Archive through May 18, 2026
Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Non-Game Discussions: Real-World Technology:
Archive through May 18, 2026
The numbers quoted are a little like comparing apples to oranges.
The GW capacity for solar is the top rated "ideal" number. Solar installations are routinely factored down to 15-25% annualized in practice due to weather, seasonal variation of sun time and angle, and of course, night time. So the top line solar GW numbers can be pretty misleading.
Also, note the 12.9 GW of battery storage is conveniently rated in GW, which is a measure of power and not GWH (hours) which is a measure of energy. So the GW value is the rate at which the electricity can be extracted from the battery plant. GWH (or some other added measure of time) is the total amount of electricity the batteries contain.
The reason the GWH figures are usually not as prominent is that they are often tiny. The average duration of Texas grid batteries is about 90 minutes until recharge is needed. So, enough to handle minor system disruptions and handoffs, and shave the peak a bit at sundown. But the batteries are insufficient to replace the natural gas plants for any amount of time -- not even for a single overnight cycle or a single rainy or cloudy morning.
And Texas is poised to put just under 3 GW of new natural gas capacity online in 2026, the largest of which is the Orange County Advanced Power Station (which strangely sounds like it should be in California?) at 1.2GW. Using the same 4-7 equivalent (inverse of 15-25%) capacity factor to solar, that's roughly the same as 12-18GW of solar. And it can run 24x7 uninterrupted for months with no peaking, load shifting, or spin-up/spin-down.
--Mike
It is interesting that many countries that have plenty of fossil fuels are going big into renewables.
I wonder at what point does OPEC & the Middle East become a non facor to the industrialized world. Except for feedstocks (plastics, etc)
Would it be fair to say the Energy conversation is talking at cross purposes?
Is it fair to say there are three aspects to Energy?
1) Start Up Costs?
2) Maintenance and Energy Degrading Costs?
3) Clean Up Costs?
(There is clearly the modern day forth aspect - Ecological effect - but I think that will get us into politics and so best to ignore?)
Nuclear Energy for example is probably 'cheapest' on Aspect 2), for per MW of energy produced.
But is horribly expensive for 1) and 3).
Wind Turbines are the cheapest for 1), cheap for 3) - but per MW not the cheapest on 2) (for the the points mentioned - it's fair to say the life of Blades is partially unknown - some might last 20 years, some might last 50 years).
Oil - 1) is epxpensive (Find/Drill/Pipelines/Refinerees etc) not cheap, 2) 'is average' and 3) is cheapish (you can cap Oil Heads - but Refinerees will not be cheap cleaning up etc)
Solar - 1) Is not the most expensive to set up - probably cheapest for 3) - but more expensive than wind turbines for 2) (for the points mentioned by Jeff - Blades you can eaaily replace, as visual damage is easy to inspect and get back to close to 100% power effeciency - you can't replace cheaply 20% of a Solar Farm every 20 years (which panels have degraded the most etc).
Now for the US and UK -other than Weather and Disasters - thats pretty much what is relevant?
If your in a potential conflict zone - survivability comes into it.
And I think for that - Wind, is probably best?
Yep - Drones can smash into them - but you can replace a Turbine head and blades fairly easily.
Solar As SVC mentioned - fragemenation weapons will shred the panels (or damage them) - and so easy to replace, but they are the expensive part of the whole system.
Coal - Probably the best balanced - reasonably structure strength - the coal is not on site in large numbers if it does catch on fire - but if the Coal plant is destroyed, you will have huge time and cost replacement effect.
Gas - Worse than Coal - pipes are easy to damage and Gas (from what I know) is far more flamable than Coal (as long as you keep the Coal dust in low percentages) - but it's easier to cut off atleast.
Oil - Worse tha Gas.
(Hydro is probably here - not mentioned as limited in where it can be built.... Bio and Thermal discounted due to low levels of productin)
Nuclear - Harder to damage than Coal.... but by far the worst if it's damaged to a significant degree. (Fair to say,the world has been lucky in the Ukraine).
On Subsidies - Coal has has 250 years to repay any Government Support or cheap loans - Oil 150 Years, Gas 100 Years. Nuclear 70 years and Solar/Wind only 50 years - so as the new technologies mature, subsidies become less relevant.
Battery Technolgy improvements makes Renewable Energy more effecient and reduces the need for surplus capacity from other energy sources.
Ideal system would be Tidal, Solar, Wind and Hydro - and a big enough Battery to help balance it all out - and Gas Power Plants when you do get close to running out? 
If your Norway - your in luck - if your the Netherlands no chance.
What is best? Where do you live!!
In any case the world events post 2022 have made the cost of energy dependency very clear. It will give transition to renewables a boost worldwide.
>> It will give transition to renewables a boost worldwide
Indeed, its the best and most widely implemented carbon tax imaginable! If only renewables actually worked from an overall systems engineering perspective, it would be a slam dunk.
--Mike
An early episode of "Landman" the oil man describes to the lawyer how windmills are built and operate....
Details may not be exact but put a good view of them....
As it happens, Bolo, I've seen that episode, along with enough of the series to know that it's fiction, through and through (and not terribly well written at that). In the scene in question, the lead character starts by overstating the time necessary for commercial wind turbines to turn a profit by a factor of four; it only goes downhill from there.
Solar farms are highly vulnerable. A drone flies over and detonates a fragmentation warhead.
I would suspect that a plane/drone flying over and spraying a dense greasy liquid would to more damage than anything....
Enamel paint wouldn't be kind to them either....
Without an explosion, less likely to be considered a threat, even after the event...
Far as fragmentation, the drone is destroyed anyway, so a Claymore type weapon would achieve that more effectively....
Determine the altitude you need to get the correct pattern you need.....
Following is UK costs -and includes Building, Cost during life and decommisioning - and zero subsidies : -
Onshore Wind: £45 to £65 per MWhLarge-scale Solar
PV: £50 to £70 per MWh
Offshore Wind: £60 to £85 per MWh
Nuclear (e.g., Hinkley Point C): £80 to £100+ per MWh
Gas-fired power (unabated): Highly volatile; historical estimates sit around £60 to £80 per MWh, but equivalent costs, including additional system backup or carbon capture integration, can push prices much higher when global gas prices spike.
So Onshore Wind probably is cheapest... but has the massive downside is that per Windturbine, it produces less Energy then Offshore - and perhaps it is the most limiting in how many can be built.
Nuclear does seem horribly expensive..???
I think I asked this question before - but what would people prefer (taking into chance of Disasters etc).
Within 15 miles of your home, what would you prefer
200 Wind Turbines
40 Solar farms
4 Gas Power Plants
2 Coal Power Plants
1 Nuclear Power
(Nummbers might not be exact - but intention is keep it an easy decision - lots of Safe but horrible looking Wind turbines - or 1 Nuclear Power Plant )
Paul Howard:
You are misinformed.
Back in the day, there was a radiation alert triggered at a nuclear power station where I lived in Illinois.
After days of HAZMAT suited personnel wandering around trying to determine how the radiation was escaping from the containment structure, they finally located the source.
It was the ash of the coal burning power station located across the river, the fact being that the residue still had a detectable radioactive trace amount that triggered the sensors placed around the nuclear power station.
So, your ordering nuclear power last is actually a false ranking.
The nuclear power plants have radiation detection sensors in the outer containment building that are so sensitive, if they were outside, ordinary solar radiation (UV) would set them off all the time.
That they'd be set off by such tiny traces of coal dust blown radium is actually rather reassuring to me; I've long known US Nuclear Power Plants were absolutely FANATICAL about safety (especially after Three Mile Island), and that incident you brought up, JSW, makes me even more comfortable with the thought of a nuclear power plant close to my home.
On the other hand, what is the projected lifespan of its core, what all would be involved in replacing it, and what do they do with the expended material? We can't exactly ship it up to Nuclear Waste Disposal Sites on the Moon...
Jeff
They way I look at is : -
All Non-Nuclear Power Plants - Large chance of a minor or modest issue.
Nuclear Power Plants - Very Very small chance of a very very major diaster.
Which would most people prefer to live next to and/or if you don't work in the Power Planet, whuch is likely to create life threantening issues for you?
Therefore IMHO, Nuclear Power is correctly placed.
Quote:All Non-Nuclear Power Plants - Large chance of a minor or modest issue.
Nuclear Power Plants - Very Very small chance of a very very major disaster.
Paul,
I notice that your list from your 11:17 AM post doesn't include hydroelectric power plants. You might want to check out some of the damage and casualty estimates for what could occur if the Three Gorges Dam (Yangtze River) or any of several dams on the Huang He (Yellow River) were to experience catastrophic failure.
The two deadliest natural disasters in history* were both river floods. No earthquake, no tsunami, no typhoon or hurricane, no volcanic eruption has matched these two catastrophes in total death toll.
One of those floods occurred on the Yellow River, the other was a series of linked floods, but primarily the Yangtze.
*Note that this excludes pandemics such as the Black Death, Spanish Flue, or Third Plague Pandemic.
Alan
I excluded Hydro plants as they are location unique in effect.
You could include it close to Nuclear plants in danger level though - small chance of a major disaster?
Immediate effect might be simlalr to a Nuclear planet disaster - but damage is less long term?
So if you lived in a region where Hydro dams could be made - we can add it to the list - would you be happy to live with one 15 miles down the road?
I would be happy with any of the above, except coal.
Coal has too many bad emissions based on where the coal is sourced, and are generally just filthy to be around, I know this because I lived within 100 yards of one in college. The sky should not be yellow after every rain storm.
If the Three Gorges came fails (or is destroyed by some B2 bombers) one billion Chinese will die and China will be an economic disaster that cannot recover. Bombing it would be the biggest war crime in human history. I'll sign the order.
Oops...
In my post above from 1:46 PM, I referenced "Spanish Flue". That should be FLU. A flue is a duct for venting smoke or exhaust gasses from an enclosed chamber in which combustion occurs. A failure involving a "flue" might cause suffocation, CO poisoning, or some similar tragedy. But it's unlikely to rise to a level "deadliest natural disaster in history".
Would I be happy with a Hydro dam 15 miles down the road? Down the road, yes, up the road, maybe not!
Actually, I'm from flat Ohio (where, incidentally, our petroleum deposits have much too much sulfur; they will remain untapped until we get better technology or more desperate energy needs). Is there a dam failure of not being able to open the gates? I imagine the lake backing up to be a more slow-motion disaster. Is there some geographic consideration that puts most hydroelectric dams upstream of most customers, or am I on the edge of the politics of asymmetric risk/benefit?
The geographic consideration is that most people live close to the ocean, or on a large river with ocean access. Good places to place dams tend to be inland on non-navigable rivers. i.e. large barges can reliably go as far as St Louis on the Mississippi, the Colorado isn't significantly navigable.
Probably worth mentioning there are two (or three in some areas**) 'Hydro' Power methods
1) River Hydro - Hydro Screws (Archimedes Screws in effect!) - which can be built pretty much anyway - - they don;t stop navigation and Marine life is less effected.
Issue is - they are low power, but perhaps it is consistent.
Where I live has a 99 Kw Single Screw Hydro plant.
If these went 'bang' - you wouldn't notice.
2) Dam - Difference sizes - but they require alot of work - and can generate a much higher level of power (some do work on constant water flow to generate a continious flow of power - Three Goroges and Itaipu in Paraguay generate similar level of pwoer over a 12 month period - although Three Gorges is 50% higher in capacity!)).
Main difference is you block the river AND you need big hills (or mountain sides) to form the lake... so David your probably safe from these?
If these go bang - it might effect those downstream a 'tad'.
(or just be plan washed away!)
**And for those who can remember it - whats the third?
If you have watched The Eagle has Landed - you will have seen it - the very old traditonal Water Wheel. (It is mainly used for mechanical Power - but if I remember correctly - Warwick Castles Water Wheel was used for Electricity production for a while).
(Which wierdly, is now the only operating Water Wheel on the Thames now.... which is equally just down the road from me!!).
So you can build 1's and 3's all over the place... but only 2's will make a noticable amount of power (and danger).
There are several dams in SW Missouri. Fortunately this area is seismically stable, unlike St. Louis, even then, my home is on a high spot. The south half of the property drains off to the south east, eventually in to the Mississippi. The north half of my property drains to the north, into the Missouri.
Last I heard, there aren't very many places in the US where you could build a power-producing dam that haven't already been built.
A note about renewables. The batteries depend on huge supplies of Lithium, and that has limited production. The demand exceeds the supply, even with new mines coming on line. Someone calculated that to totally replace gasoline vehicles in Britain, or France, or Germany, would take the entire supply of lithium for several years.