Electric cars - Tesla and global - Page 21
Close
Login to Your Account
Page 21 of 31 FirstFirst ... 111920212223 ... LastLast
Results 401 to 420 of 604
  1. #401
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gbent View Post
    However, the government assistance to buy an electric vehicle does not convey any benefit to anyone other than the direct recipient of the government assistance.
    So you're opposed to the income tax deduction for interest paid on a home mortgage ?

  2. Likes digger doug, Ries liked this post
  3. #402
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Waukesha, WI
    Posts
    1,735
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    409
    Likes (Received)
    553

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tdmidget View Post
    They are not reducing capital cost, they are increasing it.
    If I read Zig’s post correctly then it seems more like increasing demand is driving increased capital cost and renewables are not able to pick any of that up. This is different than suggesting the renewables themselves are somehow driving increased capital expenditures. Seems renewables could still reduce operating costs on windy and sunny days.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  4. #403
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adh2000 View Post
    This is different than suggesting the renewables themselves are somehow driving increased capital expenditures. Seems renewables could still reduce operating costs on windy and sunny days.
    Perhaps they are, tho - per person.

    Was in the Valley a while back, a guy we visited put a biggish solar installation in the back yard. He said his electric bill dropped from $200/month to $19. We said, "whoa !"

    But, since running costs for the utility are going to remain about the same (wire doesn't get cheaper if you use it less), then in this case the cost to the utility will go up, since they are now selling $19 of electricity every month instead of $200.

    Overall it's good for society because we are burning less stuff, but for the utility company it's a bad thing.

  5. #404
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Northern Il
    Posts
    1,327
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    698
    Likes (Received)
    1238

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by adh2000 View Post
    If I read Zig’s post correctly then it seems more like increasing demand is driving increased capital cost and renewables are not able to pick any of that up. This is different than suggesting the renewables themselves are somehow driving increased capital expenditures. Seems renewables could still reduce operating costs on windy and sunny days.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    What I was trying to say is that ,yes, as we are adding renewable energy generating capacity to the grid, there also needs to be a corresponding increase in reserve/backup energy capacity. This is true if there is increased grid capacity requirements or it is in steady state. This a direct one to one function of added renewable energy capacity to needed offset reserve storage capacity. This means that the addition of renewable energy sources also requires the financial resources to increase the required reserve capacity.

    For example if we have a 1kw PV array that we are installing and assuming that the sun shines for 12hr./day and it is dark for 12hr./day, we would generate 12kwhr during the day. To compensate for the lack of the PV array producing power while it is dark we would need a 6kwhr storage capacity plus the extra required inefficiency offsets from the energy storage equipment. The energy inefficiencies of some current reserve storage technologies can be as low as 20% and as high as 40% or more loss. This would allow the PV array to deliver 12kwhr per day minus the losses.

    This would be a balanced method of adding renewable energy capacity to the grid without creating the supply variability problems. This also means that the PV array generating capacity is less than half of what it is actually rated at.

    As Motion Guru pointed out, as we add an increasing proportion of the renewable generating capacity to the grid, a critical point in which the current grid system will become unstable will be reached.

    This will cause an increase in capitol expenditures to pay for the needed reserve capacity to compensate for the added variability of the renewable energy sources. The required funds for the increased reserve capacity is not built into the initial costs of the renewable energy installations.

    We also need to keep in perspective that with our energy conservation efforts, we have basically a steady or slightly decreasing total grid load. This is actually exacerbating the growing renewable energy source variability since we are adding variability on the one side and at the same time retiring old baseline capacity that is no longer cost competitive to maintain on the other side of the equation.

    There is also the issue that as the new renewable energy sources are being added, they are not standalone and require the grid operation to be intact. This means that we are not increasing the grid redundancy and only making it more fragile.

    A lot of home owners in Ca. learned this the hard way when the grid was turned off and they learned that the PV arrays were not functional without the presence of grid power. The majority of PV array installs do not have any reserve storage capacity included with the installs. i.e batteries or other storage methods.

  6. #405
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Australia (Hobart)
    Posts
    3,578
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    568
    Likes (Received)
    2714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    Perhaps they are, tho - per person.

    Was in the Valley a while back, a guy we visited put a biggish solar installation in the back yard. He said his electric bill dropped from $200/month to $19. We said, "whoa !"

    But, since running costs for the utility are going to remain about the same (wire doesn't get cheaper if you use it less), then in this case the cost to the utility will go up, since they are now selling $19 of electricity every month instead of $200.

    Overall it's good for society because we are burning less stuff, but for the utility company it's a bad thing.
    Which is why, out here anyway, the bill is split into 2 components. A standing charge for the grid, and a useage charge for what you consume.

    You don't get out of the grid connection charge no matter how little electricity you use.

    If you disconnect from the grid, you don't pay ATM. But just like water & sewage, I can see the day coming where you will pay the grid fee regardless as it's common infrastructure needed for 21C First World functionality.

    Cue the howling of the Libertarians.......

    PDW

  7. Likes neilho liked this post
  8. #406
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    3,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    275
    Likes (Received)
    2187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy2 View Post

    This means that for every MW of wind turbine or photo cell array installed, we need that much in reserve capacity that can be brought online at the rate the renewable source is decreasing.
    baloney

    I love the continued baseless speculation passed off as fact.

    Just like the complaints about electric cars as if tomorrow they will be 100 percent of vehicles

    Oklahoma 30 percent wind power[2017]

    start from there

    Denmark 41 percent[2018]

    what are the grid issues?
    what are the generation issues?

    I realize it is easier to make things up, but it is not convincing

    Of course if you have no need of being convincing you could keep arguing inside your head, it probably sounds better

  9. #407
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Vershire, Vermont
    Posts
    2,031
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    1300
    Likes (Received)
    629

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motion guru View Post
    This is an ignorant response...
    I think you missed the point of my post. I've been involved in grid tied and remote installations for 40 years this year, some of those at the utility level. I'm not as current (har!) as I once was, but I keep up.

    ....with respect to controlling grid voltage and frequency when non-managed suppliers to the grid become too great a percentage of capacity.
    ...For the complainers to handle, apparently, given their level of knowledge.

    ...There is a tremendous amount of engineering that goes into the grid connected UL1741 compliant devices....
    I agree. The power systems engineering that goes on in the utility industry is nothing short of incredible, IMO.

    ...to ensure they disconnect from the grid when frequency and voltage go out of spec or if the device becomes islanded during a power outage . . . safety precautions so you don't electrocute the lineman who is trying to restore power . . . however, among the many features regulated by UL1741 - remote management of the grid connected devices is not part of the package.

    When the distributed energy capacity that is not managed becomes a significant percentage of capacity - then you lose the ability to control voltage and frequency and when this happens, you get distributed systems going unstable and then parts of the power distribution system disconnecting which then has a cascading effect of black outs.
    Grid management 101. I know all this, too and the utility complaints are more of the same. There are problems, but they're manageable .They're just not doing an adequate job of it now and are attempting to cover by complaining and scapegoating.

    Remember the blackouts in the Midwest a few years back? First response of the utilities with blackouts: The Canadians caused it. No equivocation at the time and no apologies when confronted with their own evidence. Complaining about distributed systems, solar, etc is more of the same. Completely unnecessary and counterproductive.

    Identify the technical problems, attack them and fix them.

    There are utilities in the world with far greater grid penetration by renewables than any in the continental US. Regulatory practices are different there, obviously, but there's something technical to be learned from the people who are managing it better.

    My message to them is: "Stop complaining and get to work."
    Last edited by neilho; 12-08-2019 at 05:36 PM. Reason: 40 is the new 50 :-)

  10. Likes gustafson liked this post
  11. #408
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Country
    DENMARK
    Posts
    3,444
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4032
    Likes (Received)
    12622

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gustafson View Post
    Oklahoma 30 percent wind power[2017]

    start from there

    Denmark 41 percent[2018]
    The biggest problem is that nobody likes them "in their backyard".

    Wind power in Denmark - Wikipedia

  12. #409
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    3,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    275
    Likes (Received)
    2187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gordon B. Clarke View Post
    The biggest problem is that nobody likes them "in their backyard".

    Wind power in Denmark - Wikipedia
    Certainly, but no one wants a coal plant or nuke plant in their back yard either

    isn't a grid issue,its a political issue

  13. #410
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    15,542
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by motion guru View Post
    This is an ignorant response with respect to controlling grid voltage and frequency when non-managed suppliers to the grid become too great a percentage of capacity.

    There is a tremendous amount of engineering that goes into the grid connected UL1741 compliant devices to ensure they disconnect from the grid when frequency and voltage go out of spec or if the device becomes islanded during a power outage . . . safety precautions so you don't electrocute the lineman who is trying to restore power . . . however, among the many features regulated by UL1741 - remote management of the grid connected devices is not part of the package.

    When the distributed energy capacity that is not managed becomes a significant percentage of capacity - then you lose the ability to control voltage and frequency and when this happens, you get distributed systems going unstable and then parts of the power distribution system disconnecting which then has a cascading effect of black outs.

    I wouldn't be surprised if in the future remote management of small private energy producers is required. You connect to the grid and only are allowed to sell energy if the utility can set the voltage and frequency output of your device.
    IE: You the home solar supplier will have to provide on site storage, and provide energy into the system when needed, not any time you have it avail.

    Could be done simply using market forces.

    Price paid to home solar producers changes by the minute, based on demand.

    The higher prices paid at night would fund a home producer's battery set up.

  14. #411
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    15,542
    Post Thanks / Like

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EmanuelGoldstein View Post
    So you're opposed to the income tax deduction for interest paid on a home mortgage ?
    Yes, yes I am.

    Picking winners & losers by the goobermint I doo not approve of.

  15. Likes jancollc liked this post
  16. #412
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    3,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    275
    Likes (Received)
    2187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    Yes, yes I am.

    Picking winners & losers by the goobermint I doo not approve of.


    Absent intervention in 'picking winners and losers' the wealthy previous winners always pick themselves.

    I do not for one second believe that you do not believe in the gov't picking winners and losers, just you want it to pick winners based on your personal biases and not someone else's

    The politics of selfishness, not standing for logical policy because someone, somewhere, who is not you, might get something out of it

  17. #413
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4580
    Likes (Received)
    4573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    IE: You the home solar supplier will have to provide on site storage, and provide energy into the system when needed, not any time you have it avail.

    Could be done simply using market forces.

    Price paid to home solar producers changes by the minute, based on demand.

    The higher prices paid at night would fund a home producer's battery set up.
    Oh you are wicked indeed! I was LMAO as I read that "at night" comment.

  18. #414
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    3,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    275
    Likes (Received)
    2187

    Default

    The real question is, what percentage of a large fairly independent grid can be wind/solar? Part of that answer is storage. Part of is it long distance transmission

    Made up, imagined scenarios of renewable failures are not interesting

  19. #415
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Country
    UNITED KINGDOM
    Posts
    2,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    0
    Likes (Received)
    1186

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by digger doug View Post
    Yes, yes I am.

    Picking winners & losers by the goobermint I doo not approve of.
    You might be sooprised that this commie agrees with you ... I'm not opposed to goobermint policies, without them we'd have chaos - but the weird-ass way the US does it distorts things.

    Just have a policy and implement it fairly, that would be a lot better. The US way, some creep is always getting fat leeching off that "financial incentive" that their trained congressmen legislate.

    Plus the wealthy can then do whatever they damned well please while the middle class gets screwed. That's not conducive to an egalitarian society, either. Not that we care about that anymore, I guess, but it's in the prospectus ...

  20. #416
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4580
    Likes (Received)
    4573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy2 View Post
    What I was trying to say is that ,yes, as we are adding renewable energy generating capacity to the grid, there also needs to be a corresponding increase in reserve/backup energy capacity. This is true if there is increased grid capacity requirements or it is in steady state. This a direct one to one function of added renewable energy capacity to needed offset reserve storage capacity. This means that the addition of renewable energy sources also requires the financial resources to increase the required reserve capacity.

    For example if we have a 1kw PV array that we are installing and assuming that the sun shines for 12hr./day and it is dark for 12hr./day, we would generate 12kwhr during the day. To compensate for the lack of the PV array producing power while it is dark we would need a 6kwhr storage capacity plus the extra required inefficiency offsets from the energy storage equipment. The energy inefficiencies of some current reserve storage technologies can be as low as 20% and as high as 40% or more loss. This would allow the PV array to deliver 12kwhr per day minus the losses.

    This would be a balanced method of adding renewable energy capacity to the grid without creating the supply variability problems. This also means that the PV array generating capacity is less than half of what it is actually rated at.

    As Motion Guru pointed out, as we add an increasing proportion of the renewable generating capacity to the grid, a critical point in which the current grid system will become unstable will be reached.

    This will cause an increase in capitol expenditures to pay for the needed reserve capacity to compensate for the added variability of the renewable energy sources. The required funds for the increased reserve capacity is not built into the initial costs of the renewable energy installations.

    We also need to keep in perspective that with our energy conservation efforts, we have basically a steady or slightly decreasing total grid load. This is actually exacerbating the growing renewable energy source variability since we are adding variability on the one side and at the same time retiring old baseline capacity that is no longer cost competitive to maintain on the other side of the equation.

    There is also the issue that as the new renewable energy sources are being added, they are not standalone and require the grid operation to be intact. This means that we are not increasing the grid redundancy and only making it more fragile.

    A lot of home owners in Ca. learned this the hard way when the grid was turned off and they learned that the PV arrays were not functional without the presence of grid power. The majority of PV array installs do not have any reserve storage capacity included with the installs. i.e batteries or other storage methods.
    Well said! The major problem with "green energy" is the manner in which radical environmentalists have distorted things.

    If you think of energy production as a triangle with the corners consisting of Technology, Economics, and Politics it only works within a limited range. If the triangle is becomes grossly distorted it won't work reliably. Effect on the environment is a serious factor but it belongs in the technical corner, not the political one.

    Where politics has distorted things is trying to place an artificial priority on solar and wind that overrides sensible decision making. This is because "reducing carbon" has been artificially given priority over other equally valid issues. One poster made a big deal over curtailment of wind while ignoring the real issue of PRIORITY of curtailment of different energy sources.

    In a case like Hawaii, where expensive and polluting oil is a major part of the mix, giving priority to wind power by asking the other producer to curtail first makes sense. The same holds true where coal provides the backup power. As long as the backup producer can still make a profit it works well.

    Where it gets trickier is in cases such as where wind is partnered with hydroelectric. Both are zero carbon but each has different consequences of curtailment. In the case of hydro curtailment means letting more water go into the spillways, which can harm fish and the marine environment if too much is released. In that case giving wind priority could actually harm the environment.

    Curtailment is not magic, nor is it instant. If too many intermittent sources are connected to the grid it is indeed possible that occasions can occur where too much power is placed on the grid BEFORE they successfully react. In that case portions of the grid will see damaging overvoltage unless some method is used to absorb the excess. That is where the "internet of things" remote control of appliances to absorb some of the excess comes into play. It IS being considered as part of contingency plans along with shutting appliances off or otherwise reducing their power in times of low output if activists succeed in turning the grid into a supply based system.

    Curtailment affects the profits of producers so naturally they wish to avoid it as much as possible. There is huge incentive to delay curtailment and even a few minutes extra connection time before disconnecting can raise profits while raising the risk of grid instability.

    In closing I wish to state that I am APPALLED to see hordes of "educated" students, backed up by politicians who should know better, demanding an immediate switch to "100% zero carbon" (without nuclear).

    That is a physical impossibility at the current stage of technology and likely will not be achievable within the lifetime of many alive today. Activists keep talking about "storage" that as yet does not exist in a scalable technology that could work at the massive power levels needed.

  21. #417
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    People's Republic
    Posts
    3,334
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    275
    Likes (Received)
    2187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl

    That is a physical impossibility at the current stage of technology and likely will not be achievable within the lifetime of many alive today. Activists keep talking about "storage" that as yet does not exist in a scalable technology that could work at the massive power levels needed.

    baloney

    more made up right wing hysteria

  22. #418
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,660
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    472
    Likes (Received)
    1883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by john.k View Post
    ...grid operators say if rooftop solar input exceeds 30% of demand ,the grid operator loses the ability to regulate voltage in part of the network and shutdowns will be needed.
    I think a 30% solar grid would be highly unstable. The thing about rotating generators is they provide inertia to the grid which stabilizes the frequency. It takes time to wind up and down all those massive rotating armatures, and that inertia is what makes the grid stable.

    Solar and other variable energy sources don't provide that. Australia is actually studying converting old generating plants to act as "flywheels" to absorb the fluctuations and provide operators time to balance the grid.

  23. #419
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Eastern Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    4,385
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    4580
    Likes (Received)
    4573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jancollc View Post
    I think a 30% solar grid would be highly unstable. The thing about rotating generators is they provide inertia to the grid which stabilizes the frequency. It takes time to wind up and down all those massive rotating armatures, and that inertia is what makes the grid stable.

    Solar and other variable energy sources don't provide that. Australia is actually studying converting old generating plants to act as "flywheels" to absorb the fluctuations and provide operators time to balance the grid.
    I would be very interested if you could provide some links that detail some of the technical specifics. All over the world there are decommissioned power plants and ones that are about to be.

  24. #420
    Join Date
    Jan 2017
    Country
    UNITED STATES
    State/Province
    Oregon
    Posts
    2,660
    Post Thanks / Like
    Likes (Given)
    472
    Likes (Received)
    1883

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Scottl View Post
    I would be very interested if you could provide some links that detail some of the technical specifics. All over the world there are decommissioned power plants and ones that are about to be.
    There's tons of information on grid inertia, just google it.

    This describes what they are doing in Oz. Converting decommissioned power plants makes sense because they are already sitting on the grid.

    https://www.aemo.com.au/-/media/File...iew-Oct-19.pdf

    https://www.electranet.com.au/wp-con...port-FINAL.pdf

    https://www.electranet.com.au/wp-con...-Sheet_WEB.pdf

  25. Likes Scottl liked this post

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •