEAT and electricity.. And YES, solar panels GIVE OFF RADIATED HEAT FROM THE SUN INTO THE AIR AND OBJECTS SURROUNDING THE PANELS.. Basically trapping MORE heat from the sun into the Earth!!!

Nuclear power is by far the most potentially destructive and dirty means of converting energy.. In order to make "fuel" for the reactor, it must be highly concentrated, then highly refined, this creates many other atomic materials that have very long "half lifes" that must be stored or used some way.. Then you have to spent fuel rods which so far, NONE have been "recycled" or reused.. Those fuel rods have half lives going into THOUSANDS OF YRS! And they are just sitting in highly contaminated water "pools" until they can be safely handled and put into a permanent BURIED storage facility..

But yet, folks are blind to the Laws that many of the great early Physics and Scientists discovered and understood that are still in effect today..

[pianotuna]

Any thinking person would want to know where the fuel is coming from, how long it will last, and what to do with the waste. But for the sake of brevity, just tell me about the waste storage world wide, agesilaus. How exactly do we safely store anything for 1000 to 10,000 years? (those numbers are suggested by the World Nuclear Association.

BTW how able are you to read Summarian?

Fusion power always seems to be just ten years from now.