Energy distribution (and electricity generation)

[Richard]

I would suggest that the Americans update and improve their grid.

Actually the US grid has some advantages over the EU grids. The US grid is vertically integrated, the generating companies own the distribution. This means the entire supply chain can be managed for the greater good (who'd have thought a socialist idea like that would be found in the USA?). So when the grid is creaking at the seams and the power stations are showing their age it is in the economic interest of the power company to reduce peak consumption because that's cheaper than building a bigger grid or more power stations.

That's why its possible in some states to buy fridges and air-con units that turn off at times of high demand by detecting the dip in AC frequency.

Also, large building projects in the Middle East have demand management imposed by the planning rules. They have to meet a limit on the peak electricity demand per occupant or m2. So large buildings use ice storage to build up cooling capacity at night that is then released during the day. That's because the state can dictate what happens in the supply chain from generation to consumption.

Meanwhile in the UK we have generators wanting to build power stations to earn money, a grid company that wants to build a bigger grid to earn money, and an antediluvian government abolishing planning rules to allow more power stations to be built while also promising to waive energy rules on new housing so they can promise cheap housing for the proletariat.

[autogyro]

I would suggest that the Americans update and improve their grid.

Actually the US grid has some advantages over the EU grids. The US grid is vertically integrated, the generating companies own the distribution. This means the entire supply chain can be managed for the greater good (who'd have thought a socialist idea like that would be found in the USA?). So when the grid is creaking at the seams and the power stations are showing their age it is in the economic interest of the power company to reduce peak consumption because that's cheaper than building a bigger grid or more power stations.

That's why its possible in some states to buy fridges and air-con units that turn off at times of high demand by detecting the dip in AC frequency.

Also, large building projects in the Middle East have demand management imposed by the planning rules. They have to meet a limit on the peak electricity demand per occupant or m2. So large buildings use ice storage to build up cooling capacity at night that is then released during the day. That's because the state can dictate what happens in the supply chain from generation to consumption.

Meanwhile in the UK we have generators wanting to build power stations to earn money, a grid company that wants to build a bigger grid to earn money, and an antediluvian government abolishing planning rules to allow more power stations to be built while also promising to waive energy rules on new housing so they can promise cheap housing for the proletariat.

It also makes it much easier to maintain a national fossil fueled vehicular transport system by not investing in the increases, developments and changes to the grid needed to make it suitable for electric vehicles and the development of electric road transport.
The government keeps this as yet another excuse to use when it is lobbied for alternative investment and development when the business owners still wish to continue to primarily support the fossil fuel industries and the banks that feed them.

[tuj]

Yes infinite transmission capacity would be the ideal world, but do you guys have any idea what a 765kv line costs? A small one is on the order of $200M.

[Andres125sx]

Not an expert here, but I think wind and solar energy is constantly generating its 100%, and it´s the coal plants (don´t know if nuclear too) what regulates its power according to the demand.

That´s the reason here in Spain there have been some months like april, when demand is lowest posible (no heating and no air conditioners needed), that more than 50% of energy consumed was renewable energy, they´re always at full capacity, and if demand is low, it´s the coal plants what reduce it´s generation

You have recognized the problem: "its 100%" can be 100% of the necessary energy, or 0%, depending on conditions. Therefore you need a back-up which can cover the rest, up to 100%, so why use it at all?

Cause we´re killing the planet maybe?

That shows renewable energies must be developed further, ok, but you can´t seriously say what´s the point of using renewables


For example, in Hierro Island (Canary islands) they´re becoming self-suficient just with wind turbines. They´ve built dams high on the mountains so they can pump up water when the generation is higher than the demand, and release it to generate electricity with turbines as any other hydro plant when generation is not enough

Electricity can´t be stored, but energy can, as potential energy in this case. We just need more smart ideas

[tuj]

pumped storage is great, off-peak to on-peak arbitrage, but it is hard to site. You need a fairly big head to generate good power.

[autogyro]

pumped storage is great, off-peak to on-peak arbitrage, but it is hard to site. You need a fairly big head to generate good power.

That is the point. A 'big head' requires a lot of pumping and the energy is converted to gravity on the way down.
Its tough for your business friend though they have to invest lots of money for a 'proper' return over time in balance with the environment and not instantly into the criminal banks.

[Andres125sx]

Interesting project, a 3D printed, opensource, mobile wind turbine

[Andres125sx]

New affordable and efficient solar cells, printed in industrial printers

http://www.ecology.com/2015/06/17/print ... ral-areas/

[Tommy Cookers]

yesterday, apparently to us in the UK, that nice Mr Obama declared war on Carbon

it seems that .....
one third of USA carbon (or rather, 'greenhouse gas') emissions is down to the generation of (electrical) power
and Mr O will reduce these emissions within 15 years by 32%
Mr O at least calls carbon by its name, not conflating (EU style) by falsely equating 'renewable' with 'carbon reduction' ?
(the EU defines climate action as renewables action, taxpayers spend trillions on high carbon renewables ethanol and woodfuel import)
though, like the EU, he conveniently does not mention what people use to heat their houses and workplaces etc

His numbers imply full decarbonisation of power generation or full decarb of terrestrial transport and a large decarb of power ??
full decarb of terrestrial transport means ever more decarbed electricity or low-carbon indigenous biofuels that don't exist ??

btw -
he seems unaware that 95% or more of greenhousing is done naturally by water vapour and 3.5% by natural 'ggs'
(maybe the reason why actual temperatures have not increased in the last 18 years)
and his lie in saying that asthma is caused by existing power generation emissions is truly bizarre (even by our EU standards)

[CBeck113]

I think the problem with his statement was simple, and for non-Americans not instantly obvious: it was written against the Teabaggers, making the actual statement diluted. They did respond as predicted - "It hasn't been proven" - so their reasoning was good for the tone.

My personal stand is to try to leave as little impact as possible, so the idea to get started is great. But I do not believe that he will pull through with it, unless he declares a national emergency, which would give him the power to implement his plan without any chance to block it.

[Andres125sx]

he or his scriptwriters seem unaware that 95% of greenhousing is done naturally by water vapour and 3.5% by natural 'ggs'
(maybe the reason why actual temperatures have not increased in the last 18 years)
and his lie in saying that asthma is caused by existing power generation emissions is truly bizarre (even by our EU standards)

Do you have a source for those data?

Specially about the temperature increase... or not

[Tommy Cookers]

the natural CO2 level is about 300 parts per million, the total including the man-made is about 400 parts per million
the natural water vapour level is about 40000 parts per million (that's how 95% of greenhousing is done by water vapour)
this level increases greatly with temperature, so cloud cover increases with temperature, tending to cause compensatory cooling

btw the record shows that CO2 was once 1200 million ppm without abnormal temperatures
btw there is an inherent maximum to greenhousing, so above eg 500 ppm CO2 there can be no further effect
(maybe water vapour has tried to hold this max for a billion years, though the last 300 million years has been global icing)
btw the so-called greenhouse gases were only so named by chance, water vapour being most conspicuous by its other activities

everyone knows that the mean global temp maxed in 1998 - helping some to say (man-made) global warming is insignificant
so the warmists have now started 'double-counting' polar temperatures, biasing their measurement to maintain apparent warming
officially (they say only now) there has been natural warming with the man-made warming


anyway, are we saying that there's no real technically-reasoned plan from Mr O's boys and girls ??

[Andres125sx]

the natural CO2 level is about 300 parts per million, the total including the man-made is about 400 parts per million
the natural water vapour level is about 40000 parts per million (that's how 95% of greenhousing is done by water vapour)
this level increases greatly with temperature, so cloud cover increases with temperature, tending to cause compensatory cooling

That´s not what I´ve read

https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keeli ... f-400-ppm/

Ralph Keeling, director of the CO2 and O2 measurement programs at Scripps, said that the next significant milestone to be passed will be monthly averages in excess of 400 ppm. Fossil fuel burning continues to increase concentrations of the greenhouse gas to levels not seen in human history and not in perhaps as many as 3 to 5 million years.

“We’re already seeing values over 400,” said Keeling. “Probably we’ll see values dwelling over 400 in April and May. It’s just a matter of time before it stays over 400 forever.”

What becomes very obvious when you watch graphs like this



We´re changing the atmosphere, and I don´t see any compensatory cooling effect, just an increasing CO2 concentration. The fact we´ve increased CO2 concentration by a 35% in the whole atmosphere only since industrial revolution (a blinking for the planet), should be more than enough to be, at least, worried

everyone knows that the mean global temp maxed in 1998 - helping some to say (man-made) global warming is insignificant
so the warmists have now started 'double-counting' polar temperatures, biasing their measurement to maintain apparent warming
officially (they say only now) there has been natural warming with the man-made warming

IMHO it´s a bit bold to say man made global warming is insignificant because it maxed in 1998. Even if that´s true, just a small difference with natural temps may change the whole planet in a way nobody really understand, from poles to oceans any small change causes dramatic consequences. Nobody can say how this will affect the planet in some decades or centuries, so saying the temperature increase is insignificant to me looks very arrogant and make me wonder who really is behind that study/report. That´s the reason I asked for a source.

We´ve unbalanced CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, that should be enough to be worried. Humans are always ready to despise things we don´t completely understand, doing so with an atmosphere unbalance we´ve caused IMHO is too irresponsible

[Tommy Cookers]

on the day the VW diesel news was broken by the EPA .....
in UK - Drax withdrew backing of 450 MW oxyfuel (Carbon capture) power plant as tax breaks for Drax's biomass power were scrapped

the UK power consumer is heavily subsidising biomass power uptake on a huge scale
it helps us meet bizarre obligations resulting from 'WMD' Blair's 'rabbit in the headlghts' incompetence in policy negotiation
officially-accepted calculations of biomass carbon footprint caused total UK carbon emissions to fall last year by 9.7%

these calculations assume imported wood pellet biomass gives just 10% of coal's carbon footprint - are they fraud or just flawed ??
try this link http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/05 ... te-change/

btw
the Siemens wind turbine (blade) factory in Hull has started recruiting 1000 staff, production will start in about 15 months
the move to Hull gave the possibility of making turbines bigger than ever before

[Andres125sx]

it helps us meet bizarre obligations resulting from 'WMD' Blair's 'rabbit in the headlghts' incompetence in policy negotiation

Bizarre?

Only from an economical pov, but politicians should take into account a lot more things than just economics. Thanks god they do it from time to time




Anycase I´ve never liked pellets, apart from it´s posible (as the article explains) than some manufacturers use whole trees for that, what would be terrible considering they´re intended to be environment friendly, even if they only use thinnings and wood residues I´m sure those could have better use than burning it, like MDF.