nomadpete Posted January 30 Posted January 30 (edited) 1 hour ago, spacesailor said: In a cool/cold night, RC air-conditioners will put out cold air , as the inside gets the heating I can walk outside to put my hand in front of the AC to feel the cold/heat while inside , The opposite happens. spacesailor Yes Spacey. It is a heat pump. In cold times it pumps warm air inside. In hot times it pumps warm air outside. There is no such thing as 'cold' . Ther is only heat, of varoius levels Edited January 30 by nomadpete 1
old man emu Posted January 30 Posted January 30 2 hours ago, onetrack said: produce more power as they get hotter. I would suggest that the heating of the surface adds energy to the electrons in the solar cells, making it a tad easier for them to escape from the molecules that are attached to. Therefore more electrons off means more electrons (electricity). At night the cells might be absorbing heat from the atmosphere, thereby cooling it. 1
octave Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Yes, Heat Reduces Solar Panel Output. But Not Enough To Worry About 1 1
nomadpete Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Basic rule... The higher the temp, the lower a semiconductor's efficiency. 1 1
old man emu Posted January 30 Posted January 30 1 hour ago, pmccarthy said: Same with tram conductors. Yeah. Back in the day when it got too hot they punched your ticket in the wrong place. 1
Siso Posted January 30 Posted January 30 20 hours ago, facthunter said: It's the nuclear power stations that need lot's of cooling. It's cooler under solar panels than if the panel wasn't there as energy has been removed. On HOT days the solar panels are LESS efficient. Nev Nuclear power stations don't put out anywhere near the heat than the CO2 they displace from coal or gas stations.
onetrack Posted January 30 Posted January 30 I can't see the relevance of comparing CO2 and heat output? Nuclear reactors usually use ocean waters for cooling, and this can have detrimental effects on the local marine environment. Nuclear power stations can require up to 80% more water than any other form of power generation.
Siso Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Nuclear power uses about the same amount of water as coal. It also gives emission free water desalination when needed. Just making the point they don't need anymore cooling than other technologies. 2
facthunter Posted January 30 Posted January 30 Pumped hydro Hydro wind power and solar panels need no cooling. Involving STEAM in any process is inefficient. Burning hydrocarbons is not a lot better. efficiency wise. Hydrogen can go straight to electricity.. Nev 1 2
facthunter Posted January 31 Posted January 31 Solar Panel efficiency REDUCES .5% for every degree above 25 C but it still keeps outputting "less" up to about 150 SAFELY. Cleaning them helps. . Forget what some installers say. The makers know better Its to do with resistance change. Nev 1 2
onetrack Posted January 31 Posted January 31 There's one small qualification to Nuclear power plant water requirements. If the reactor overheats, there is a MASSIVE demand for large amounts of water to cool the overheating core. While the chances of nuclear accidents are minimised, the problem remains as a constant, and systems built to handle an overheating core, have to be designed in. But aside from that issue, there's two other issues to address with cooling nuclear power plants - the increasing temperature of the water bodies in the world, and an increasing shortage of good potable water. Both of these problems are only going to get worse. Nuclear reactors in many countries have had to power down in recent years due to increased water temperatures, and in a number of cases, reduced river flows. https://www.wired.com/story/nuclear-power-plants-struggling-to-stay-cool/ 1 1
old man emu Posted January 31 Posted January 31 When the oil refinery was in operation at Kurnell, on the shore of Botany Bay, there was a hot water outlet into the bay. Best fishing spot evvvah. 1
spacesailor Posted January 31 Posted January 31 Some ' SouthAmerican ' researchers have designed N power generators. To be built below water levels! . In case of emergency , no power required for cooling . Aka " Chernobyl " . ( someone turned off a cooling pump ) . " Wikipedia " the Chernobyl disaster " . spacesailor 1
Siso Posted January 31 Posted January 31 3 hours ago, facthunter said: Pumped hydro Hydro wind power and solar panels need no cooling. Involving STEAM in any process is inefficient. Burning hydrocarbons is not a lot better. efficiency wise. Hydrogen can go straight to electricity.. Nev Pumped hydro doesn't generate power, it stores it from somewhere else. Hydrogen needs to compressed a great deal and refrigerated to liquify it for good storage which loses more efficiency. Solar has less than 30% capacity factor. 1
facthunter Posted January 31 Posted January 31 Anyone studying the Scene knows those things . Is there anything is said that was incorrect?. Nev 1
Siso Posted January 31 Posted January 31 2 hours ago, onetrack said: There's one small qualification to Nuclear power plant water requirements. If the reactor overheats, there is a MASSIVE demand for large amounts of water to cool the overheating core. While the chances of nuclear accidents are minimised, the problem remains as a constant, and systems built to handle an overheating core, have to be designed in. But aside from that issue, there's two other issues to address with cooling nuclear power plants - the increasing temperature of the water bodies in the world, and an increasing shortage of good potable water. Both of these problems are only going to get worse. Nuclear reactors in many countries have had to power down in recent years due to increased water temperatures, and in a number of cases, reduced river flows. https://www.wired.com/story/nuclear-power-plants-struggling-to-stay-cool/ Gen 3 reactors have a large tank of water to cool an over heating reactor just sitting there, in the very rare case it may overheat. (passive cooling) Coal also needs water for dust suppression in mines and crushing plants. Cooling can be done with sea water if available. France did have trouble once in 2022. It is only a matter of using larger heat exchangers. They still abate more CO2 then any other technology for the footprint and possibly cost. The countries that are doing the best in this regards are France and Sweden. Denmark have been trying to do it for 50 years and still have a coal fired power station See https://app.electricitymaps.com/zone/FR/72h/hourly. A bit of interesting reading here for people who think it is windy somewhere https://wattclarity.com.au/articles/2024/06/13june-lowwind/ There was a roughly 3 month wind lull in April , May and June last year. https://wattclarity.com.au/market-operations/eventful-days/2024-q2-wind-lull/ 1
Siso Posted January 31 Posted January 31 5 hours ago, facthunter said: Pumped hydro Hydro wind power and solar panels need no cooling. Involving STEAM in any process is inefficient. Burning hydrocarbons is not a lot better. efficiency wise. Hydrogen can go straight to electricity.. Nev Just expanding the information you put out there.
Popular Post Jerry_Atrick Posted January 31 Popular Post Posted January 31 19 hours ago, Siso said: Nuclear power stations don't put out anywhere near the heat than the CO2 they displace from coal or gas stations. Err.. Yes they do.. They can reticulate some of that heat... but a reactor creates a lot of darned heat. In any case, the statement is a little bit like sayn the US has x GDP and Fiji has a tiny fraction of it.. There has to be some context, and in the case of power generation, it is thermal efficiency. And both nuclear and fossils are, on average, very similar: https://www.pcienergysolutions.com/2023/04/17/power-plant-efficiency-coal-natural-gas-nuclear-and-more/ I haven't read the whole article, esp. about "non traditional" generation. Also, there are high efficiency coal plants, and improved nuclear plants, where the efficiency is higher, but they move in lock step more or less 3 2
Siso Posted February 1 Posted February 1 So you are saying any extra heat the nuclear plant puts out against coal and gas is worse than the green house warming the emiisions from coal and gas? Can't see that mentioned in the article. 1
red750 Posted February 13 Posted February 13 One of Australia's first commercial wind farms has been earmarked for decommissioning after its owners ruled out replacing aging turbines due to cost. The Codrington Wind Farm opened near Port Fairy in south-west Victoria in July 2001, marking a new frontier in renewable energy in Australia. The site was deemed "close to perfect" due to its strong prevailing winds off the Southern Ocean when Premier Steve Bracks opened what was at the time Australia's largest wind farm. 1
facthunter Posted February 13 Posted February 13 I guess in 24 years some progress would have been made in design and materials. Nev
octave Posted February 13 Posted February 13 It seems that the area is not big enough for today's larger turbines which require more spacing. The council's policy director Nick Aberle said the site was not large enough for up-to-date wind turbines, which were larger and could generate six times more energy than the turbines at Codrington. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-02-13/pacific-blue-decommissioning-codrington-wind-farm-port-fairy/104926348 1 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now