Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

"Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and basel

How to save energy through both societal and individual actions.
Post a reply

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby jbeckton » Fri 09 Nov 2007, 15:50:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Jbeckton', 'M')y point all along is, that is not the case. A massive grid upgrade and extensive Demand Side Management (credit:Skyemoor) program would need to be implemented for alternatives to even stand a chance of producing the energy that nuclear power can provide.


I disagree on what you think nuclear can realistically provide safely Jbeckton.


Please direct me to what I said nuclear power can realistically safely provide. Why do you disagree with this?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', '
')Massive expansion of nuclear will also require substantial grid upgrades in the absence of storage technologies to follow demand.


Please explain what you mean by massive , and what grid upgrades would be necessary? I have stated that local alternatives should be incorporated to take demand off the grid and limit transmission losses from renewable energy.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', '
')I think you underestimate what the broad combination of renewables plus demand side management can cost effectively supply.


Where have I underestimated this? What percentage do you propose it could provide?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', '
')I have shown that simply replacing bulbs with CFLs and (LEDs when they get get more cost effective) can eliminate 5% or more of electricity use overnight at 1/2 or less the cost of new capacity and much faster implementation.


5% will not put a dent in coal consumption, which I think is the goal.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', '
')Remember, nuclear now provides 20%. 1/4 of that is very significant and that is just lighting.


So now your conservation efforts are offsetting 25% of nuclear and 0% of coal? No thanks.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Andy', '
')As Pixie also says, the assumption of constantly increasing electricity use as energy prices skyrocket is fallacious and laughable. Demand will be killed far faster than new capacity can be added. I will bet on that!!!!!!!!!


Demand won't increase as price rises? Why then is the demand for oil rising while the price is rising? Because we need oil, well we need electricity too!

Connect the dots.
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby skyemoor » Fri 09 Nov 2007, 18:39:11

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact is that even though half of the nation’s power comes from coal, most of it is in a few states, and most of those states are not idea locations for solar or wind power. Coal by state:


We'll take these one at a time.

Image

Indiana 98% - There are superb wind resources on Lake Michigan, which Indiana borders.

Kansas 72% - As you can see, Kansas has lots of good wind resources.

Missouri 83% - Good wind resources, and borders 5 states with very good wind.

Minnesota 67% - Excellent wind resources all over its western region.

NC 62% - Superb wind resources in the Appalachian region

Ohio 87% - Superb wind resources on southern Lake Erie

Tennessee 62% - Superb wind resources in the Appalachian region

Wisconsin 72% - There are superb wind resources on Lake Michigan

West Virginia 99% - Superb wind resources n the Appalachian region

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he only possible way to even get wind power from the Mountains to most of those states is to use HVDC, which would have to be factored into the cost, not to mention what it would do to the maintains.


Not sure what you mean by the "Mountains" but it must have been the Rockies, as none the wind resources I've mentioned above require HVDC.

Hence, while perhaps not reducing the number of coal plants significantly, wind power can supplant the amount of coal being burned, as referenced in the IEEE paper above. And DSM can be used to even out the dips and humps when making transitions between power sources.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: Bad news for believers in the nuclear energy fairy

Unread postby skyemoor » Fri 09 Nov 2007, 18:55:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')A massive grid upgrade and extensive Demand Side Management (credit:Skyemoor) program would need to be implemented for alternatives to even stand a chance of producing the energy that nuclear power can provide.

This would be very expensive, even compared with nuclear power construction,


What expenses are you referring to specifically and how did you arrive at those figures? What costs are you assuming with nuclear plant construction


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')and woud require an major lifestyle change.


Those who think PO will likely happen by 2012 (if it already hasn't) understand that such a major lifestyle change is about to happen regardless.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: Bad news for believers in the nuclear energy fairy

Unread postby yesplease » Fri 09 Nov 2007, 23:58:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'i')n order to use solar off peak, you need to store it and then you lose energy in the process. Solar is better used during the afternoon to supplement expensive peaking plants.
While solar is nice since it's output tends to follow the typical demand curves we see, solar thermal allows for relatively inexpensive off peak energy production w/o the need for off-site storage since it's already embedded in the plant.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby jbeckton » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 11:15:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he fact is that even though half of the nation’s power comes from coal, most of it is in a few states, and most of those states are not idea locations for solar or wind power. Coal by state:


We'll take these one at a time.

Indiana 98% - There are superb wind resources on Lake Michigan, which Indiana borders.

Kansas 72% - As you can see, Kansas has lots of good wind resources.

Missouri 83% - Good wind resources, and borders 5 states with very good wind.

Minnesota 67% - Excellent wind resources all over its western region.

NC 62% - Superb wind resources in the Appalachian region

Ohio 87% - Superb wind resources on southern Lake Erie

Tennessee 62% - Superb wind resources in the Appalachian region

Wisconsin 72% - There are superb wind resources on Lake Michigan

West Virginia 99% - Superb wind resources n the Appalachian region


Are you saying that you are going to send power from the great lakes and the Appalachian mountains to cover the entire eastern half of the country on the existing grid?

Now you need to build extra wind power to account for intermittency and transmission losses from sending the power hundreds of miles. You are saying that we can send Lake Michigan wind power 275 miles to southern Indiana effectively without HVDC? Or wind power from the App. Mountains 350 miles to Memphis? Etc….

This is similar to building a huge solar farm in the desert and powering the entire country. It is not possible with an AC grid.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '[')
Hence, while perhaps not reducing the number of coal plants significantly, wind power can supplant the amount of coal being burned, as referenced in the IEEE paper above. And DSM can be used to even out the dips and humps when making transitions between power sources.


Supplant what percentage? 20%?

So are we now in agreement that many states get a significant amount of their power from oil and NG (not just peakers), and that this would be the first to be offset because it is the most expensive?
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: Bad news for believers in the nuclear energy fairy

Unread postby jbeckton » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 11:35:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')What expenses are you referring to specifically and how did you arrive at those figures? What costs are you assuming with nuclear plant construction


Conversion and constrcution to HVDC.

Conversion can cost $40,000 to over $1million per mile, let alone construction of the wind turbines. Where does this money come from?
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/pubs_html/ ... _sale.html
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby skyemoor » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 21:55:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'A')re you saying that you are going to send power from the great lakes and the Appalachian mountains to cover the entire eastern half of the country on the existing grid?


I'm saying the the states you said had no chance for wind power have been shown to have good to excellent wind resources available.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'N')ow you need to build extra wind power to account for intermittency and transmission losses from sending the power hundreds of miles.


Power is sent this far regularly without HVDC. How much extra power do you calculate would be needed? Please provide references.

Note that Ontario Hydro provides power to New York, Michigan, Quebec, Manitoba and Minnesota markets, so moving power from the Great Lakes to their bordering states is easier. http://www.opg.com/faq.asp

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'Y')ou are saying that we can send Lake Michigan wind power 275 miles to southern Indiana effectively without HVDC? Or wind power from the App. Mountains 350 miles to Memphis?


We've gone over this before. Power is sent from SaskPower Grid Control Centre near Saskatoon to Western Area Power Administration in South Dakota over 600 miles without HVDC. Power is sent from Western Area Power Administration in Montana to Western Area Power Administration in New Mexico over 650 miles without HVDC.
Etc….

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'T')his is similar to building a huge solar farm in the desert and powering the entire country. It is not possible with an AC grid.


This is nothing of the sort at all and hopefully you know it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')Hence, while perhaps not reducing the number of coal plants significantly, wind power can supplant the amount of coal being burned, as referenced in the IEEE paper above. And DSM can be used to even out the dips and humps when making transitions between power sources.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '[')/b]Supplant what percentage? 20%?

Denmark gets 20% of its power from wind, so in areas with relatively steady wind resources, access to hydro power backup, and/or natural gas backup, combined with DSM for load shedding, 20% could be clearly achieveable, especially in concert with other forms of renewables, such as wind, tidal, wave, geothermal, etc.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'S')o are we now in agreement that many states get a significant amount of their power from oil and NG (not just peakers), and that this would be the first to be offset because it is the most expensive?

I would say we are in agreement that most of the states that rely on high level of coal power generation also have good to excellent wind resources in-state or nearby, therefore wind power could displace a considerable amount of coal generation there.

Oil would likely be the first to go in the states where it is used, though it represents less than 3% of the US's electrical generation. NG could certainly drop in utilization, though the peaking plants would still be active to even out transitions in levels of renewable energy sources as needed.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: Bad news for believers in the nuclear energy fairy

Unread postby skyemoor » Mon 12 Nov 2007, 22:09:41

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')What expenses are you referring to specifically and how did you arrive at those figures? What costs are you assuming with nuclear plant construction


Conversion and constrcution to HVDC.

Conversion can cost $40,000 to over $1million per mile, let alone construction of the wind turbines.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/pubs_html/ ... _sale.html


In what situations is HVDC required? Be specific: What are your sources for this, given the power lines mentioned in the previous post were over 600 miles and were not HVDC.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby jbeckton » Tue 13 Nov 2007, 16:56:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'A')re you saying that you are going to send power from the great lakes and the Appalachian mountains to cover the entire eastern half of the country on the existing grid?


I'm saying the states you said had no chance for wind power have been shown to have good to excellent wind resources available.


"Good to excellent" resources several hundred miles away equates to "fair" resources.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'N')ow you need to build extra wind power to account for intermittency and transmission losses from sending the power hundreds of miles.


Power is sent this far regularly without HVDC. How much extra power do you calculate would be needed? Please provide references.


You cannot calculate the extra power needed in a general way like 5% per 100 miles, it is heavily dependent on the distance that the power needs to travel and the condition of the existing lines (which we both know are suspect in many parts of the country).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he losses in the HVDC line are equivalent to the loss reduction of the AC grid, ie, the HVDC line is considered to transmit electricity “without” losses. The more efficient operation of a transmission system with HVDC can be attributed to two causes: the average higher voltage level in the AC grid and the reduction of reactive power flows.

For example, on a 350 MW transmission (50 percent utilization) there are no HVDC losses whereas HVAC losses amount to 5 percent. This means the operator has 76,650 MWh more electricity to sell each year with an HVDC connection.

http://www02.abb.com/global/gad/gad0207 ... C00039D677

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Transporting power from the generation source to the load always involves some losses. These losses add to the total electrical load and so require additional generation, hence wasted resources. Overall, the losses in transmission and distribution systems account for 6 to 7.5 percent of the total electric energy produced.http://www02.abb.com/global/gad/gad02077.nsf/lupLongContent/2550B23C8457A3C6C12572FB0028167C

The grid is currently not set up to transmit a significant amount of power the distances that you describe from the mountains. The hydro plants you noted were accounted for during grid construction. This new load on existing lines will result in even heavier losses.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Losses vary greatly in terms of network configuration, generator locations and outputs, and customer locations and demands. In particular, losses during heavy loading periods or on heavily loaded lines are often much higher than under average or light loading conditions. This is because a quadratic relationship between losses and line flows can be assumed for most devices of power delivery systems. The annual monetary impact of T&D losses is estimated at over $21 billion (based on the average national retail price of electricity and the total T&D losses in 2005.

To do as you suggest would involve the construction of new lines which would be very expensive and must be added to the cost.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Constructing new lines
There are two technological options for new lines: high voltage AC (HVAC) and high voltage DC (HVDC). Thermal constraints typically limit transmission capacities of HVAC lines to 400 MW for 230 kV, 1100 MW for 345 kV, 2300 MW for 500 kV and about 7000 MW for 765 kV. However, in addition to these thermal constraints, the capability of AC transmission systems is also limited by voltage constraints, stability constraints and system operating constraints. As such, the power handing capability of long HVAC transmission lines is usually lower than these values.

HVDC
HVDC transmission is more efficient for long distance bulk power transfer (eg over 600–1000 km) when using overhead lines 9 . HVDC systems can carry 2–5 times the capacity of an AC line of similar voltage. The environmental impact of HVDC is more favorable than AC lines because less land is needed for the right-of-way4). HVDC transmission has been widely used to interconnect AC systems in situations where AC ties would not be feasible on account of system stability problems or different nominal frequencies of the two systems.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '[')/b]Supplant what percentage? 20%?

Denmark gets 20% of its power from wind, so in areas with relatively steady wind resources, access to hydro power backup, and/or natural gas backup, combined with DSM for load shedding, 20% could be clearly achieveable, especially in concert with other forms of renewables, such as wind, tidal, wave, geothermal, etc.

I can roll with 20%, but 20% isn't good enough. Only nuclear power could reach and surpass 50% w/o large scale DSM that no one is going to support anytime soon. ( I am not on board with the 2012 collapse so our viewpoints differ)

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'S')o are we now in agreement that many states get a significant amount of their power from oil and NG (not just peakers), and that this would be the first to be offset because it is the most expensive?

I would say we are in agreement that most of the states that rely on high level of coal power generation also have good to excellent wind resources in-state or nearby, therefore wind power could displace a considerable amount of coal generation there.

Oil would likely be the first to go in the states where it is used, though it represents less than 3% of the US's electrical generation. NG could certainly drop in utilization, though the peaking plants would still be active to even out transitions in levels of renewable energy sources as needed.

You kinda dodged that one. Do you still disagree that many states get base load power from NG and oil?
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby skyemoor » Tue 13 Nov 2007, 21:27:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')I'm saying the states you said had no chance for wind power have been shown to have good to excellent wind resources available.


"Good to excellent" resources several hundred miles away equates to "fair" resources.


Not at all. You are implying that the grid in a state is worthless and a new transmission line needs to be built to each and every corner of the state to deliver power. That's not how power is delivered today, hence your conclusion is unfounded.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'T')he grid is currently not set up to transmit a significant amount of power the distances that you describe from the mountains.


Obviously, there are little to no windmill farms in the Appalachian Mountains at this time, hence there are no transmission lines going to future sites of wind turbine farms (though there are control area interconnections that do cut through the mountains and wind farms could be located near these lines).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')The hydro plants you noted were accounted for during grid construction. This new load on existing lines will result in even heavier losses.


What new load are you referring to? I was using these sites as an example of how power is routinely shipped around without having to use HVDC (not that I am opposed to it).

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'T')o do as you suggest would involve the construction of new lines which would be very expensive and must be added to the cost.

"very expensive" is relative; the entire grid was built at some time or other and every mile is 'very expensive'.



$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '[')/b]Supplant what percentage? 20%?

Denmark gets 20% of its power from wind, so in areas with relatively steady wind resources, access to hydro power backup, and/or natural gas backup, combined with DSM for load shedding, 20% could be clearly achieveable, especially in concert with other forms of renewables, such as wind, tidal, wave, geothermal, etc.

I can roll with 20%, but 20% isn't good enough. Only nuclear power could reach and surpass 50% w/o large scale DSM that no one is going to support anytime soon. ( I am not on board with the 2012 collapse so our viewpoints differ)

I didn't say that 20% was a maximum, and you can't support more than 25 years of nuclear fuel given current technology (assuming you've read the latest recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences). Additional geothermal, wave, hydro, tidal, etc could provide much more than 20%, with most of these considered baseload.

I realize you buck the trend here and see oil peaking much further out, so you'll understand if I don't embrace the growth in demand that you foresee.

No one is going to support large scale nuclear plant building, so we can just agree to disagree on this latter point.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'S')o are we now in agreement that many states get a significant amount of their power from oil and NG (not just peakers), and that this would be the first to be offset because it is the most expensive?

I would say we are in agreement that most of the states that rely on high level of coal power generation also have good to excellent wind resources in-state or nearby, therefore wind power could displace a considerable amount of coal generation there.

Oil would likely be the first to go in the states where it is used, though it represents less than 3% of the US's electrical generation. NG could certainly drop in utilization, though the peaking plants would still be active to even out transitions in levels of renewable energy sources as needed.

You kinda dodged that one. Do you still disagree that many states get base load power from NG and oil?

3% of oil electrical generation is not an appreciable factor in baseload calculations, so we can leave this out of the broader discussion. Yes, I understand there is NG baseload, just as there is also NG peakers.

What you continue to dodge is that there are many states with predominant amounts of coal baseload production that have good to excellent wind power available. Attempting to ignore the grid in each state and claim that any wind farms would have to build brand new transmission lines to the farthest reaches shows that you are simply struggling with denial.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby jbeckton » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 14:36:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')I'm saying the states you said had no chance for wind power have been shown to have good to excellent wind resources available.


"Good to excellent" resources several hundred miles away equates to "fair" resources.


Not at all. You are implying that the grid in a state is worthless and a new transmission line needs to be built to each and every corner of the state to deliver power. That's not how power is delivered today, hence your conclusion is unfounded.


The grid was constructed based on the generating station locations (which are usually spread across the grid and not all in one "good spot") and the location of the destination. You seem to be implying that we can just drop the current locations and concentrate the power source in these "good spots" (that happen to be several hundreds of miles away from the power destination), connect it to the grid, and go on with our day. This is far from the truth as indicated by the references you requested and I provided. If you want to dramatically change the generating source locations, you will also need to dramatically change the transmission side as well. Please show me a reference that indicates that the current grid is suitable for transmitting a significant portion of the surrounding states power from the mountains (not existing hydro that was designed into the grid decades ago). Baseload needs to be up an running when peak load is demanded as well, which means when the grid is already stressed, and that is a huge problem. The loss will only be compacted when they the power is needed most.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Losses vary greatly in terms of network configuration, generator locations and outputs, and customer locations and demands. In particular, losses during heavy loading periods or on heavily loaded lines are often much higher than under average or light loading conditions.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')The hydro plants you noted were accounted for during grid construction. This new load on existing lines will result in even heavier losses.

What new load are you referring to? I was using these sites as an example of how power is routinely shipped around without having to use HVDC (not that I am opposed to it).

The new load is the power from these windfarms that needs to be transported hundreds of miles away over a grid that was not designed to do so.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')you can't support more than 25 years of nuclear fuel given current technology (assuming you've read the latest recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences).

Did you just say current technology when referring to fuel shortage 25 yeas away? An MIT study finds that fuel shortage would not be a long term problem assuming that you have read that study.
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby jbeckton » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 14:44:05

I just had lunch with a corporate guy from my company. He said that ERCOT is tossing around the idea of installing live electrical pricing meters on residential homes that show their current consumption rate and the current price. This would allow them to schedule their energy intensive needs during off peak times and pay off peak prices.

Sounds like a great idea to me and might go a long way for DSM. There are still several issues such as who pays for the meters and infrastructure that will be required.

Also, how this will affect their consumption remains a wild card as we still see people roaming around in new SUV's even though the price of gas is very high.
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby jbeckton » Wed 14 Nov 2007, 16:33:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('HydroLuver', '
')There needs to be a method for electric customers to get this real time info from inside their home as opposed to seeing it outside somewhere.


It would be great if they could put that information online so you could see live data.
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby skyemoor » Sat 17 Nov 2007, 08:52:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '
')The grid was constructed based on the generating station locations (which are usually spread across the grid and not all in one "good spot")



Your term, not mine.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')and the location of the destination. You seem to be implying that we can just drop the current locations and concentrate the power source in these "good spots" (that happen to be several hundreds of miles away from the power destination)


Your claim, though in the many examples I provided, you would struggle to find such distances except at the extreme ends in a couple of examples. So unless you can show how this is true in even half the cases I presented, we can't accept such a broad abstract handwave.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ',') connect it to the grid, and go on with our day. This is far from the truth as indicated by the references you requested and I provided.


The reference you presented was from 1996 concerning upgrading interconnections on the national electrical grid for wholesale power transmission. As I mentioned earlier, many wind energy sites are located along these corridors. If the interconnections are being upgraded anyway, then wind farms can take advantage of this upgraded capacity. And there will indeed be areas where new infrastructure will be built, as I've said on a number of occasions.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'P')lease show me a reference that indicates that the current grid is suitable for transmitting a significant portion of the surrounding states power from the mountains.


The mountains are only one of the areas where good to excellent wind sources are located. As you can see on the map that I provided on the previous page, the Plains and the Great Lakes (along with other areas in the Rockies, the Southwest, Northwest, and coastal areas) also have good to superb wind resources. So there are a wide range of places that the aforementioned states can receive wind power from.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')Baseload needs to be up an running when peak load is demanded as well, which means when the grid is already stressed, and that is a huge problem. The loss will only be compacted when they the power is needed most.

That situation is currently already an issue. Localized NG plants
will be one of the ways to manage the peak, DSM another.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Losses vary greatly in terms of network configuration, generator locations and outputs, and customer locations and demands. In particular, losses during heavy loading periods or on heavily loaded lines are often much higher than under average or light loading conditions.

And heavy loading conditions is what DSM is primarily targeted at.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')The hydro plants you noted were accounted for during grid construction. This new load on existing lines will result in even heavier losses.

What new load are you referring to? I was using these sites as an example of how power is routinely shipped around without having to use HVDC (not that I am opposed to it).

The new load is the power from these windfarms that needs to be transported hundreds of miles away over a grid that was not designed to do so.

No, as I said, the hydro grid runs were provided as an example of power delivered over several hundred miles w/o HVDC.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')you can't support more than 25 years of nuclear fuel given current technology (assuming you've read the latest recommendation by the National Academy of Sciences).

Did you just say current technology when referring to fuel shortage 25 yeas away?

Do you have a crystal ball that shows how magic will make new technology suddenly appear. Fusion has been one such technology...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', ' ')An MIT study finds that fuel shortage would not be a long term problem assuming that you have read that study.

Panel urges Bush to drop nuke waste plan - National Academy of Sciences http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071030/ap_ ... D4FnoE1vAI
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
') A panel of the National Academy of Sciences urged President Bush on Monday to abandon an ambitious plan to resume nuclear waste reprocessing that is the heart of the administration's push to expand the civilian use of nuclear power.

A 17-member panel of the Academy's National Research Council said the proposed Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, or GNEP, has not been adequately peer reviewed and is banking on reprocessing technology that hasn't been proven, or isn't expected to be ready in the time the administration envisions.


I have also read the MIT study that says geothermal energy could supply a substantial percentage of the US's electricity supply. http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/geothermal.html

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') comprehensive new MIT-led study of the potential for geothermal energy within the United States has found that mining the huge amounts of heat that reside as stored thermal energy in the Earth's hard rock crust could supply a substantial portion of the electricity the United States will need in the future, probably at competitive prices and with minimal environmental impact.
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby jbeckton » Mon 19 Nov 2007, 15:58:48

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')No, as I said, the hydro grid runs were provided as an example of power delivered over several hundred miles w/o HVDC.


Yes and I pointed out, a cherry picked example.

Please provide evidence that the current grid is capable of doing the same thing everywhere. You didn't find an example because the grid is not designed to do so. The transmission lines that transport the hydro power great distances were designed to do so, the current grid outside of these areas is not designed to do so.

Please provide a reference for a claim that the current grid could accomplish this transmission efficiently without upgrades across the eastern states.

Germany is already experiencing these problems:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ind power needs a corresponding grid infrastructure -- grid expansion necessary

One decisive factor for the further expansion of wind energy use will be the capacities of the electricity grids. Today, the grids in some regions of Germany, for example in Schleswig-Holstein and Lower Saxony, are already approaching their capacity limits. When the wind is strong, they are unable to take any additional wind power.

The reason: Up to now, electricity supplies in Germany have largely been decentralized, with power stations having been built across the country as close to the points of consumption as possible. This has made it possible to avoid transporting electricity across long distances.

The power grids were built to bring the energy from these power stations to the consumers, which has meant that, expressed in simple terms, energy has always flown in one direction and only across relatively short distances. This has changed with the boom in wind energy. An increasing number of wind parks have been and are being built primarily in coastal and relatively sparsely populated areas of low consumption, which in periods of strong wind generate more energy than the area in question consumes at the same time. Consequently, this surplus energy must be transported over long distances. The line grids in the coastal regions can no longer do this in their current state without limits.
http://www.aweo.org/windEon2004.html
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby skyemoor » Tue 20 Nov 2007, 10:33:21

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', '
')No, as I said, the hydro grid runs were provided as an example of power delivered over several hundred miles w/o HVDC.


Yes and I pointed out, a cherry picked example.


No, I provided references to several other (much longer) grid interconnections that did not utilize HVDC.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jbeckton', 'P')lease provide evidence that the current grid is capable of doing the same thing everywhere.


This is really getting quite silly. I've always acknowledged that there would be additions to grid infrastructure when utilizing large percentages of wind power. They may or may not be HVDC in some segments; that is completely dependent on the specifics of economicsre and efficiency on a case-by-case basis.

On the other hand, you seem to imply that the entire grid would have to be replaced. I embrace neither extreme; the current grid infrastructure would simply be modified to incorporate the changes needed for transmitting power from wind farms (and geothermal plants, solar farms, etc). Will this be "expensive"? That's a relative question; will it be more expensive than nuclear plants placed at existing infrastructure locations close to population centers? Or will the population allow this? Certainly not, and the infrastructure required to reach distant nuke plants will add to their already astronomical construction, operation, and decommissioning costs. Note that a number of grid operators are already planning (and installing) extensive HVAC and HVDC lines to connect control areas and Regional Councils. Isn't that 'expensive'?
http://www.carfree.com
http://ecoplan.org/carshare/cs_index.htm
http://www.velomobile.de/GB/Advantages/advantages.html

Chance favors the prepared mind. -- Louis Pasteur

He that lives upon hope will die fasting. --Benjamin Franklin
User avatar
skyemoor
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1512
Joined: Sat 16 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Appalachian Foothills of Virginia
Top

Re: "Smart Grid" reduction potential in peak and b

Unread postby jbeckton » Tue 20 Nov 2007, 11:49:19

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('skyemoor', 'I')'ve always acknowledged that there would be additions to grid infrastructure when utilizing large percentages of wind power. They may or may not be HVDC in some segments; that is completely dependent on the specifics of economics and efficiency on a case-by-case basis.


Great, my point is that this cost needs to be factored into the cost of wind power generation. That coupled with the fact that extensive DSM programs would need to be initiated to utilize as much of the wind power as possible (or more money for pumped storage..etc) would greatly increase the cost of wind power. Even then, there are a great number of areas that rely heavily on NG, so building wind power in those areas will likely replace more NG than coal power.

Nuclear power can be built close to it users, stabilize the grid with minimal grid alteration or upgrades, and run full power 24/7 so DSM could still be utilized.

This all needs to be taken into consideration, along with nuclear waste storage, when having this conversation. I just don't like it when the anit-nuc crowds (not you) champion wind and solar as if they are quick fixes that have no downsides and will immediately have an impact while we go on as usual.

That is why I started this conversation to point out the flaws in this philosophy. It seemed to me that you felt that these extra costs and considerations were invalid. If I misinterpreted your intentions, I apologize.
Those that cannot do..... teach. Those that cannot teach......teach gym.-Jack black
User avatar
jbeckton
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2082
Joined: Fri 05 Jan 2007, 04:00:00
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Conservation & Efficiency

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests



cron