|
Post by trbixler on Dec 16, 2008 6:00:53 GMT
Here is what I have done. I built a radiant heat system using a separate boiler that heats water that is circulated in an aluminum covered sub floor. The system has cut my heating costs dramatically. I have added insulation to my attic that is metalized mylar, closed cell bubble insulation covered by another layer of metalized mylar. That has helped as well. Double paned low E windows. It is a start. I did not ask the government to help me in any way. I have not looked to congress to control my neighbors. I have not proposed new taxes on anyone. 38 years ago I gave up a 120 mile round trip (in a 4 cylinder car) to a distance of under 7 miles round trip. I have not asked the government for tax credits for my actions. I have not shouted peak oil from the roof tops. The question is what are you doing! I further think that AGW is without merit. My only concern is not with science but bad science. I have gone and done a surface station survey. Over 70% are badly sited leading to poor GISS temperature reporting quality. Bad science lazy people. What are you doing? ;D
|
|
|
Post by gettingchilly on Dec 16, 2008 10:12:13 GMT
Small ac inverters do indeed sync to the grid when switching the load through. When operating on batteries they run at a crystal controlled 60hz/50hz. The grid frequency is not as accurate and varies so in order to take the grid supply through the inverter, the inverter frequency is slowly adjusted to match the grid and they are brought into phase whilst doing this. My xantrex works this way and also allows home generated power to be fed back to the grid.
If the grid failed then this would have the same problem as you can't just feed power into the grid without knowledge of the frequency and phase in case it comes back on!. However, it would not be an insurmountable problem to supply this information in an alternative way such as a radio link. Bigger problem would be the unknown size of the remaining load in a fragmented grid. Seems like it would have to be radically restructured in a world with extreme weather knocking out pylons or other infrastructure.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Dec 16, 2008 10:30:34 GMT
Small ac inverters do indeed sync to the grid when switching the load through. When operating on batteries they run at a crystal controlled 60hz/50hz. The grid frequency is not as accurate and varies so in order to take the grid supply through the inverter, the inverter frequency is slowly adjusted to match the grid and they are brought into phase whilst doing this. My xantrex works this way and also allows home generated power to be fed back to the grid. If the grid failed then this would have the same problem as you can't just feed power into the grid without knowledge of the frequency and phase in case it comes back on!. However, it would not be an insurmountable problem to supply this information in an alternative way such as a radio link. Bigger problem would be the unknown size of the remaining load in a fragmented grid. Seems like it would have to be radically restructured in a world with extreme weather knocking out pylons or other infrastructure. First, the electric grid is much more stable than you seem to comprehend -- the frequency rises and falls in response to the supply/demand balance. When the instantaneous supply exceeds the instantaneous demand, the surplus is stored (automatically) in the rotational energy of the turbines. The reverse happens when demand exceeds supply. But on top of all of this, generating capacity is added and removed continually to keep the frequency in a VERY narrow range, with all generators kept phase-locked either by the natural laws of physics, or by adjusting the "throttle" on the generators themselves. Synchronizing grid segments already happens during grid restart -- it's a solved problem. As for your Xantrex, they are kept in sync using a variety of algorithms ("Perturb and Observe" is the most common), then resynchronized back to the grid when grid power is restored. They don't drop the grid because of some kind of infrastructure limitation, they drop the grid so that linemen aren't killed by supposedly dead lines. If the "Anti-Islanding" features were removed, I don't see why "Perturb and Observe" wouldn't work. The microgrid's synchronized frequency would then be the mean of the desired values, weighted by the capacity of each distributed producer. But they would definitely synchronize to each other on their own. The only remaining issue would be reconnecting large islands (rather than incrementally adding distributed generation). That could easily be handled with rotary power converters. The design of them is left as an exercise for the reader.
|
|
|
Post by ron on Dec 16, 2008 10:54:23 GMT
So what you're saying is:
A) The whole induction thing is a red herring and B) I shouldn't connect my generator or my RV inverter directly to the grid for fear of killing lineworkers.
Have I got that about right?
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Dec 16, 2008 13:05:40 GMT
So what you're saying is: A) The whole induction thing is a red herring and B) I shouldn't connect my generator or my RV inverter directly to the grid for fear of killing lineworkers. Have I got that about right? Well, you've kinda' got at least two conversations going simultaneously here. Home-based power units synchronized to the grid are so insignificantly small that they don't affect the grid per se. The other one is the idea that if we were to install enough wind power generation to take a significant portion of the total load (like ~20%) then the possibility of instability becomes somewhat more real. Of course, very expensive control schemes can be installed just like they did in Germany where they haven't realized an actual significant energy addition to their production anywhere near the rated power installed.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Dec 16, 2008 13:29:02 GMT
Well, you've kinda' got at least two conversations going simultaneously here. Home-based power units synchronized to the grid are so insignificantly small that they don't affect the grid per se. That's questionable -- the amount of installed home wind and solar capacity in some parts of the country does exceed the size of small peaker and frequency regulation generators. That, by definition, means they do affect the grid. Frequency and voltage instability are being worked right now and there have been significant innovations over the past few years. Since you mentioned the "20%" figure, what research shows happens at 20% is that frequency and voltage regulator costs exceed base generation costs. Reducing that expense is a major area of work. The two most significant innovations are using demand reduction in lieu of spinning reserves, and the ongoing development of large scale storage, such as compressed air and pumped hydro -- both of which are now in use. There are additional innovations I can't discuss until the patents are filed, and then published by the US PTO, but the barriers are being worked on by myself and others.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Dec 16, 2008 13:44:41 GMT
So what you're saying is: A) The whole induction thing is a red herring and B) I shouldn't connect my generator or my RV inverter directly to the grid for fear of killing lineworkers. Have I got that about right? I'm not sure what you mean by "the whole induction thing is a red herring". As for B), yes, that's absolutely true. The continuous rated output of my inverters is 7.2KW (peak is 12KW) at 240V. That's more than enough for me to power the primary side of the transformer for my part of the street. The primary voltage is 7,200V, as I recall, and I think that would do a pretty good job of killing someone who thought the transformer primary wasn't live. I feed the grid through a 60A 2 pole breaker, so unless the six or so homes on that transformer were drawing more than that, I'd stay connected if the primary of that transformer is all that were disconnected.
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Dec 16, 2008 14:04:23 GMT
And then there is the question that no-one is answering.
What is the effect on the climate of the extraction of megawatts of power from the wind?
If these wind power extractors are put in just the wrong position - they may be the 'butterfly' that causes an unintended effect. I have a concern that this free-lunch may not be free.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Dec 16, 2008 14:47:13 GMT
Well, you've kinda' got at least two conversations going simultaneously here. Home-based power units synchronized to the grid are so insignificantly small that they don't affect the grid per se. That's questionable -- the amount of installed home wind and solar capacity in some parts of the country does exceed the size of small peaker and frequency regulation generators. That, by definition, means they do affect the grid. In context and understood: "...so insignificantly small that they don't affect the grid per se enough to cause failure due to instability." The other one is the idea that if we were to install enough wind power generation to take a significant portion of the total load (like ~20%) then the possibility of instability becomes somewhat more real. Of course, very expensive control schemes can be installed just like they did in Germany where they haven't realized an actual significant energy addition to their production anywhere near the rated power installed. Frequency and voltage instability are being worked right now and there have been significant innovations over the past few years. Since you mentioned the "20%" figure, what research shows happens at 20% is that frequency and voltage regulator costs exceed base generation costs. Reducing that expense is a major area of work. The two most significant innovations are using demand reduction in lieu of spinning reserves, and the ongoing development of large scale storage, such as compressed air and pumped hydro -- both of which are now in use. There are additional innovations I can't discuss until the patents are filed, and then published by the US PTO, but the barriers are being worked on by myself and others. Yes, it's all about the economics, which are currently a very dynamic problem. While I don't think your reference to "demand reduction" quite means the same thing, the greatest "adjustment" that will be made is the "demand reduction" that's going to be the inevitable result of the "demand destruction" currently going on. I'm familiar with inventions and patents because I have one.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Dec 16, 2008 14:55:56 GMT
And then there is the question that no-one is answering. What is the effect on the climate of the extraction of megawatts of power from the wind? If these wind power extractors are put in just the wrong position - they may be the 'butterfly' that causes an unintended effect. I have a concern that this free-lunch may not be free. Since it's an academic consideration with no empirical data yet, I'd imagine that a lot certainly depends upon the quantity of installed wind capacity. If you get too many of them in too little space, the wind would have a greater tendency to go over them instead of through them. A major plus would be the increased incidence of intestinal and organ adhesions that the low-freq noise causes, resulting in a higher mortality. This could lead to extensive population reduction, which would tie in nicely with the "demand reduction" that the furrycatherder's talking about. It's a win-win!
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Dec 16, 2008 15:00:22 GMT
In context and understood: "...so insignificantly small that they don't affect the grid per se enough to cause failure due to instabilityThat's correct for home wind and solar. However, because home wind and solar aren't point sources, they aren't subject to single point of failure or N-1 contingency planning. But the ERCOT tied wind farms have caused problems for the grid, which were more than handily dealt with. If if there is all this "demand destruction", there will still be a need for grid regulation. I'm supposed to do a paper on the impacts of energy conservation on increased regulatory capacity one of these days. But first -- coffee! "Demand Response" and "Demand Reduction" have very specific meanings in the context of grid regulation. If you aren't familiar with the terms, perhaps this isn't a discussion you need to be in? It wasn't an offer to engage in some kind of "Mine's Bigger" contest. I don't share patent or application numbers because I don't share my real name.
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Dec 16, 2008 17:17:47 GMT
Testy. This is a thread that proposes a potentially catastrophic solar minimum affecting the world's climate and a world in severe liquid fuels decline. It was originally created by an AGW-oriented poster in response to a comment that I made about not really needing to worry about CO2-based global warming seeing as how all the data from the oil patch says that we're going down much faster than all those rosy economic outlooks to 2030 (and beyond) would indicate. Steve's original question was: If the oil is going to run out, or drilling/mining of fossil fuel resources is going to become unsustainable, then shouldn't we be trying to conserve resource, heavily develop renewables, and move our economies to a different level where energy supplies are uncertain (weather dependent) and costly. Conceptually, it's unavoidable: find other ways of creating energy or die trying. My own guess as to the actual outcome tends toward the "die trying" scenario. Heavily. For those who'd like to survive, I'd suggest getting the h*ll out of the big cities and learning how to live like Little House on the Prairie. I don't intuitively believe that any of our alternatives can be implemented in time to continue to provide the mobility required by our current economy. Back-of-napkin calcs suggest that we in the US would need to realize the addition of ~4,000 Gigawatt-hours per year of electrical generation, distribution and utilization to maintain what we currently have. The fact that we've been getting poorer for decades now indicates that the cost of said implementation needs to be... let's just say "on the cheap." Bearing that in mind, what are the economics for what you're proposing? You might want to take into consideration that a lot of states' tax revenues are falling so badly right now that they're either going to have to simply cut deficit spending <gasp!> or The Fed is going to have to print more money <double gasp!>. That said, we're in a very nasty situation: can't afford pie-in-the-sky and can't afford not to, either.
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Dec 16, 2008 17:49:30 GMT
I do understand, and I read the thread before jumping in.
I think several of the premises are false. First, even a "catastrophic" solar minimum wouldn't be today what it was in either the Dalton or Maunder minimums. The sun didn't "turn off" -- there was still sun and there was still wind and there was still all sorts of things. it's just ... things were cooler in an era which had no mechanized industry and no central power supply. There was no mass transportation to move drought or cold tolerant seed corns to regions experiencing drought or cold.
I don't think that coal mining would be "unacceptable" in the event we were faced with severe global cooling that was looking to last on a decadonal scale. Right now, coal power is unacceptable because we have the opposite problem. So, a Grand Minimum complete with "Little Ice Age" isn't going to stop coal burning. I don't see how scientists, or politicians, would propose such a thing.
What we are definitely facing is an end to the Oil Era. Not to worry, there are alternatives, and I don't mean corn.
So ... I'm not looking for cold weather and I'm not running off to the hills with my shotgun to defend myself against bands of people who want my electricity ...
|
|
|
Post by pidgey on Dec 16, 2008 18:17:01 GMT
'Tis true: the "cold world" part of the discussion on the thread hasn't really materialized significantly (I might need to reread the thread to be assured of that... ).
But the unthinkable is that the politicians are maneuvering towards limiting CO2 production, which would take the economy with it unless some pie-in-the-sky alternative can ratchet up as fast as "fossil" fuels are taken out of the equation, and at a cost that will pay for itself in relatively short order.
If the problem with thinking the unthinkable is that it's just too damned unthinkable to think, then I think that it becomes a lot more difficult to be realistic with one's calculations regarding the economics of implementation of alternatives.
Rhetorical Question: At what EROEI does an industrialized civilization collapse? And is said EROEI relative to a per capita distribution factor?
|
|
|
Post by FurryCatHerder on Dec 16, 2008 18:42:26 GMT
Well, I have some free information for you --
Many renewable producers are either over-subscribed or frantically building capacity to keep from being over-subscribed. T. Boone Picken's plan to build out more wind in Texas isn't stalled because it's too expensive (wind is the cheaper of the renewable forms of energy), it's stalled because no one has strung the high tension lines needed to get the electricity here. If some new 345KV lines were run from the Panhandle to D/FW, we'd be in much better shape for wind.
Coal is cheaper at the margins. That's all -- at the absolute marginal cost, coal is cheap. Outside the margins, and away from base power, there are much cheaper ways to make electricity than many of the regulatory generators that are run. And some of those forms of power pay well enough to be satisfied with solar, wind or micro-hydro.
So the entire "ZOMG! We'll go broke!" attitude is economically and technically wrong. I'd be more than happy to sell a few MWH a day to the utility, and if the technology that's in the works now can be developed (it can -- the work I've been doing can be deployed almost immediately), it's even a profitable business with no government subsidies required.
|
|