I don't have a problem with the concept, as it could provide a way to get an officer help when he might not be able to call in. With that said, I also see lawyers licking their chops as another set of data to manipulate every time there is a case.
Attacking others whom you don't agree with.
Isolating terms with an obsessive focus on disproving in any way possible.
Ignoring the context of discussion.
Does it really matter what I say? I predict your behavior will not change. ..........
In that context, I will leave you with this parting note; The fart goblin is coming!
Large spinning generators can help smooth transients because of their inductive nature. VAR flow is where this is seen. Regardless, solar cannot respond to a peak and therefore cannot smooth it. Solar can supply some of the demand that makes up that peak, if the sun is shining at that particular time.
Grid stability requires generation to match demand within tolerances. Power electronics, transistors,or even SCR devices are only for switching to manage power flow, they can't create power. What you seem to think you know makes no sense in the context of this discussion, which is keeping generation in line with the demand profile and the impacts of solar generation ramping up and down on the system.
I would guess only a small percentage of residential installations ever reach the breakeven point, but I don't have that data so I could be wrong. Either way, in total, I would expect they pay retail for >90% of the power supplied (I'd bet its more like 95%). Why? Because most homeowners simply don't install systems with the intent of being net generators, they just take advantage of the requirement that their power be purchased to offset the cost of battery installation.
I personally don't care as long as they don't use our tax dollars subsidize 30% of it. If solar and wind meet their needs, "more power to them". There is value in carrying the green label, as well as having some independence.
^I generally agree with most of what you said, although I think you ignore the overall drop in production across a wide area when cloud cover moves in, or when solid cloud cover fills the sky. Even when there are not clouds, solar peaks only during a few short hours, while the demand curve is much flatter during the work day. All the other points you made on how the grid is managed come with an associated cost. At least you seem to acknowledge it exists, some other seem to think its make believe. I agree its a good debate on the extent of cost and impact, you at least provided a rational response and understand the issue, which I appreciate.
Germany is an interesting example of scale. They are planning to add over 7GW of fossil generation in the next few years. Some might wonder why Germany, arguably the most progressive solar and wind country, would not build solar and wind to fill this need. There are 2 key reasons. 1) The grid cannot handle that instability and 2) it costs too much (to build and manage the instability).
Coal, gas, hydro, it doesn't matter. Cloud cover can move over the entire Phoenix area in a pretty short time period. You must have a power source ready to make up the difference when that happens. Solar drops off as the sun wanes every day, you must have a power source ready to make up the difference when that happens. Closing plants does not solve that problem. Utilities prefer to run all plants at 100%, as that is when they are most cost and cycle efficient. They have always had the need to maintain reserve, but solar increases that and makes it harder to manage as it adds much more variance.
Nuclear has nothing to do with it. Spinning reserve is managed with fossil, gas, and hydro. The peak smoothing would be a more solid argument if solar produced a steady output during the peak 'work day'. Unfortunately, solar produces heaving only for a few hours of that higher need period. Various sources tend to ignore those impacts.
The solar fans would be much better suited to address the related issues and look for solutions rather than ignore and claim they don't exist.
Well, then, explain what happens during the day as cloud cover moves over a large area. Solar input drops and it must be made up with traditional sources. Fossil and gas need to spin up. But Fossil plants take hours to start from cold, and gas plants lose money if they are not running at full. Spinning reserve is required even for that slow moving peak. Those resources must be ready and available. You can argue to which extent they are needed, but do dismiss that need shows me you don't get the bigger picture of how grid stability is maintained.
Are you the same nut that attacked me recently? I see you still have no capacity to control your emotions are state any actual useful information.
Maybe you can explain how panels smooth out peaks? They are not inductive. They peak and wane every day and even during the day. I suspect any response from you will not be informative but will rather be an attack, in which case you will get no further discussion from me.
I do not see how the use of solar would raise the cost of electricity for non-solar customers
There is a cost associated with keeping a local gas or coal plant running at, say, 30% power ready to make up for shifts in solar and wind input. Plants run most efficiently at 100%, and there is significant efficiency loss running at lower output. Also, the fixed costs of the running the plant (staff, etc) remain the same, even though less power is being produced, thereby further increasing the power production costs from that plant. Don't underestimate this cost. The need for this spinning reserve is increased significantly with a large solar and wind component on the grid.
Its funny how people who are so willing to take taxpayer money to pay 30% of their solar energy cost complain about paying their share when it comes to grid stability.
There is a cost of spinning reserve and grid stability maintenance. Why shouldn't those who need it or negatively impact it pay for it? The real cost should probably be even more, depending on the size of the installation. Its only $4.95/mo.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have a problem with the concept, as it could provide a way to get an officer help when he might not be able to call in. With that said, I also see lawyers licking their chops as another set of data to manipulate every time there is a case.
The odds of winning an Ultimate Frisbee Tournament > odds of winning lottery > odds of getting approval for lottery > odds of finding ETI
It was better known by the locals as "Mesopotamia Mystery Meat"
Its just a matter of time, keep firing on those drones and eventually they will fight back.
He's coming...... The fart goblin!
Attacking others whom you don't agree with.
..........
Isolating terms with an obsessive focus on disproving in any way possible.
Ignoring the context of discussion.
Does it really matter what I say? I predict your behavior will not change.
In that context, I will leave you with this parting note; The fart goblin is coming!
Stop trying to distract the kiddies with big words they don't just to attack an energy source that threatens the one you are trying to sell to them.
Typical university type, assuming everyone else is an idiot.
Dude, you are going in circles. Of course other power plants make up for the gap left when solar drops off....glad you agree.
I believe, if you recall,our very first interaction began with you attacking me. I see you still intend to keep it up.
Large spinning generators can help smooth transients because of their inductive nature. VAR flow is where this is seen. Regardless, solar cannot respond to a peak and therefore cannot smooth it. Solar can supply some of the demand that makes up that peak, if the sun is shining at that particular time.
Grid stability requires generation to match demand within tolerances. Power electronics, transistors,or even SCR devices are only for switching to manage power flow, they can't create power. What you seem to think you know makes no sense in the context of this discussion, which is keeping generation in line with the demand profile and the impacts of solar generation ramping up and down on the system.
Gas is the fundamental market shifter. Solar folks like to take credit for it.
^correction "to offset the cost of battery installation" should have read "to eliminate the need for battery installation"
I would guess only a small percentage of residential installations ever reach the breakeven point, but I don't have that data so I could be wrong. Either way, in total, I would expect they pay retail for >90% of the power supplied (I'd bet its more like 95%). Why? Because most homeowners simply don't install systems with the intent of being net generators, they just take advantage of the requirement that their power be purchased to offset the cost of battery installation.
What will they do the following year?
I personally don't care as long as they don't use our tax dollars subsidize 30% of it. If solar and wind meet their needs, "more power to them". There is value in carrying the green label, as well as having some independence.
^I generally agree with most of what you said, although I think you ignore the overall drop in production across a wide area when cloud cover moves in, or when solid cloud cover fills the sky. Even when there are not clouds, solar peaks only during a few short hours, while the demand curve is much flatter during the work day. All the other points you made on how the grid is managed come with an associated cost. At least you seem to acknowledge it exists, some other seem to think its make believe. I agree its a good debate on the extent of cost and impact, you at least provided a rational response and understand the issue, which I appreciate.
Germany is an interesting example of scale. They are planning to add over 7GW of fossil generation in the next few years. Some might wonder why Germany, arguably the most progressive solar and wind country, would not build solar and wind to fill this need. There are 2 key reasons. 1) The grid cannot handle that instability and 2) it costs too much (to build and manage the instability).
Again, I appreciate your discussion.
Coal, gas, hydro, it doesn't matter. Cloud cover can move over the entire Phoenix area in a pretty short time period. You must have a power source ready to make up the difference when that happens. Solar drops off as the sun wanes every day, you must have a power source ready to make up the difference when that happens. Closing plants does not solve that problem. Utilities prefer to run all plants at 100%, as that is when they are most cost and cycle efficient. They have always had the need to maintain reserve, but solar increases that and makes it harder to manage as it adds much more variance.
1 use: mindless video subject matter
Nuclear has nothing to do with it. Spinning reserve is managed with fossil, gas, and hydro. The peak smoothing would be a more solid argument if solar produced a steady output during the peak 'work day'. Unfortunately, solar produces heaving only for a few hours of that higher need period. Various sources tend to ignore those impacts.
The solar fans would be much better suited to address the related issues and look for solutions rather than ignore and claim they don't exist.
Not if they are forced to pay retail rate for power. And not so much customer swings from production to usage.
Well, then, explain what happens during the day as cloud cover moves over a large area. Solar input drops and it must be made up with traditional sources. Fossil and gas need to spin up. But Fossil plants take hours to start from cold, and gas plants lose money if they are not running at full. Spinning reserve is required even for that slow moving peak. Those resources must be ready and available. You can argue to which extent they are needed, but do dismiss that need shows me you don't get the bigger picture of how grid stability is maintained.
Are you the same nut that attacked me recently? I see you still have no capacity to control your emotions are state any actual useful information.
Maybe you can explain how panels smooth out peaks? They are not inductive. They peak and wane every day and even during the day. I suspect any response from you will not be informative but will rather be an attack, in which case you will get no further discussion from me.
I do not see how the use of solar would raise the cost of electricity for non-solar customers
There is a cost associated with keeping a local gas or coal plant running at, say, 30% power ready to make up for shifts in solar and wind input. Plants run most efficiently at 100%, and there is significant efficiency loss running at lower output. Also, the fixed costs of the running the plant (staff, etc) remain the same, even though less power is being produced, thereby further increasing the power production costs from that plant. Don't underestimate this cost. The need for this spinning reserve is increased significantly with a large solar and wind component on the grid.
Its funny how people who are so willing to take taxpayer money to pay 30% of their solar energy cost complain about paying their share when it comes to grid stability.
There is a cost of spinning reserve and grid stability maintenance. Why shouldn't those who need it or negatively impact it pay for it? The real cost should probably be even more, depending on the size of the installation. Its only $4.95/mo.