• 125 Posts
  • 2.07K Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: June 29th, 2023

help-circle















  • Whilst this is true; your body does have some pretty neat tricks to maintain homeostasis; it can shift the energy budget around quite a bit to where it is needed.

    Your body will down regulate some systems to try to keep your total energy balance within what is “normal” for each person.

    Digestion uses quite a bit of energy; this is why sometimes you feel sleepy after eating; your brain has been down regulated to enable digestion.

    Another common example is when runners get into “the zone”; this is your brain prioritising the required processes and reducing the energy of other parts, putting you into a semi trance…this is so your body can maintain an energy balance.

    It is also why we sometimes feel sick if exercising hard and then eat quickly afterward; your gut is not ready for that job.

    High energy process that can be “switched off” or at least significantly reduced:

    • Brain processes (up to 25% of your energy budget)
    • Immune system (~20% when fighting infection)
    • Digestion (dependent on food 3[sugar] - 30[protein]% of food energy)

    Just because you have done some exercise; doesn’t mean you have used more total energy that day…it seems counter intuitive; but your body likely shifted energy from one thing (immune system, brain) to muscles, for the time your were exercising.

    In saying that exercising is so good for other things; physical and mental health are enhanced by exercise, there are so many good things about exercise, just don’t rely on it for weight loss.

    As the old saying goes “you can’t out run a bad diet”; you are correct, if over the long term you eat fewer calories than your body requires, you will see an effect. But your body is a tricksy beast, it will do all it can to prevent this; it is why dieting is so hard in an age of abundant food.


  • Yes…

    The idea of the ‘infinite’ grid; is that all points are ‘equivalent’ in the system. Local generation is no more advantageous than remote generation.

    This is of course not how reality works. But it isn’t too far off, when you consider how efficient the HT system is at transferring energy.

    Local generation mainly provides resilience for when there is a natural disaster. This is obviously extremely important; but it is not a justification in and of itself. Also what does ‘provide firming’ actually mean when we consider the context.

    If there is several thousand megawatts of wind planned and economically viable; local storage shouldn’t effect that. A MW of power produced in Southland may be consumed locally; or it may be consumed in Auckland; electrically from the point of view of the grid; these are the same place. Power will flow to where it is easiest; we direct the flow using various methods, but it is physical laws that drive the flow.

    If we add 1GW of solar in Northland; it will be better than 1GW in Southland, simply because the Northland system will be smaller to get the same output.

    If Southland has great wind resource; that is great and it should be developed; the whole country will benefit.


  • absGeekNZ@lemmy.nztoAotearoa / New Zealand@lemmy.nzLake Onslow
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    17 days ago

    Generation would occur through underground turbines then, at off-peak times, water would be pumped from Te Mata-Au/Clutha River, via a lower reservoir, back up to refill the depleted lake.

    The project would generate up to 1000 megawatts of electricity. If run for approximately six months, the huge project would produce around 4 terawatt hours of power – more than all of the country’s current hydro schemes put together.

    The way I read this is that the bulk of the power will be from the pumped part of the scheme; not new generation. Some will come from the ‘natural’ filling of the lake. But the story doesn’t say what % that would be; I have to assume that it is minor, otherwise it would have been highlighted as a major part of the justification for the project.

    Also their math is shit; 4TWh = 1000MW running for 4000 hrs; which is just under 6 months (4320hrs); so how much time are they pumping for…only 320hrs out of 6 months…or ~8% of the time.

    This whole project is based on unicorn fart justifications. This project will not run continuously; it will be used to buy power low and sell high. At best it will stabilise the pricing to reduce the big swings.

    You know what works well in a dry year…solar.


  • Yea, to me it is an efficiency problem.

    There was an analysis done for the LPG terminal @ $2.7B over 15years. With the LPG we would get just over 1TWh of energy; but the same money, spent on solar would get 1TWh every year.

    Extrapolate that out and you would be hitting 5TWh every year with solar. NZ uses around 120GWh/day. Adding 5TWh/yr (would add 13.7GWh/day) or more than 10% of our total generating capacity.

    The other thing to remember; is that this is not a generation asset; it a demand shifting system. Very useful, but it doesn’t bring new capacity online, where as the same money spent on solar would bring significant new capacity online.