|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > January 2006 > Stop Global Warming Virtual March
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Stop Global Warming Virtual March
|
|
| singularity 2006-01-17, 10:21 pm |
| You can take a small step that will go a long way to stop the biggest
political and environmental threat we face today. You don't have to
spend money. You don't have to volunteer your time.
All you have to do is join with hundreds of thousands of other
concerned global citizens in the Virtual March to Stop Global Warming.
www.stopglobalwarming.org
It's a non-political effort that was launched in April 2005 with
Senator John McCain and Robert F Kennedy Jr. to move across the United
States via the Internet from one town to the next presenting evidence
of the effects of global warming while highlighting people's concerns
and solutions along the way.
Join the Virtual March www.StopGlobalWarming.org. Be with David
Whiteside, Walter Cronkite, former CIA director James Woolsey and the
millions of others who demand action when the Virtual March reaches
Washington, D.C. on Earth Day 2006.
www.stopglobalwarming.org
| |
| Gene S. Berkowitz 2006-01-18, 1:21 am |
| In article <1137548904.938754.278800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
jonah.singularity@gmail.com says...
> You can take a small step that will go a long way to stop the biggest
> political and environmental threat we face today. You don't have to
> spend money. You don't have to volunteer your time.
>
> All you have to do is join with hundreds of thousands of other
> concerned global citizens in the Virtual March to Stop Global Warming.
>
> www.stopglobalwarming.org
>
> It's a non-political effort that was launched in April 2005 with
> Senator John McCain and Robert F Kennedy Jr. to move across the United
> States via the Internet from one town to the next presenting evidence
> of the effects of global warming while highlighting people's concerns
> and solutions along the way.
>
> Join the Virtual March www.StopGlobalWarming.org. Be with David
> Whiteside, Walter Cronkite, former CIA director James Woolsey and the
> millions of others who demand action when the Virtual March reaches
> Washington, D.C. on Earth Day 2006.
>
> www.stopglobalwarming.org
When Walter Cronkite actively supports the Cape Wind Offshore Wind Farm,
he'll be doing a lot more to stop global warming than this utter waste
of bandwidth.
--Gene
| |
| Windsun 2006-01-18, 1:21 am |
| Cronkite is one of the usual "not in MY backyard" greenies. All for green,
but do it someplace else.
No thanks.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Gene S. Berkowitz" <first.last@comcast.net> wrote in message
> When Walter Cronkite actively supports the Cape Wind Offshore Wind Farm,
> he'll be doing a lot more to stop global warming than this utter waste
> of bandwidth.
>
> --Gene
| |
| GeekBoy 2006-01-18, 2:21 am |
| Sorry, you can't stop nature.
"singularity" <jonah.singularity@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137548904.938754.278800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> You can take a small step that will go a long way to stop the biggest
> political and environmental threat we face today. You don't have to
> spend money. You don't have to volunteer your time.
>
> All you have to do is join with hundreds of thousands of other
> concerned global citizens in the Virtual March to Stop Global Warming.
>
> www.stopglobalwarming.org
>
> It's a non-political effort that was launched in April 2005 with
> Senator John McCain and Robert F Kennedy Jr. to move across the United
> States via the Internet from one town to the next presenting evidence
> of the effects of global warming while highlighting people's concerns
> and solutions along the way.
>
> Join the Virtual March www.StopGlobalWarming.org. Be with David
> Whiteside, Walter Cronkite, former CIA director James Woolsey and the
> millions of others who demand action when the Virtual March reaches
> Washington, D.C. on Earth Day 2006.
>
> www.stopglobalwarming.org
>
| |
|
| I'll believe people can stop global warming on earth when people stop
the melting of the polar icecaps on mars.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-18, 10:21 am |
| Jake wrote:
> I'll believe people can stop global warming on earth when people stop
> the melting of the polar icecaps on mars.
This is a hell of an attitude. Never mind what _we_ are doing to the
climate - since it would (probably) be in a warming trend anyway, it's not
our problem. Of course it _is_ our problem. Forget about the real
doomsday cranks with "Day after Tomorrow" scenarios, a completely natural
warming trend could cause immense devastation - doesn't it make sense to do
what we can to limit the additional damage our own efforts are causing?
In any case, it's hardly fair to say we can't stop warming on Earth because
we can't stop it on Mars. There's a small problem of distance...
--
derek
| |
|
| What I'm saying is: The problem isn't fossel fuels BUT our SUN. It
obviously goes through warming and cooling cycles. What can we do
about that? NOTHING!
| |
| JoeSP 2006-01-18, 11:21 am |
|
"singularity" <jonah.singularity@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1137548904.938754.278800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> You can take a small step that will go a long way to stop the biggest
> political and environmental threat we face today. You don't have to
> spend money. You don't have to volunteer your time.
>
> All you have to do is join with hundreds of thousands of other
> concerned global citizens in the Virtual March to Stop Global Warming.
Yep, good idea. It doesn't matter that emissions have gone up 25% since we
signed on. It doesn't matter that it will cost billions better spent
elsewhere. It doesn't matter that the biggest emitters aren't part of the
treaty. It doesn't matter that even if everything in the treaty works
perfectly, it might reduce the rate of global warming by a tiny fraction of
a percent.
The main thing is too feel good by saying "at least it's something."
| |
| JoeSP 2006-01-18, 11:21 am |
|
"Jake" <ggsams@ruraltel.net> wrote in message
news:1137588305.926292.283150@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I'll believe people can stop global warming on earth when people stop
> the melting of the polar icecaps on mars.
>
All the planets in the solar system are warming. Let's march for that too.
| |
|
| I agree! Lets keep banning things like R12 and replacing them with more
toxic items like R123. R123 will kill you if your automobile has a
leak in it's system and the gas gets into your car. That's been proven
by the United States Air Force in their tests. It's called population
reduction. This is insanity!
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-18, 12:21 pm |
| Jake wrote:
> What I'm saying is: The problem isn't fossel fuels BUT our SUN. It
> obviously goes through warming and cooling cycles. What can we do
> about that? NOTHING!
Quote.
The problem clearly _is_ (in at least part) fossil fuels. Blaming the sun
(which isn't supportable, anyway - you'll find plenty of people who claim
the Earth is warming naturally, but not many will say the Sun is the
reason) just lets you get off the hook for the additional damage we're
doing with greenhouse gases.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-18, 12:21 pm |
| JoeSP wrote:
>
> Yep, good idea. It doesn't matter that emissions have gone up 25% since we
> signed on.
Of course it matters. We have to make the people who signed on accountable.
> It doesn't matter that it will cost billions better spent
> elsewhere.
There's no reason it should. Most of the problem is _waste_, not use. If
the users would put more effort into conservation we could meet the Kyoto
targets _and_ save money.
> It doesn't matter that the biggest emitters aren't part of the
> treaty.
Again, of course it does. However, the biggest emitters _are_ part of the
treaty. It's been ratified by enough nations that it has force in
international law. Actually forcing the biggest emitters to live up to it
is, of course, another matter.
> It doesn't matter that even if everything in the treaty works
> perfectly, it might reduce the rate of global warming by a tiny fraction
> of a percent.
Cite? You can't prove that. I can however give you some pretty good graphs
showing a very close match in the curve of increase of average global
temperature over the last 100 years to the curve of the increase of CO2.
It's not proof, but it's closer than anything you can give to demonstrate
your contention.
>
> The main thing is too feel good by saying "at least it's something."
The main thing is to feel good by _doing something_.
--
derek
| |
| barry@sme-online.com 2006-01-18, 3:21 pm |
| Sorry. That's patent BS, simplistic & arrogant. Charitably as it can be
put.
Assuming you expect to be listened to.
J
| |
| Alan Walters 2006-01-18, 3:21 pm |
| " I can however give you some pretty good graphs
showing a very close match in the curve of increase of average global
temperature over the last 100 years to the curve of the increase of CO2."
I have some pretty good graphs showing a very close match in the VARIANCE of
average INSOLATION to the curve of the VARIANCE in temperature.
And unless CO2 affects the sun, something I doubt, in 'might' just be that
CO2 levels are the RESULT of temp changes and not the cause.
Climate Change is happening ( The term Global Warming is falling from favour
in scientific circles) but it is a NATURAL thing.
Last time I checked, Humans, were classed as animals and part of the natural
world. Therefore anything we do is part of nature.
Just like a beaver building a dam and diverting a river, nature is changing
the ( not 'our', we don't own it) environment.
We must learn to adapt to the new environment or move to one we like, or we
can just die. Nature doesn't care which.
So maybe we can leave the pointless arguing and read the news group heading
which is,
alt.energy.homepower
not
eco-warriors sound bites.
But thats just my 2p worth !
By the way, thanks to all those who freely give info here. I enjoy visiting,
at least until this thread.
Alan
| |
|
| In article <6t42a3-gi8.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca>,
Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Jake wrote:
>
>
> Quote.
>
> The problem clearly _is_ (in at least part) fossil fuels. Blaming the sun
> (which isn't supportable, anyway - you'll find plenty of people who claim
> the Earth is warming naturally, but not many will say the Sun is the
> reason) just lets you get off the hook for the additional damage we're
> doing with greenhouse gases.
Derek, you DUFUS, when are you going to get it thru your very thick
head, that not everyone believes your BASIC Premiss, and therefor,
couldn't give a F**k about some smalltime demonstaration put together
by SHEEPLE, who couldn't, or wouldn't, actually do their own research to
debunk this whole Global Warming Issue. Take you political BS, and
"Stick it where the Sun don't shine......"
You
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-18, 4:21 pm |
| Alan Walters wrote:
> " I can however give you some pretty good graphs
> showing a very close match in the curve of increase of average global
> temperature over the last 100 years to the curve of the increase of CO2."
>
> I have some pretty good graphs showing a very close match in the VARIANCE
> of average INSOLATION to the curve of the VARIANCE in temperature.
> And unless CO2 affects the sun, something I doubt, in 'might' just be that
> CO2 levels are the RESULT of temp changes and not the cause.
Granted. As I said - what I can demonstrate isn't proof, but proof in the
opposite direction doesn't exist either.
>
> Climate Change is happening ( The term Global Warming is falling from
> favour in scientific circles) but it is a NATURAL thing.
> Last time I checked, Humans, were classed as animals and part of the
> natural world. Therefore anything we do is part of nature.
Again, you're making excuses for doing nothing. Anything we do is NOT part
of nature.
> Just like a beaver building a dam and diverting a river, nature is
> changing the ( not 'our', we don't own it) environment.
No, the _beaver_ is changing the environment.
> We must learn to adapt to the new environment or move to one we like, or
> we can just die. Nature doesn't care which.
Absolutely true. However, preventing or lessening the problem is _also_ an
option.
>
> So maybe we can leave the pointless arguing and read the news group
> heading which is,
> alt.energy.homepower
> not
> eco-warriors sound bites.
>
> But thats just my 2p worth !
Many of us are here in homepower because we believe in doing something for
the ecology.
--
derek
| |
|
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message news:eb52a3-gi8.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> JoeSP wrote:
>
> Of course it matters. We have to make the people who signed on accountable.
>
>
> There's no reason it should. Most of the problem is _waste_, not use. If
> the users would put more effort into conservation we could meet the Kyoto
> targets _and_ save money.
>
>
> Again, of course it does. However, the biggest emitters _are_ part of the
> treaty. It's been ratified by enough nations that it has force in
> international law. Actually forcing the biggest emitters to live up to it
> is, of course, another matter.
>
>
> Cite? You can't prove that. I can however give you some pretty good graphs
> showing a very close match in the curve of increase of average global
> temperature over the last 100 years to the curve of the increase of CO2.
> It's not proof, but it's closer than anything you can give to demonstrate
> your contention.
>
> The main thing is to feel good by _doing something_.
> --
> derek
I agree with your points. But just a reduction in the use of a finite
resource like fossil fuels, so that we have more for later, on should
be enough to convince even those that do not believe in global warming
nor renewable energy.
| |
|
| I've been using renewable energy for the last 25 years and throughly
enjoy using it. The reason I use it is for my own independence not
because of the environment. I read an article years ago discussing the
amount of energy it takes to manufacture photovoltaic panels, batteries
and the transportation of them to the usage site. The conclusion at
that time was that it takes more energy to produce them than they would
ever produce.
I'll believe that man is causing global warming when Earth is warming
and Mars isn't.
| |
| William P.N. Smith 2006-01-18, 8:21 pm |
| "Alan Walters" <awegroup@ntlworld.com> quoted:
>" I can however give you some pretty good graphs
>showing a very close match in the curve of increase of average global
>temperature over the last 100 years to the curve of the increase of CO2."
So what's your point? I have a button that sez "If you torture the
data enough, it will confess."
Clearly we need more pirates:
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg
| |
|
|
"Jake" <ggsams@ruraltel.net> wrote in message news:1137621674.635856.63790@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> I've been using renewable energy for the last 25 years and throughly
> enjoy using it. The reason I use it is for my own independence not
> because of the environment. I read an article years ago discussing the
> amount of energy it takes to manufacture photovoltaic panels, batteries
> and the transportation of them to the usage site. The conclusion at
> that time was that it takes more energy to produce them than they would
> ever produce.
The last time I looked the energy payback for solar panels was 3-5
years with a life of 20-30 years. It may have been true in the past, but
solar panels have a positive energy payback.
>
> I'll believe that man is causing global warming when Earth is warming
> and Mars isn't.
>
| |
|
| Global warming is biggest politcal hoax ever invented.
Besides, I always wanted lake front property. ;o)
"GeekBoy" <GeekISme@geekier.com> wrote in message
news:Ktkzf.70812$pW2.62532@fe04.news.easynews.com...
> Sorry, you can't stop nature.
>
>
> "singularity" <jonah.singularity@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1137548904.938754.278800@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
| |
|
| Remember, there's more to a system than just the panels. Don't forget
the BATTERIES! I wish they lasted as long as PV's but they don't. In
fact, they're the weak link in all systems.
| |
|
|
"Jake" <ggsams@ruraltel.net> wrote in message news:1137629386.715357.245290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Remember, there's more to a system than just the panels. Don't forget
> the BATTERIES! I wish they lasted as long as PV's but they don't. In
> fact, they're the weak link in all systems.
>
If my system is grid tied, I do not need batteries. I provide
renewable energy to the grid when it is needed the most, in the summer,
when peak demand can hit 3X average and natural gas peaker plants
come online to provide the power. I would rather have a million solar
roofs and wind farms.
| |
| Drums 2006-01-18, 11:21 pm |
|
>
>
> Absolutely true. However, preventing or lessening the problem is _also_
an
> option.
It has been proven that it takes the same amount of energy to Recycle as
well
Build solar panels. The sun is burning out anyway. How we gonna stop that?
Maybe the USS Enterprise can hit it with a couple photon torpedo's and keep
it going for a while?
Beam me up Scotty. There is no intellegent life down here.
Here is the problem with The global warming THEORY.
If the earth has been around billions of years
what the hell is 50 years of data worth?
Answer. It's totally worthless.
| |
| SolarFlaire 2006-01-18, 11:21 pm |
| Yup, the polar ice caps are going to melt and the
volume of the liquid will exceed the volume of the snow
and ice. This is special ice that expands when it melts
and then we all drown.
All contingent on the sun shining on the poles at the
same time.
If the whole world gets flooded will that be called
"incontinents"?
"Drums" <tgiorgi1@REMOVEnycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:9YCzf.91444$XJ5.31789@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> Beam me up Scotty. There is no intellegent life down
here.
>
> Here is the problem with The global warming THEORY.
> If the earth has been around billions of years
> what the hell is 50 years of data worth?
>
> Answer. It's totally worthless.
>
>
| |
| JoeSP 2006-01-18, 11:21 pm |
|
"Jake" <ggsams@ruraltel.net> wrote in message
news:1137599175.274849.313860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I agree! Lets keep banning things like R12 and replacing them with more
> toxic items like R123.
We have to ban gasoline too. It's even more deadly. Better yet, don't drive
at all, lets all live in rubber rooms.
| |
| Drums 2006-01-19, 12:21 am |
| Not entirley true. We won't all drown.
It's not going to flash melt and that means the ground will take in much of
the water.
as for the rest of us ,well, I always wanted lake front property. ;o)
"SolarFlaire" <sf@hot.mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:w4KdneCPoYM6YFPeRVn-vg@golden.net...
> Yup, the polar ice caps are going to melt and the
> volume of the liquid will exceed the volume of the snow
> and ice. This is special ice that expands when it melts
> and then we all drown.
>
> All contingent on the sun shining on the poles at the
> same time.
>
>
> If the whole world gets flooded will that be called
> "incontinents"?
>
> "Drums" <tgiorgi1@REMOVEnycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:9YCzf.91444$XJ5.31789@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
> here.
>
>
| |
| JoeSP 2006-01-19, 10:21 am |
|
"SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ffBzf.16515$Zo.6835@trnddc07...
>
> "Jake" <ggsams@ruraltel.net> wrote in message
> news:1137629386.715357.245290@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> If my system is grid tied, I do not need batteries. I provide
> renewable energy to the grid when it is needed the most, in the summer,
> when peak demand can hit 3X average and natural gas peaker plants
> come online to provide the power. I would rather have a million solar
> roofs and wind farms.
I wonder about the potential problems that would occur with thousands of
small grid-tied producers. The system would have to be redesigned to
regulate load. When the major sources are large power plants, as is typical
today, it's easy to respond to load by increasing power production in
response to voltage drop. Quite another thing with thousands of
co-producers.
With a large number of small producers, there would have to be some sort of
network of substations, with some sort of switching capacity, to switch in
and out the small producers in response to load demand. A big challenge to
this approach would be how to make it fair for everyone. Some sort of
percentage reduction would have to be applied to everyone equally. Difficult
to do without an elaborate computer controlled switching network.
With wind power, load can easily be regulated with variable pitch props.
With solar, excess power output can be controlled by tilting the panels
towards or away from direct sunlight. Another method would be to shunt
excess power to storage batteries, heating or wasted off with a dummy load.
Also the phase synchronization would have to be centrally-controlled. It's
not good enough for every small system to read line frequency and
synchronize to it. Something similar to the precise centralized timing
regime of the GPS system would be necessary.
All these considerations would add considerable expense to the system. Add
to this the higher costs of producing electricity this way. To be
competitive with large power plants, small producers, if they take on the
role of primary production, could not get paid nearly so well for their
power as they are in most cases today.
For these reasons, grid-tie production only seems to make sense on a small
scale. Currently, grid-tie producers are paid fairly well for "helping out."
Primary power production is a different matter. My guess is that most of our
power in the future, if it has to be renewable, will be from massive wind
and solar farms, perhaps augmented by helium fusion plants, not thousands of
small grid-tied producers. In such a scenario, it's doubtful a small
grid-tied co-producer would make economic sense at all.
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-19, 10:21 am |
| Drums wrote:
>
> an
>
> It has been proven that it takes the same amount of energy to Recycle as
> well Build solar panels.
By whom?? It always depends what you recycle. Some things, Aluminum being
probably the best example, take a tiny fraction of the energy to recycle
that they take to manufacture from scratch _even_ if you take the most
pessimistic figures for the cost of collection of the recyclables. I
didn't once mention, recycling, though. The basics of conservation are
"Reduce, Reuse, Recycle" - in that order. Recycling is only a last resort.
We can and should reduce and reuse.
> The sun is burning out anyway. How we gonna stop
> that? Maybe the USS Enterprise can hit it with a couple photon torpedo's
> and keep it going for a while?
By the time _that_ happens, we may have a solution. But if we make life
intolerable on this planet first we won't get to worry about it.
> Here is the problem with The global warming THEORY.
> If the earth has been around billions of years
> what the hell is 50 years of data worth?
>
> Answer. It's totally worthless.
Well, it's quite a lot more than 50 years of data. It's over 100 years of
solid data, with considerable backing evidence for hundreds of thousands of
years. CO2 and other greenhouse gases correlate well with global
temperature.
The whole point is that we _can't_ stop a natural trend - but we don't
_need_ to do anything to make it worse.
--
derek
| |
| T.Keating 2006-01-19, 11:21 am |
| On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 13:33:17 GMT, "JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote:
>
>"SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ffBzf.16515$Zo.6835@trnddc07...
>
>I wonder about the potential problems that would occur with thousands of
>small grid-tied producers. The system would have to be redesigned to
>regulate load. When the major sources are large power plants, as is typical
>today, it's easy to respond to load by increasing power production in
>response to voltage drop. Quite another thing with thousands of
>co-producers.
Nothing.. as the market progresses more advanced controllers will pop
up.. I.E. wireless sync & control.. A similar implementation to
existing load shedding controllers offer by power co's.
>
>With a large number of small producers, there would have to be some sort of
>network of substations, with some sort of switching capacity, to switch in
>and out the small producers in response to load demand. A big challenge to
>this approach would be how to make it fair for everyone. Some sort of
>percentage reduction would have to be applied to everyone equally. Difficult
>to do without an elaborate computer controlled switching network.
Only a fool would throw away that excess production..
The excess power can be put to good use..
For example... Making hydrogen to mix in with NG or using it to
improve eff of biomass reactor. Mixed and/or newly created NG get's
stored in depleted NG wells. Which in turn get's consumed by a by
combined cycle power plant.
Or excess power can be used to displace Hydro generation. Keeping
their reservoirs at a higher levels for night-time use.
>
>With wind power, load can easily be regulated with variable pitch props.
>With solar, excess power output can be controlled by tilting the panels
>towards or away from direct sunlight. Another method would be to shunt
>excess power to storage batteries, heating or wasted off with a dummy load.
No need.. just funnel it to other uses and/or displace output from
existing fossil plants..
>
>Also the phase synchronization would have to be centrally-controlled. It's
>not good enough for every small system to read line frequency and
>synchronize to it. Something similar to the precise centralized timing
>regime of the GPS system would be necessary.
Sync is not is issue.. a minor feature.. easily added as we scale up
PV/wind cap.. It can be a local radio beacon it need be.. (which can
also be used to even out short term output variations.).
>
>All these considerations would add considerable expense to the system. Add
Hah.. Very little cost.. The expensive high power components already
part of any inverter/controller design.
A simple receiver feeding into existing uC of the controller and
some firmware changes is all that's needed.. total cost per unit about
2$.
>to this the higher costs of producing electricity this way. To be
>competitive with large power plants, small producers, if they take on the
>role of primary production, could not get paid nearly so well for their
>power as they are in most cases today.
More nonsense..
Standardization and scale of economy will go a long way towards
reducing PV installation costs.
Likewise local production avoids several cost issues... Like the
need to upgrade local power grid and reduced grid maintenance (I.E.
reduced stress on transformers, etc).
And Local PV reduces interruption issues . I.E. Clouds move in over
central production site. Spreading out PV production averages out
those short term interruptions.
Additionally NOT ALL solar power usage will take the form of PV.
Local Solar Hot water/with Electric backup is highly cost effective..
A 60 gal HW tank is capable of storing 120(F delta) *8.3*60 == 60K BTUs
or the heat equivalent equal to 17.5 kWh of electricity.
>For these reasons, grid-tie production only seems to make sense on a small
>scale. Currently, grid-tie producers are paid fairly well for "helping out."
>Primary power production is a different matter. My guess is that most of our
>power in the future, if it has to be renewable, will be from massive wind
>and solar farms, perhaps augmented by helium fusion plants, not thousands of
>small grid-tied producers. In such a scenario, it's doubtful a small
>grid-tied co-producer would make economic sense at all.
Some will be large scale .. A lot small scale.. Local PV is upwards
of 15% more eff than remote generation , and it's output does a decent
job of tracking peak A/C usage.
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-01-19, 2:21 pm |
|
JoeSP wrote:
>
> I wonder about the potential problems that would occur with thousands of
> small grid-tied producers. The system would have to be redesigned to
> regulate load...
>
> With a large number of small producers, there would have to be some sort of
> network of substations, with some sort of switching capacity, to switch in
> and out the small producers in response to load demand...
>
> With wind power, load can easily be regulated with variable pitch props.
> With solar, excess power output can be controlled by tilting the panels
> towards or away from direct sunlight. Another method would be to shunt
> excess power to storage batteries, heating or wasted off with a dummy load...
>
> Also the phase synchronization would have to be centrally-controlled. It's
> not good enough for every small system to read line frequency and
> synchronize to it. Something similar to the precise centralized timing
> regime of the GPS system would be necessary....
Repeat after me. There is no such thing as excess power on the grid,
there is no such thing as excess power on the grid, there is no such
thing as excess power on the grid...
Why does this misunderstanding persist?
> In such a scenario, it's doubtful a small
> grid-tied co-producer would make economic sense at all.
The only reason it won't make economic sense is because it won't make
economic sense. It has nothing to do with 'excess power' or 'grid
synchronization'.
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-01-19, 2:21 pm |
|
T.Keating wrote:
> Only a fool would throw away that excess production..
>
> The excess power can be put to good use..
>
> For example... Making hydrogen...
Why not just store the energy? Why throw away perfectly good electricity
on hydrogen?
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
| |
|
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:q0g4a3-s0j.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> Drums wrote:
>
>
> The whole point is that we _can't_ stop a natural trend - but we don't
> _need_ to do anything to make it worse.
> --
> derek
I agree with that.
| |
| jtnospam@yahoo.com 2006-01-19, 9:21 pm |
| With wind power, load can easily be regulated with variable pitch
props.
With solar, excess power output can be controlled by tilting the panels
towards or away from direct sunlight. Another method would be to shunt
excess power to storage batteries, heating or wasted off with a dummy
load. (snip)
No need for a dummy load. Use off-peak solar and wind to generate
hydrogen from water, or pump hydroelectric back to the top.-Jitney
| |
| JoeSP 2006-01-19, 10:21 pm |
|
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:QpQzf.97$qg.15@news01.roc.ny...
>
> Repeat after me. There is no such thing as excess power on the grid, there
> is no such thing as excess power on the grid, there is no such thing as
> excess power on the grid...
>
> Why does this misunderstanding persist?
The original post was about a hypothetical future time when "most of the
power is produced by thousands of small producers." Currently, the power
plants regulate output by increasing or decreasing production in response to
voltage levels . How would output be regulated in a system with thousands
of producers?
You seem to be saying everyone could produce all they want, get paid well
for it as today, and there will never be too much power in the grid. The
future scenario isn't likely to be the same as it is today. Get real with
that. Maybe you need to read it again.
| |
| JoeSP 2006-01-19, 10:21 pm |
|
"Drums" <tgiorgi1@REMOVEnycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:%KUzf.97087$XJ5.56371@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:q0g4a3-s0j.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
> I agree with that.
But how much can we afford to spend for "not making it worse?" Nobody seems
to have the budget worked out.
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-01-19, 11:21 pm |
|
jtnospam@yahoo.com wrote:
> With wind power, load can easily be regulated with variable pitch
> props.
> With solar, excess power output can be controlled by tilting the panels
>
> towards or away from direct sunlight. Another method would be to shunt
>
> excess power to storage batteries, heating or wasted off with a dummy
> load. (snip)
>
> No need for a dummy load. Use off-peak solar and wind to generate
> hydrogen from water, or pump hydroelectric back to the top.
Idiot.
-Jitney
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-01-19, 11:21 pm |
|
JoeSP wrote:
> "Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
>
>
> The original post was about a hypothetical future time when "most of the
> power is produced by thousands of small producers."
It will never happen.
? Currently, the power
> plants regulate output by increasing or decreasing production in response to
> voltage levels . How would output be regulated in a system with thousands
> of producers?
You don't, you store it.
> You seem to be saying everyone could produce all they want, get paid well
> for it as today, and there will never be too much power in the grid.
No, I just don't live in la la land.
> The
> future scenario isn't likely to be the same as it is today. Get real with
> that. Maybe you need to read it again.
Maybe you need to get real. If there is a grid in this utopian future,
there won't be any 'excess' capacity. That would be stupid as expensive
as this utopian excess capacity would cost.
Earth to Joe Six Pack...
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-20, 10:21 am |
| JoeSP wrote:
>
> "Drums" <tgiorgi1@REMOVEnycap.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:%KUzf.97087$XJ5.56371@twister.nyroc.rr.com...
>
> But how much can we afford to spend for "not making it worse?" Nobody
> seems to have the budget worked out.
What budget? Some companies routinely invest in energy-saving for long-term
gains. You can find any number of examples, and find other companies with
exactly the same waste patterns who aren't doing a thing - even though
somebody else already took all the risks for them. The problem is that
shareholders don't allow enough companies, these days, to _make_ long-term
gains. They want maximum short-term gain, and to hell with the
consequences.
I could accept your argument if there was _any_ evidence that the average
person & company was making any attempt to make the "free" savings, but the
average homeowner hasn't even switched to CF lighting.
--
derek
| |
| SolarFlare 2006-01-20, 7:21 pm |
| For most consumers in Canada the last time they looked
CF bulbs would NEVER pay off at $15 per bulb for a
green light people hate that flickers for 90 seconds
before allowing you to see.
Things have changed quickly and most have a bad taste
in their mouths yet.
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in
message news:uk47a3-kub.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> JoeSP wrote:
>
message[color=darkred]
message[color=darkred]
environment or move to one we[color=darkred]
which.[color=darkred]
trend - but we don't[color=darkred]
it worse?" Nobody[color=darkred]
>
> What budget? Some companies routinely invest in
energy-saving for long-term
> gains. You can find any number of examples, and find
other companies with
> exactly the same waste patterns who aren't doing a
thing - even though
> somebody else already took all the risks for them.
The problem is that
> shareholders don't allow enough companies, these
days, to _make_ long-term
> gains. They want maximum short-term gain, and to
hell with the
> consequences.
>
> I could accept your argument if there was _any_
evidence that the average
> person & company was making any attempt to make the
"free" savings, but the
> average homeowner hasn't even switched to CF
lighting.
> --
> derek
| |
|
|
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in message
news:M2Yzf.139$qg.4@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
> JoeSP wrote:
>
>
> It will never happen.
>
> ? Currently, the power
>
> You don't, you store it.
>
>
> No, I just don't live in la la land.
>
>
> Maybe you need to get real. If there is a grid in this utopian future,
> there won't be any 'excess' capacity. That would be stupid as expensive as
> this utopian excess capacity would cost.
>
> Earth to Joe Six Pack...
Quite the little display. Do you participate in all your hypothetical
discussions with only, "never happen" or "that's stupid?"
| |
|
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:uk47a3-kub.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> JoeSP wrote:
>
>
> What budget? Some companies routinely invest in energy-saving for
> long-term
> gains. You can find any number of examples, and find other companies with
> exactly the same waste patterns who aren't doing a thing - even though
> somebody else already took all the risks for them. The problem is that
> shareholders don't allow enough companies, these days, to _make_ long-term
> gains. They want maximum short-term gain, and to hell with the
> consequences.
That's why I'm glad the leftwingers aren't running the world. Their answer
to every problem seems to be, "just spend more money, it might help." The
environment has to be balanced sustainably, but "money doesn't"
| |
| JoeSP 2006-01-20, 10:21 pm |
|
"SolarFlare" <sf@hot.mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:tumdnQtgXYpH9UzeRVn-ow@golden.net...
> For most consumers in Canada the last time they looked
> CF bulbs would NEVER pay off at $15 per bulb for a
> green light people hate that flickers for 90 seconds
> before allowing you to see.
>
> Things have changed quickly and most have a bad taste
> in their mouths yet.
In the last few years, CF bulbs have become virtually indentical to
incandescents in performance. In fact I usually can't tell the difference
unless I look at the bulb itself. The green flicker you talk about, doesn't
exist in anything I've seen.
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-01-20, 10:21 pm |
|
JoeSP wrote:
>
> Quite the little display. Do you participate in all your hypothetical
> discussions with only, "never happen" or "that's stupid?"
No, just the stupid ones.
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
| |
| SolarFlare 2006-01-21, 12:21 am |
| I still have three bulbs I bought about a year ago that
flicker for 15 seconds and never get past their green
glow. If all in the room has the same colour lighting
you get used to it quickly as your eyes become
accustomed.
"JoeSP" <olegp@telus.net> wrote in message
news:1%fAf.101792$6K2.47542@edtnps90...
>
> "SolarFlare" <sf@hot.mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:tumdnQtgXYpH9UzeRVn-ow@golden.net...
looked[color=darkred]
seconds[color=darkred]
taste[color=darkred]
>
>
> In the last few years, CF bulbs have become virtually
indentical to
> incandescents in performance. In fact I usually
can't tell the difference
> unless I look at the bulb itself. The green flicker
you talk about, doesn't
> exist in anything I've seen.
>
>
| |
| T.Keating 2006-01-21, 6:21 am |
| On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:59:34 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <public21@lakeweb.com>
wrote:
>
>
>T.Keating wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
>Why not just store the energy? Why throw away perfectly good electricity
>on hydrogen?
In what form??
There aren't too many sites where you can deploy pumped storage..
Even though converting electricity to H2 and then back again will yield
~60% energy return. (That's better than throwing it away).
Electrolyzing H20 and storing H2 component requires minimal capital
investment. (Just pump H2 into depleted NG fields. ) Likewise it's
fairly easy to adapt existing Combined Cycle NG plants to convert H2
back in electricity when needed.
| |
| Eric Gisin 2006-01-21, 12:21 pm |
| "T.Keating" <tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:1137837996.016310.252490@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> In what form??
> There aren't too many sites where you can deploy pumped storage..
>
Thousand of mountain valleys have not been dammed yet.
> Even though converting electricity to H2 and then back again will yield
> ~60% energy return. (That's better than throwing it away).
> Electrolyzing H20 and storing H2 component requires minimal capital
> investment. (Just pump H2 into depleted NG fields. ) Likewise it's
> fairly easy to adapt existing Combined Cycle NG plants to convert H2
> back in electricity when needed.
>
What a clueless fuck. You cannot get even 25% return.
If it were cheap and efficient like the Hydrogen Nazi claims,
hydrogen would have taken off before the $2 billion in eco-welfare.
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-01-21, 12:21 pm |
|
T.Keating wrote:
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:59:34 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <public21@lakeweb.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> In what form??
> There aren't too many sites where you can deploy pumped storage..
I'm not going to do a study to analyze the truth in that claim. There is
also REDOX at something like a buck a watt. (From my head, I haven't
recently checked.)
> Even though converting electricity to H2 and then back again will yield
> ~60% energy return...
How?
> (That's better than throwing it away).
> Electrolyzing H20 and storing H2 component requires minimal capital
> investment.
And get 60%?
> (Just pump H2 into depleted NG fields. ) Likewise it's
> fairly easy to adapt existing Combined Cycle NG plants to convert H2
> back in electricity when needed.
I recall 55% for CH4, and that is half the conversion. Can you get the
same with with hydrogen as with methane?
70-85% at $.70/watt for pumped storage.
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
| |
| T.Keating 2006-01-21, 2:21 pm |
| On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:28:32 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <public21@lakeweb.com>
wrote:
>
>
>T.Keating wrote:
>
>I'm not going to do a study to analyze the truth in that claim. There is
>also REDOX at something like a buck a watt. (From my head, I haven't
>recently checked.)
>
>
>How?
>
Record Electrolyzing eff upwards of ~94%
using high temp KOH process.
http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/hyd...2002/22871.html
Electrolysis of water is a endothermic reaction,
thus a portion of energy input can be in the form of easy to obtain
heat input.
I suspect a derivative of this process will end up as a dedicated
thermo-elec cracking unit. Using both solar heat(50% eff) and
electricity generated by PV(17%) as inputs..
[color=darkred]
>
>And get 60%?
>
>
>I recall 55% for CH4, and that is half the conversion. Can you get the
>same with with hydrogen as with methane?
NG is upwards of 58-59%,,
H2 burns hotter than NG thus final steam phase is even more eff by a
couple of %.
http://www.ocees.com/mainpages/Hydrogen.html
>
>70-85% at $.70/watt for pumped storage.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Expensive to build and difficult to site.
Most of the optimal locations all ready in use.
My proposal takes advantage of existing NG power generation
infrastructure.
| |
| daestrom 2006-01-21, 3:21 pm |
|
"T.Keating" <tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
news:1137863710.813853.297350@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> On Sat, 21 Jan 2006 15:28:32 GMT, Dan Bloomquist <public21@lakeweb.com>
> wrote:
<snip>
>
> Record Electrolyzing eff upwards of ~94%
> using high temp KOH process.
>
> http://www.bellona.no/en/energy/hyd...2002/22871.html
>
> Electrolysis of water is a endothermic reaction,
> thus a portion of energy input can be in the form of easy to obtain
> heat input.
>
> I suspect a derivative of this process will end up as a dedicated
> thermo-elec cracking unit. Using both solar heat(50% eff) and
> electricity generated by PV(17%) as inputs..
>
>
> NG is upwards of 58-59%,,
> H2 burns hotter than NG thus final steam phase is even more eff by a
> couple of %.
>
> http://www.ocees.com/mainpages/Hydrogen.html
>
Nonsense. Flame temperature has very little to do with the plant
efficiency. NG plants are limited in the allowable temperature of the
working fluid as it enters the turbine. The limitation is in the materials
of the turbine blading. The newest NG plants can only tolerate an inlet
temperature in the range of 2200 F (1200C). And this is only achievable
with special air-cooling of the blades. Older NG plants (~50% eff) have to
fire with excess air just to avoid overheating the blading. Burning H2
would require even more excess air. Since the gas temperature entering the
turbine will have to be the same, then after expansion in the turbine
blading (a nearly adiabatic expansion), the temperature of the gas used to
heat the steam generator is still going to be the same.
Higher flame temperatures from burning H2 *would* significantly increase the
production of NOx, a major contributer to air pollution. So an NG plant
burning H2 would actually pollute a lot more NOx, just no CO2. NOx
emissions are usually reduced by controlling the maximum flame temperature
with excess air.
daestrom
| |
| G. R. L. Cowan 2006-01-21, 3:21 pm |
| daestrom wrote:
>
> "T.Keating" <tkgoogle@ktcnslt.com> wrote in message
> news:1137863710.813853.297350@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <snip>
>
> Nonsense. Flame temperature has very little to do with the plant
> efficiency. NG plants are limited in the allowable temperature of the
> working fluid as it enters the turbine. The limitation is in the materials
> of the turbine blading. The newest NG plants can only tolerate an inlet
> temperature in the range of 2200 F (1200C). And this is only achievable
> with special air-cooling of the blades.
Thought it was steam-cooling.
> Older NG plants (~50% eff) have to
> fire with excess air just to avoid overheating the blading. Burning H2
> would require even more excess air. Since the gas temperature entering the
> turbine will have to be the same, then after expansion in the turbine
> blading (a nearly adiabatic expansion), the temperature of the gas used to
> heat the steam generator is still going to be the same.
>
> Higher flame temperatures from burning H2 *would* significantly increase the
> production of NOx, a major contributer to air pollution. So an NG plant
> burning H2 would actually pollute a lot more NOx, just no CO2. NOx
> emissions are usually reduced by controlling the maximum flame temperature
> with excess air.
>
> daestrom
| |
| daestrom 2006-01-22, 11:21 am |
|
"G. R. L. Cowan" <gcowan@eagle.ca> wrote in message
news:43D2813A.C4A1B53A@eagle.ca...
> daestrom wrote:
>
> Thought it was steam-cooling.
>
The newer 'H' series by GE (~60%) use a thin slot on the leading edge of a
hollow blade. Cooler air is forced out the slot, forming a thin laminar
layer over the blade surface. Effectively insulates the blade from the
exhaust gasses while also cooling the interior of the blade.
daestrom
| |
| Alan Petrillo 2006-01-23, 12:21 am |
| Jake wrote:
> Remember, there's more to a system than just the panels. Don't forget
> the BATTERIES! I wish they lasted as long as PV's but they don't. In
> fact, they're the weak link in all systems.
That depends on the batteries.
If you have a look in Hope Power Magazine <http://www.homepower.com/>
you'll find articles on extending battery life. There are articles in
there by people who have gotten 15 years out of industrial lead-acid
batteries, like Trojan T-series batteries.
If you look at other battery chemistries, I remember reading an article
written by the editorial staff of the magazine when they had been
experimenting with industrial nickel-cadmium batteries. They bought all
of their nicads used, and some of them were 50 (fifty!) years old and
still producing their rated capacity.
One guy there had been experimenting with nickel-iron batteries, which
show promise of having a longer life still. The downside of Ni-Fe
batteries is that they have a very low power density, and thus are big
and heavy. And the only source of them is Russia, where they were in
the past used as battery banks in Soviet era submarines.
IMHO, the major problem with battery life is people not putting the
proper maintenance into them, largely because the "use it up and chuck
it" attitude in our society has permeated so deep that even people into
renewable engergy practice it without even knowing they're practicing it.
AP
| |
| Alan Petrillo 2006-01-23, 12:21 am |
| Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
> JoeSP wrote:
>
>
>
> Repeat after me. There is no such thing as excess power on the grid,
> there is no such thing as excess power on the grid, there is no such
> thing as excess power on the grid...
>
> Why does this misunderstanding persist?
I'll second this, for two reasons. Number one, the power on the grid is
a zero sum game. Input = load. Period.
The second reason is that our power consumption has grown to the point
that the grid is overstressed in most areas, and reserve capacity is, in
some cases, dangerously low.
>
>
> The only reason it won't make economic sense is because it won't make
> economic sense. It has nothing to do with 'excess power' or 'grid
> synchronization'.
And, particularly, it won't make economic sense for the major power
conglomerates that control the current power industry.
AP
| |
| Alan Petrillo 2006-01-23, 12:21 am |
| Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
> T.Keating wrote:
>
>
>
> Why not just store the energy? Why throw away perfectly good electricity
> on hydrogen?
Well, if the option is heating up a dummy load, then I'll take the
hydrogen. It's inefficient as hell, but it's better than totally
wasting the energy.
AP
| |
| Alan Petrillo 2006-01-23, 1:21 am |
| Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
> JoeSP wrote:
>
>
>
> It will never happen.
You know, there is an interesting list of things that people said would
never happen.
Electric power.
Alternating current.
Flight.
Heavier than air flight.
Supersonic flight.
Space flight.
Movies.
Television.
Telephones.
Internal combustion engines.
The automobile.
Radio.
Microcomputers.
Robots.
The list goes on. They are endemic to modern day society. They all
have one thing in common: At some point early in their development
somebody who thought he knew what he was talking about said they would
never happen. Saying "It'll never happen" seems to make engineers work
harder to make it happen.
And if you look not simply around the country, but around the world,
you'll find that this kind of distributed power grid is already being
experimented with in some areas of the third world, where they don't
have legacy systems to deal with.
AP
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2006-01-23, 2:21 am |
| Alan Petrillo wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
....
>
> You know, there is an interesting list of things that people said would
> never happen.
There is an even longer list of things people said would never happen
that, oddly enough, still haven't happened. Flying cars in every garage,
hotels in space, moon colonies, peace, $1/watt PV, fusion power...
Anthony
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-23, 10:21 am |
| SolarFlare wrote:
> For most consumers in Canada the last time they looked
> CF bulbs would NEVER pay off at $15 per bulb for a
> green light people hate that flickers for 90 seconds
> before allowing you to see.
I've been buying CF bulbs since they were first released - and I _never_ had
to pay $15 a bulb. In your area (where I was living at the time), Ontario
Hydro was offering $5/bulb rebates, and I could get them for $10 before the
rebate. At $5/bulb, they do pay off, but "most consumers" won't look for
the long term gain, they just refuse to invest to save.
Most of them still need to warm up a bit, which makes them inappropriate in
some locations, but "most consumers" still can't be bothered to put them in
the places where that _isn't_ a problem.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-23, 10:21 am |
| JoeSP wrote:
>
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:uk47a3-kub.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
>
> That's why I'm glad the leftwingers aren't running the world. Their answer
> to every problem seems to be, "just spend more money, it might help." The
> environment has to be balanced sustainably, but "money doesn't"
I knew there was a reason I had you killfiled. That wasn't my answer - my
answer is that companies have _done_ it, so it's a no brainer for companies
that follow them.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-23, 10:21 am |
| Alan Petrillo wrote:
> You know, there is an interesting list of things that people said would
> never happen.
....
> The list goes on. They are endemic to modern day society.
I'd only quibble with "modern". I suspect such things are endemic to
humanity. :-)
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2006-01-23, 10:21 am |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Alan Petrillo wrote:
> ...
>
> There is an even longer list of things people said would never happen
> that, oddly enough, still haven't happened. Flying cars in every garage,
> hotels in space, moon colonies, peace, $1/watt PV, fusion power...
But not one of those is actually inconceivable (except maybe peace). Dan's
argument would seem to be not that it _won't_ happen, but that it can't.
He may be right.
--
derek
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-01-23, 3:21 pm |
|
Alan Petrillo wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
> Well, if the option is heating up a dummy load...
Why would that be an option?
> AP
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-01-23, 3:21 pm |
|
Alan Petrillo wrote:
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
> You know, there is an interesting list of things that people said would
> never happen.
>
> Electric power.
> Alternating current.
> Flight.
> Heavier than air flight.
> Supersonic flight.
> Space flight.
> Movies.
> Television.
> Telephones.
> Internal combustion engines.
> The automobile.
> Radio.
> Microcomputers.
> Robots.
Please re-read. Your arguing point has nothing to do with the subject.
> AP
Best,Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
| |
| Jim Baber 2006-01-23, 8:21 pm |
| Jim Baber adds:
JoeSP wrote:
>"SJC" <sjc_paul_1@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ffBzf.16515$Zo.6835@trnddc07...
>
>
Jim's comment: I do not understand why anyone that reads these comments
still has the incorrect impression that batteries are required for a
grid tied system. They might be useful in a grid tied system that is
designed to use the solar PV output to also maintain a set of batteries
that is used for emergency off grid operation, but, this is very unusual
and way beyond the capability of most users and requires some
specialized equipment not normally used in on grid
[color=darkred]
>
>I wonder about the potential problems that would occur with thousands of
>small grid-tied producers. The system would have to be redesigned to
>regulate load.
>
Jim's comment: It would NOT require redesign. Remember the only way
that any generated power can be added to the grid is for it to be at a
slightly higher voltage than the grid is at that point in time.
All of the grid tied inverters therefore are designed to output their
power at a voltage at a slightly higher voltage than the existing grid
voltage so that any power not used by the local needs can flow into the
grid automatically. Interestingly, this will cause the general voltage
to increase, which in turn will allow the large plants to reduce their
output if the system voltage approaches the peak allowed voltage.
>When the major sources are large power plants, as is typical
>today, it's easy to respond to load by increasing power production in
>response to voltage drop. .....
>
Jim's comment: Not true all those small producers would drive the grid
voltage up.
>Quite another thing with thousands of co-producers.
>
>With a large number of small producers, there would have to be some sort of
>network of substations, ......
>
Jim's comment: The existing substation transformers will work both
directions, acting to raise the voltages in the lower voltage
distribution network to the higher voltage transmission for distribution
back to the generation plant where the grid's reduced load has caused
voltage gains which will use the existing plant controls to lower the
output voltage at the central plant.
>........ with some sort of switching capacity, to switch in
>and out the small producers in response to load demand. A big challenge to
>this approach would be how to make it fair for everyone. Some sort of
>percentage reduction would have to be applied to everyone equally. Difficult
>to do without an elaborate computer controlled switching network.
>
>With wind power, load can easily be regulated with variable pitch props.
>With solar, excess power output can be controlled by tilting the panels
>towards or away from direct sunlight. Another method would be to shunt
>excess power to storage batteries, heating or wasted off with a dummy load.
>
>Also the phase synchronization would have to be centrally-controlled. It's
>not good enough for every small system to read line frequency and
>synchronize to it. Something similar to the precise centralized timing
>regime of the GPS system would be necessary.
>
>
Jim's comment: Not so if the inverters used meet the IEEE standards as
required in most states and by all utilities that I am aware of, they
have to meet the cyclic synchronization or to immediately shut down.
Grid tied inverters are not simple and you must not tie unapproved
inverters to the grid.
>All these considerations would add considerable expense to the system. Add
>to this the higher costs of producing electricity this way. To be
>competitive with large power plants, small producers, if they take on the
>role of primary production, could not get paid nearly so well for their
>power as they are in most cases today.
>
>For these reasons, grid-tie production only seems to make sense on a small
>scale. Currently, grid-tie producers are paid fairly well for "helping out."
>Primary power production is a different matter. My guess is that most of our
>power in the future, if it has to be renewable, will be from massive wind
>and solar farms, perhaps augmented by helium fusion plants, not thousands of
>small grid-tied producers.
>
Jim's comment: I have to say 1 thing here. Consider that between 5%
and 8% of all the utility generated power is lost to transmission losses
(resistive and inductive) thru out the US power grid, yet the power
generated by the small grid tie producer is only going a few hundred
feet not miles before a neighbor absorbs that power with a much smaller
loss in transmission.
>In such a scenario, it's doubtful a small
>grid-tied co-producer would make economic sense at all.
>
>
Jim's comment: Guess who voted for the Bush.
>
>
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-01-23, 9:21 pm |
| We could say that "It will never happen" can never
happen?
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in
message news:603fa3-5ja.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> But not one of those is actually inconceivable
(except maybe peace). Dan's
> argument would seem to be not that it _won't_ happen,
but that it can't.
> He may be right.
> --
> derek
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-01-23, 9:21 pm |
| Some major basic flaws in that argument.
1) The grid-tie and the grid have to be the same
voltage as they are in parallel.
2) I have two batteries in parallel and the load is
shared between them and they are exactly the same
voltage. The voltage only has to be matched and the
impedance of the source low enough to share the current
draw.
"Jim Baber" <jim@baber.org> wrote in message
news:KYWdnS9gkOn38EjeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
> Remember the only way
> that any generated power can be added to the grid is
for it to be at a
> slightly higher voltage than the grid is at that
point in time.
>
> All of the grid tied inverters therefore are designed
to output their
> power at a voltage at a slightly higher voltage than
the existing grid
> voltage so that any power not used by the local needs
can flow into the
> grid automatically. Interestingly, this will cause
the general voltage
> to increase, which in turn will allow the large
plants to reduce their
> output if the system voltage approaches the peak
allowed voltage.
>
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-01-23, 9:21 pm |
| Many of the CF bulbs are still $15 per bulb in my area.
This price only remains for the odd ones yet though
like floods, outdoor lights and dimmable ones.
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in
message news:ic1fa3-5ja.ln1@news.pointerstop.ca...
> SolarFlare wrote:
>
looked[color=darkred]
seconds[color=darkred]
>
> I've been buying CF bulbs since they were first
released - and I _never_ had
> to pay $15 a bulb. In your area (where I was living
at the time), Ontario
> Hydro was offering $5/bulb rebates, and I could get
them for $10 before the
> rebate. At $5/bulb, they do pay off, but "most
consumers" won't look for
> the long term gain, they just refuse to invest to
save.
>
> Most of them still need to warm up a bit, which makes
them inappropriate in
> some locations, but "most consumers" still can't be
bothered to put them in
> the places where that _isn't_ a problem.
> --
> derek
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-01-23, 9:21 pm |
|
Solar Flare wrote:
> Some major basic flaws in that argument.
>
> 1) The grid-tie and the grid have to be the same
> voltage as they are in parallel.
Line
V1 -/\/\/\/\- V2
So if V1 equals V2 there is no current through the line. So there is no
flow of power. So 1) is false if you are going to move power from the
inverter to the grid.
> 2) I have two batteries in parallel and the load is
> shared between them and they are exactly the same
> voltage. The voltage only has to be matched and the
> impedance of the source low enough to share the current
> draw.
Here you have no flow of power from one battery to the other. It is not
the same condition as power flowing from the inverter to the grid.
Best, Dan.
>
>
> "Jim Baber" <jim@baber.org> wrote in message
> news:KYWdnS9gkOn38EjeRVn-qQ@comcast.com...
>
>
> for it to be at a
>
>
> point in time.
>
>
> to output their
>
>
> the existing grid
>
>
> can flow into the
>
>
> the general voltage
>
>
> plants to reduce their
>
>
> allowed voltage.
>
>
>
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-01-23, 10:21 pm |
| Power flowing into the grid is a bit of a misnomer.
The power (energy) really flows into your neighbours
house load. You are in parallel with the "grid" to
supply it. If you raise the voltage at your grid-tie
then the "grid" raises too.
It ***IS*** exactly the same as the battery analogy but
thinkof the two batteries with a load. This is the same
as the grid. You cannot feed your energy into
nothingness.
This also depends on where your "grid" ends....LOL
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in
message news:kVeBf.545$qg.393@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
> Solar Flare wrote:
>
>
> Line
> V1 -/\/\/\/\- V2
>
> So if V1 equals V2 there is no current through the
line. So there is no
> flow of power. So 1) is false if you are going to
move power from the
> inverter to the grid.
>
current[color=darkred]
>
> Here you have no flow of power from one battery to
the other. It is not
> the same condition as power flowing from the inverter
to the grid.
>
> Best, Dan.
>
is[color=darkred]
designed[color=darkred]
than[color=darkred]
needs[color=darkred]
>
> --
> "We need an energy policy that encourages
consumption"
> George W. Bush.
>
> "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but
it is not a
> sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy
policy."
> Vice President Dick Cheney
>
| |
| Dan Bloomquist 2006-01-23, 10:21 pm |
|
Solar Flare wrote:
> Power flowing into the grid is a bit of a misnomer.
Go to meter on the side of your house and tell me what that little wheel
spinning represents then...
> The power (energy) really flows into your neighbours
> house load. You are in parallel with the "grid" to
> supply it. If you raise the voltage at your grid-tie
> then the "grid" raises too.
There is a voltage drop on the line, I=E/R. Your previous claim was that
there was no E hence no I, hence no energy flow. But I can see denial
setting in...
>
> It ***IS*** exactly the same as the battery analogy but
> thinkof the two batteries with a load. This is the same
> as the grid. You cannot feed your energy into
> nothingness.
It is not. There is no voltage drop between the batteries. But I can see
denial setting in...
> This also depends on where your "grid" ends....LOL
LOL? What did you write that was so funny, or even meaningful?
I see you are about to rewrite your origanal post, a squrming if you'd
like. This should be fun...
Best, Dan.
--
"We need an energy policy that encourages consumption"
George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a
sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy."
Vice President Dick Cheney
| |
| Solar Flare 2006-01-23, 11:21 pm |
| I am not going to rewrite anything. I have spent enough
time trying to convince you of basic electrical
physics.
"Dan Bloomquist" <public21@lakeweb.com> wrote in
message news:sRfBf.550$qg.209@news01.roc.ny...
>
>
> Solar Flare wrote:
>
>
> Go to meter on the side of your house and tell me
what that little wheel
> spinning represents then...
>
neighbours[color=darkred]
grid-tie[color=darkred]
>
> There is a voltage drop on the line, I=E/R. Your
previous claim was that
> there was no E hence no I, hence no energy flow. But
I can see denial
> setting in...
>
but[color=darkred]
same[color=darkred]
>
> It is not. There is no voltage drop between the
batteries. But I can see
> denial setting in...
>
>
> LOL? What did you write that was so funny, or even
meaningful?
>
> I see you are about to rewrite your origanal post, a
squrming if you'd
> like. This should be fun...
>
> Best, Dan.
>
> --
> "We need an energy policy that encourages
consumption"
> George W. Bush.
>
> "Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but
it is not a
> sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy
policy."
> Vice President Dick Cheney
>
| |
| Alan Petrillo 2006-01-24, 12:21 am |
| Anthony Matonak wrote:
> Alan Petrillo wrote:
>
>
> ...
>
>
>
> There is an even longer list of things people said would never happen
> that, oddly enough, still haven't happened.
Yet.
> Flying cars in every garage,
> hotels in space, moon colonies, peace, $1/watt PV, fusion power...
All it will take is will, engineering, time, and money. There are
people working on those things as we write this. They have not happened
yet, but they are not impossible, and I am sure they will happen
eventually.
One of the things I do is write Science Fiction, so being a forward
looking optimist is kind of an occupational necessity.
But as to the original post, will a truly distributed power grid happen?
We can only hope. It is not impossible, and it already is happening
in some places.
AP
| |
| Alan Petrillo 2006-01-24, 12:21 am |
| Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
> Alan Petrillo wrote:
>
>
>
> Please re-read. Your arguing point has nothing to do with the subject.
My point has everything to do with the subject.
You said that a truly distributed power grid will never happen. I was
simply pointing out by the use of examples that people have said that
about all sorts of things before, and been wrong.
Making infinite statements like that is dangerous unless you have a
really, _really_ good crystal ball.
Keep in mind also, I'm not saying it absolutely _will_ happen either, at
least not in the Untied States. My crystal ball is a clunker, so I
generally don't make infinite statements. As long as the utility
conglomerates maintain their stranglehold over the legislative process
it is unlikely that a distributed grid will happen, because the utility
conglomerates could not maintain their control over it, and that would
cost them many gigabucks.
AP
| |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu 2006-01-24, 7:21 am |
| Alan Petrillo <asp@baylink.com> wrote:
>it is unlikely that a distributed grid will happen, because the utility
>conglomerates could not maintain their control over it...
Then again, the new UK CHP systems are dispatchable. Negawatts are too.
The cabal can send signals to turn on sources or turn off loads (1 kW
and up) to meet grid capacity needs.
Nick
| |
| Alan Petrillo 2006-01-24, 2:21 pm |
| nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> Alan Petrillo <asp@baylink.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Then again, the new UK CHP systems are dispatchable. Negawatts are too.
> The cabal can send signals to turn on sources or turn off loads (1 kW
> and up) to meet grid capacity needs.
Excellent. If it can be done there then it can be done anywhere.
AP
| |
|
|
"Alan Petrillo" <asp@baylink.com> wrote in message
news:43D45708.3000300@baylink.com...
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
> You know, there is an interesting list of things that people said would
> never happen.
>
> Electric power.
> Alternating current.
> Flight.
> Heavier than air flight.
> Supersonic flight.
> Space flight.
> Movies.
> Television.
> Telephones.
> Internal combustion engines.
> The automobile.
> Radio.
> Microcomputers.
> Robots.
>
> The list goes on. They are endemic to modern day society. They all have
> one thing in common: At some point early in their development somebody
> who thought he knew what he was talking about said they would never
> happen. Saying "It'll never happen" seems to make engineers work harder
> to make it happen.
Certitude is the prime component of stupidity.
| |
|
|
"Alan Petrillo" <asp@baylink.com> wrote in message
news:i6YAf.16914$_c.15013@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Dan Bloomquist wrote:
>
>
> Well, if the option is heating up a dummy load, then I'll take the
> hydrogen. It's inefficient as hell, but it's better than totally wasting
> the energy.
That sounds like someone who gets paid for a grid-tie, and thinks it will
succeed on a large scale in the future. "Sure, produce all you can, and
don't worry about the excess, we'll still get paid for it."
It won't work that way. Right now it's cheaper to pay a high price from
small producers than to build a new plant, but that's not a sustainable
solution for everyone in the future. Nothing beats the economics of scale
from a large plant. Eventually the demand will justify a big new plant, and
the little guys won't be needed.
|
|
|
|
|