Actually, from what he presented, that is pretty much what would be required.
I don't get that impression at all. He makes a point about being able to predict loads and generation, which strongly suggests that the strategy is to plan well in advance where the power comes from and where it goes to.
Also, large power stations are located along strategically designed/placed transmission corridors and still generally only serve a regional load based on years of growth and demand. And don't confuse the marketing of power with the actual transmission.
Rather, transmission corridors are strategically located to link power plants to the grid. Power plants are built where they have the resources and infrastructure to support them - near waterways, for example, or close to their source of fuel.
Market is a total sum game and the buyers and sellers don't really control where the power comes from or goes, they just ensure enough is available regionally. The power generated closest to the user is what is used, even if it is credited for sale in a different area.
Not entirely true. Utilities (who are resellers) prioritize the lowest cost power sources first, and only buy more expensive power if necessary.
Here's a quick example, which I chose because it's germane to the overall topic of renewable integration.
The power generated closest to the user is what is used, even if it is credited for sale in a different area.
Nope. A good portion of my electricity comes from a coal plant upstate, but there are gas turbine power stations just a few miles from here... they only turn on those turbines for peak shaving, because they cost more per KWh to run. You can tell if they're running or not because you can see the cooling towers steaming up from the highway.
Power comes from the cheapest available source, not the closest. Not all power plants operate equally, or even all the time. =Smidge=
It's in German, of course. The key things you're looking for are the second and third rows (Braunkohle and Steinkohle) which are Lignite and Anthracite, respectively. Upport portion of the table is in TWh (Billion KWh) and lower table is percent of total generation by fuel type. =Smidge=
First, please realize that right now we as a country are in the process of rebuilding the entire power transmission system. That's happening no matter what, and it needs to happen no matter what.
In terms of the HVAC thing, which was just an example but one that seems to have stuck with you disproportionally so whatever... you would need to reduce the duty cycle to reduce power consumption, agreed? You would not have to turn it off for hours at a time - the entire concept here is that you could spread that reduction across a large population so that no single group bears the entire burden. We could, in theory, reduce electrical loads from AC units by 33% by disabling one in three units each for twenty minutes per hour.
As for "getting that power to flow the way he describes" - what is it you're imagining is happening NOW? You have power plants dotted all over the place, each with varying output, and power flows in any particular direction at any time. Nobody is proposing we instantaneously divert megawatts halfway across the country on a moment's notice - such a thing would be entirely unnecessary. However, diverting megawatts - even gigawatts - between substations and across counties and states is something that happens routinely right now, planned and unplanned. Nothing that can't be handled. =Smidge=
Yes, a boom in coal plant construction... I guess that explains why Germany's coal generating capacity (hard coal + lignite) is down nearly 5% over the past ten years... all those new plants they've been building.
Any new plants they have been building - mostly to replace older, decommissioned ones - have been having problems because the cost of power has dropped significantly since construction began thanks to the glut of wind and solar. All that, despite reducing their nuclear generating capacity by nearly 44 TWh/yr after the Fukushima meltdown.
As for subsidies... have you accounted for the subsidies that current fossil generation gets? Land rights, construction cost subsidies, operational cost subsidies, environmental remediation subsidies... to make an indirect comparison, there's a reason the rest of the world pays three or four times more for their energy than the US does - subsidies. =Smidge=
He completely ignores the importance of local load differences, and seems to assume there is a loss-less, instantaneous transfer of energy across the national grid, both transmission and distribution channels, with no limitations.
Does he? His only claim here is that both supply and demand can be predicted, and that these can be choreographed to optimize utilization. He mentions that current power generation technologies are not available 100% of the time and proposes that the predictable variability of renewable power would be functionally no different. Nowhere does his proposal require loss-less, instantaneous, unlimited transmission of power.
He also doesn't get that even at a local level things like AC compressors are already averaged out and that delaying the timing of starts really makes almost no difference at the neighborhood level, much less a town level.
How are, for example, all of the AC units in a particular neighborhood "averaged out"? That makes no sense. There is no communication between these units. It's also not a matter of delaying the start times, it's a matter of remotely disabling them entirely - across entire neighborhoods - to shave peak demands.
Its nice to completely ignore realities like overall cost.
So what ARE those costs, versus the cost of business as usual? Just because the article doesn't go into that kind of depth does not mean it hasn't been considered at all.
Its nice to not realize that industrial areas have a significantly different profile than urban areas, and that rural areas are vastly different.
Largely Irrelevant here; Of course different regions are going to have different characteristics, but you can still model and predict the behaviors of each region and the system as a whole. Other countries manage to do it, and there's no reason the US can't do it as well.
Its nice to call yourself and energy expert and get submitted to slashdot by those that believe you just because they want to, or because you fall in line with their agenda.
It's also nice to rant about things you don't agree with while not providing any of the expertise you criticize others for claiming.
Credible experts are people who understand what they know, and what they don't know.
Unlike, say, Slashdot users who of course are experts in everything... =Smidge=
For traffic lights that are really long, and I'm familiar with, I will often turn my engine off since I know I'm going to be going nowhere for >1min. The timer on the crosswalk sign gives me plenty of warning so I can start the engine and be ready to go.
Of course, this is hardly any different from just looking at the traffic light for the opposing direction - most of the time you can see it change to yellow, then red, and you know a few beats later your way will turn green. Drive the same route for more than a few days (e.g. your typical commute) and nearly anyone will know how the lights behave throughout the day and be able to predict them. =Smidge=
Even if the hard drive isn't yours, or it hasn't been established that it's yours, if they know you have the password for whatever reason they can compel you to give it up. Failure to do so would at least be obstruction, or perhaps as bad as aiding and abetting.
Provided they also have probable cause to think there's evidence on that device of course. =Smidge=
In a perfect world, there would be no primaries at all because there would be no rigidly defined political parties as such... but I suppose it really is too much to ask that a candidate be considered on the weight of his individual ideas and actions rather than a postfix next to his name on a ballot.
But the next best thing would be to have each party solely responsible for nominating their own candidates, without outside influence. At least in that respect we could get someone who best represents their party, rather than the WORST representative.
Campaign financing is a whole other ball of wax... =Smidge=
Voters end up with the exact same number of choices in the general election: two.
Not really, no. There is almost always more than two candidates for any particular office. The only exceptions I've personally encountered were lesser thought about elected officials like judges and public works.
But I think the parent's comment about "fewer choices" still applies: You are choosing the least bad instead of the best, so the real choice is diminished. Giant douche, or turd sandwich? =Smidge=
It's a primary election, not a general election. Nobody is being elected into power here. The primary election is only to choose who the candidate will be that will run for office for that particular party.
If you want your political party to win, and you have open primaries, to group together to force the opponent party to select the LEAST desirable candidate, thus increasing your own candidate's chance of winning.
That's not democracy, that's gaming the system - and we all lose in the race to the bottom. =Smidge=
Why not? You benefit from that partial ownership, you should share in the responsibility proportionally.
Having thousands of owners screaming at you, as well as being financially culpable, would be good cause for the people in charge to actually be careful about what they do. =Smidge=
Not true. If every restaurant closed their doors, people would cook their own food. If every landscaping company folded, people would mow their own lawns.
Hahahaha... oh wow.
Yeah, assuming that everyone is willing any able to do their own cooking and yardwork (Ha!) who's going to do property maintenance for non-residential properties? Going to take turns at the office to see who's turn it is to trim the hedges that week? =Smidge=
I think you're reading a bit too deeply into the words and missing the overall point... there are jobs that need to be done regardless of their cost.
Fine, bagging groceries is a poor example. What about janitorial work? Someone needs to do the basic maintenance of a public or commercial building. =Smidge=
Imagine the minimum wage is $100/hour. There's a massive number of job which simply do not produce that much wealth per hour - they cannot exist, because to offer that job to someone is to lose money. All those jobs disappear.
Setting aside the stupidity of $100/hr minimum wage... (I mean, why not $1,000,000/hr right?)
The jobs that people do for under $15/hr still need to be done. Not every job produces wealth. Nobody gets rich by having clean floors, or mowed lawns, or bagged groceries. However, these are examples of tasks that arguable have to be done by someone, and the cost of not having them done can, at least in some cases, be argued to be greater than $15/hr.
The same applies to jobs that "do not produce that much wealth" - they still need to be done. Either you pay someone $15/hr to flip burgers, or you stop selling burgers and go out of business. Don't want to go out of business? Pay the $15/hr and increase your prices by the ten cents or whatever it averages out to be. What a goddamn stupid argument you're making.
I'd rather pay an extra buck for a trip to the local fast food place than have my tax dollars end up subsidizing the employees through food stamps and housing because they're barely paid enough to afford the same food they cook all day. =Smidge=
The way to implement the experiment is to abolish the minimum wage entirely, and then leave it abolished since it will achieve the natural price for labor value.
We already tried slavery, feudalism, indentured servitude, company towns/stores, debt bondage, wage slavery... these are the labor systems that arise when you don't enforce paying laborers enough to keep them independent of their employer... aka "a living wage."
Maybe the problem is you don't understand what "living wage" really means. =Smidge=
The Volt's drivetrain, for example, reportedly costs about $6k per vehicle. Why? It's a heck of a lot simpler than a gasoline drivetrain, with a tenth as many moving parts and less raw materials costs.
This statement makes no sense in light of the fact that the Volt's drivetrain includes a four cylinder gasoline engine.
I'm not convinced it's simpler in the transmission either. You still have three clutches, a planetery and a differential.
That's not a bug - that's how physics actually works.
Your walking speed is limited no matter what direction to go since you only have one pair of legs. But in a space ship, the thrusters add up using typical vector addition... in all three dimensions.
It was literally a feature, and a good one! The most unrealistic thing about it was only that the top speed was limited, which makes no sense for a spacecraft in a vacuum.
I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere, 'cause real free-floating 3D with proper conservation of momentum would be a real pain in the ass. =Smidge=
Cars will be fueled next on Compressed Natural Gas. Why? Because there is a cheaper option that doesn't weigh a lot or take up lots of space.
CNG tanks are huge compared to gasoline tanks for an equivalent amount of fuel. Consider the latest and greatest carbon fiber wrapped, nonmetallic tank: 20 gasoline gallon equivalent capacity at 3600 PSIG.
CNG is not a serious contender for the personal automotive market... and I'm making this argument as someone who designs and builds CNG fueling stations.
Trucking is another matter, since trucks have the space and weight capacity - and the high cost and long service life to distribute that cost - to make it worthwhile. =Smidge=
Not really, no. The use case covers 70%+ of US commuters.
I did the math back in 2012 when the LEAF was just getting into the swing of things, using my own ~40mi/day round trip commute since I was curious if a LEAF (or any other EV) would be right for me. The LEAF narrowly beat out a 2012 Prius with comparable trim level, and that was at ~$3.50/gallon for gas and $0.22/kWh electric. (For reference, last time I got gas I paid $3.899.) On top of that, Nissan has also been pushing some very competitive lease rates ($199/mo) which puts it on par with most new vehicles right from the start.
Even with my new 20mi/day commute since then, I'd save enough just in fuel to cover about two lease payments per year (~$430) versus my current fuel usage, or about half that versus a Prius. =Smidge=
All hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are essentially H2-electric hybrids. Not only because a fuel cell produces electricity, but because HFCVs also incorporate sizable batteries.
A fuel cell can't be readily throttled, and making one that's powerful enough for acceleration demands is expensive and space consuming. A battery is used for peak power demands and to buffer the fuel cell so it can operate at a more consistent, more optimal output. As a bonus, the battery also allows for regenerative braking. =Smidge=
While the sticker price may be higher for an EV, if you lease the total cost can actually be less. Not saying an EV will pay for itself overall, but the savings in fuel even over a Prius is enough to knock down monthly cost of ownership and make up the difference in lease payments.
People shouldn't compare price, they should compare cost.
=Smidge=
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, from what he presented, that is pretty much what would be required.
I don't get that impression at all. He makes a point about being able to predict loads and generation, which strongly suggests that the strategy is to plan well in advance where the power comes from and where it goes to.
Also, large power stations are located along strategically designed/placed transmission corridors and still generally only serve a regional load based on years of growth and demand. And don't confuse the marketing of power with the actual transmission.
Rather, transmission corridors are strategically located to link power plants to the grid. Power plants are built where they have the resources and infrastructure to support them - near waterways, for example, or close to their source of fuel.
Market is a total sum game and the buyers and sellers don't really control where the power comes from or goes, they just ensure enough is available regionally. The power generated closest to the user is what is used, even if it is credited for sale in a different area.
Not entirely true. Utilities (who are resellers) prioritize the lowest cost power sources first, and only buy more expensive power if necessary.
Here's a quick example, which I chose because it's germane to the overall topic of renewable integration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The power generated closest to the user is what is used, even if it is credited for sale in a different area.
Nope. A good portion of my electricity comes from a coal plant upstate, but there are gas turbine power stations just a few miles from here... they only turn on those turbines for peak shaving, because they cost more per KWh to run. You can tell if they're running or not because you can see the cooling towers steaming up from the highway.
Power comes from the cheapest available source, not the closest. Not all power plants operate equally, or even all the time.
=Smidge=
http://www.ag-energiebilanzen....
It's in German, of course. The key things you're looking for are the second and third rows (Braunkohle and Steinkohle) which are Lignite and Anthracite, respectively. Upport portion of the table is in TWh (Billion KWh) and lower table is percent of total generation by fuel type.
=Smidge=
First, please realize that right now we as a country are in the process of rebuilding the entire power transmission system. That's happening no matter what, and it needs to happen no matter what.
In terms of the HVAC thing, which was just an example but one that seems to have stuck with you disproportionally so whatever... you would need to reduce the duty cycle to reduce power consumption, agreed? You would not have to turn it off for hours at a time - the entire concept here is that you could spread that reduction across a large population so that no single group bears the entire burden. We could, in theory, reduce electrical loads from AC units by 33% by disabling one in three units each for twenty minutes per hour.
As for "getting that power to flow the way he describes" - what is it you're imagining is happening NOW? You have power plants dotted all over the place, each with varying output, and power flows in any particular direction at any time. Nobody is proposing we instantaneously divert megawatts halfway across the country on a moment's notice - such a thing would be entirely unnecessary. However, diverting megawatts - even gigawatts - between substations and across counties and states is something that happens routinely right now, planned and unplanned. Nothing that can't be handled.
=Smidge=
Yes, a boom in coal plant construction... I guess that explains why Germany's coal generating capacity (hard coal + lignite) is down nearly 5% over the past ten years... all those new plants they've been building.
Any new plants they have been building - mostly to replace older, decommissioned ones - have been having problems because the cost of power has dropped significantly since construction began thanks to the glut of wind and solar. All that, despite reducing their nuclear generating capacity by nearly 44 TWh/yr after the Fukushima meltdown.
As for subsidies... have you accounted for the subsidies that current fossil generation gets? Land rights, construction cost subsidies, operational cost subsidies, environmental remediation subsidies... to make an indirect comparison, there's a reason the rest of the world pays three or four times more for their energy than the US does - subsidies.
=Smidge=
He completely ignores the importance of local load differences, and seems to assume there is a loss-less, instantaneous transfer of energy across the national grid, both transmission and distribution channels, with no limitations.
Does he? His only claim here is that both supply and demand can be predicted, and that these can be choreographed to optimize utilization. He mentions that current power generation technologies are not available 100% of the time and proposes that the predictable variability of renewable power would be functionally no different. Nowhere does his proposal require loss-less, instantaneous, unlimited transmission of power.
He also doesn't get that even at a local level things like AC compressors are already averaged out and that delaying the timing of starts really makes almost no difference at the neighborhood level, much less a town level.
How are, for example, all of the AC units in a particular neighborhood "averaged out"? That makes no sense. There is no communication between these units. It's also not a matter of delaying the start times, it's a matter of remotely disabling them entirely - across entire neighborhoods - to shave peak demands.
Its nice to completely ignore realities like overall cost.
So what ARE those costs, versus the cost of business as usual? Just because the article doesn't go into that kind of depth does not mean it hasn't been considered at all.
Its nice to not realize that industrial areas have a significantly different profile than urban areas, and that rural areas are vastly different.
Largely Irrelevant here; Of course different regions are going to have different characteristics, but you can still model and predict the behaviors of each region and the system as a whole. Other countries manage to do it, and there's no reason the US can't do it as well.
Its nice to call yourself and energy expert and get submitted to slashdot by those that believe you just because they want to, or because you fall in line with their agenda.
It's also nice to rant about things you don't agree with while not providing any of the expertise you criticize others for claiming.
Credible experts are people who understand what they know, and what they don't know.
Unlike, say, Slashdot users who of course are experts in everything...
=Smidge=
Normal humans are excluded from a lot of things.
1. Olympic Gold Medal
2. 5x Jeopardy Champion
3. Professional Concert Pianist
4. Bolshoi Ballet
5. Supermodel
Our technologically advanced society will not fall into ruin if nobody ever becomes a 5-time Jeopardy Champion ever gain...
On the other hand, guru-level engineers are considerably more important.
=Smidge=
For traffic lights that are really long, and I'm familiar with, I will often turn my engine off since I know I'm going to be going nowhere for >1min. The timer on the crosswalk sign gives me plenty of warning so I can start the engine and be ready to go.
Of course, this is hardly any different from just looking at the traffic light for the opposing direction - most of the time you can see it change to yellow, then red, and you know a few beats later your way will turn green. Drive the same route for more than a few days (e.g. your typical commute) and nearly anyone will know how the lights behave throughout the day and be able to predict them.
=Smidge=
Even if the hard drive isn't yours, or it hasn't been established that it's yours, if they know you have the password for whatever reason they can compel you to give it up. Failure to do so would at least be obstruction, or perhaps as bad as aiding and abetting.
Provided they also have probable cause to think there's evidence on that device of course.
=Smidge=
Plus, you'd scoop up a lot more oceanic plant and animal life trying to extract that plastic material.
Actually, the critters might be a better fuel source than the plastics...
=Smidge=
In a perfect world, there would be no primaries at all because there would be no rigidly defined political parties as such... but I suppose it really is too much to ask that a candidate be considered on the weight of his individual ideas and actions rather than a postfix next to his name on a ballot.
But the next best thing would be to have each party solely responsible for nominating their own candidates, without outside influence. At least in that respect we could get someone who best represents their party, rather than the WORST representative.
Campaign financing is a whole other ball of wax...
=Smidge=
Voters end up with the exact same number of choices in the general election: two.
Not really, no. There is almost always more than two candidates for any particular office. The only exceptions I've personally encountered were lesser thought about elected officials like judges and public works.
But I think the parent's comment about "fewer choices" still applies: You are choosing the least bad instead of the best, so the real choice is diminished. Giant douche, or turd sandwich?
=Smidge=
It's a primary election, not a general election. Nobody is being elected into power here. The primary election is only to choose who the candidate will be that will run for office for that particular party.
If you want your political party to win, and you have open primaries, to group together to force the opponent party to select the LEAST desirable candidate, thus increasing your own candidate's chance of winning.
That's not democracy, that's gaming the system - and we all lose in the race to the bottom.
=Smidge=
Why not? You benefit from that partial ownership, you should share in the responsibility proportionally.
Having thousands of owners screaming at you, as well as being financially culpable, would be good cause for the people in charge to actually be careful about what they do.
=Smidge=
Not true. If every restaurant closed their doors, people would cook their own food. If every landscaping company folded, people would mow their own lawns.
Hahahaha... oh wow.
Yeah, assuming that everyone is willing any able to do their own cooking and yardwork (Ha!) who's going to do property maintenance for non-residential properties? Going to take turns at the office to see who's turn it is to trim the hedges that week?
=Smidge=
I think you're reading a bit too deeply into the words and missing the overall point... there are jobs that need to be done regardless of their cost.
Fine, bagging groceries is a poor example. What about janitorial work? Someone needs to do the basic maintenance of a public or commercial building.
=Smidge=
Imagine the minimum wage is $100/hour. There's a massive number of job which simply do not produce that much wealth per hour - they cannot exist, because to offer that job to someone is to lose money. All those jobs disappear.
Setting aside the stupidity of $100/hr minimum wage... (I mean, why not $1,000,000/hr right?)
The jobs that people do for under $15/hr still need to be done. Not every job produces wealth. Nobody gets rich by having clean floors, or mowed lawns, or bagged groceries. However, these are examples of tasks that arguable have to be done by someone, and the cost of not having them done can, at least in some cases, be argued to be greater than $15/hr.
The same applies to jobs that "do not produce that much wealth" - they still need to be done. Either you pay someone $15/hr to flip burgers, or you stop selling burgers and go out of business. Don't want to go out of business? Pay the $15/hr and increase your prices by the ten cents or whatever it averages out to be. What a goddamn stupid argument you're making.
I'd rather pay an extra buck for a trip to the local fast food place than have my tax dollars end up subsidizing the employees through food stamps and housing because they're barely paid enough to afford the same food they cook all day.
=Smidge=
The way to implement the experiment is to abolish the minimum wage entirely, and then leave it abolished since it will achieve the natural price for labor value.
We already tried slavery, feudalism, indentured servitude, company towns/stores, debt bondage, wage slavery... these are the labor systems that arise when you don't enforce paying laborers enough to keep them independent of their employer... aka "a living wage."
Maybe the problem is you don't understand what "living wage" really means.
=Smidge=
The Volt's drivetrain, for example, reportedly costs about $6k per vehicle. Why? It's a heck of a lot simpler than a gasoline drivetrain, with a tenth as many moving parts and less raw materials costs.
This statement makes no sense in light of the fact that the Volt's drivetrain includes a four cylinder gasoline engine.
I'm not convinced it's simpler in the transmission either. You still have three clutches, a planetery and a differential.
And yes, the engine can and will provide mechanical power directly to wheels
if conditions are right.
=Smidge=
That's not how rockets work... it's about momentum transfer, not velocity.
=Smidge=
It's a GAME, and every time someone pulls the reality card on an unintended gameplay mechanic
It's not unintended, that's the point.
=Smidge=
That's not a bug - that's how physics actually works.
Your walking speed is limited no matter what direction to go since you only have one pair of legs. But in a space ship, the thrusters add up using typical vector addition... in all three dimensions.
It was literally a feature, and a good one! The most unrealistic thing about it was only that the top speed was limited, which makes no sense for a spacecraft in a vacuum.
I suppose you have to draw the line somewhere, 'cause real free-floating 3D with proper conservation of momentum would be a real pain in the ass.
=Smidge=
Cars will be fueled next on Compressed Natural Gas. Why? Because there is a cheaper option that doesn't weigh a lot or take up lots of space.
CNG tanks are huge compared to gasoline tanks for an equivalent amount of fuel. Consider the latest and greatest carbon fiber wrapped, nonmetallic tank: 20 gasoline gallon equivalent capacity at 3600 PSIG.
Weight: ~100 lbs empty, ~210 lbs full.
Dimensions: 60 inches long, 21 inches diameter.
Cost: ~$3600
CNG is not a serious contender for the personal automotive market... and I'm making this argument as someone who designs and builds CNG fueling stations.
Trucking is another matter, since trucks have the space and weight capacity - and the high cost and long service life to distribute that cost - to make it worthwhile.
=Smidge=
The use case where that is true is narrow...
Not really, no. The use case covers 70%+ of US commuters.
I did the math back in 2012 when the LEAF was just getting into the swing of things, using my own ~40mi/day round trip commute since I was curious if a LEAF (or any other EV) would be right for me. The LEAF narrowly beat out a 2012 Prius with comparable trim level, and that was at ~$3.50/gallon for gas and $0.22/kWh electric. (For reference, last time I got gas I paid $3.899.) On top of that, Nissan has also been pushing some very competitive lease rates ($199/mo) which puts it on par with most new vehicles right from the start.
Even with my new 20mi/day commute since then, I'd save enough just in fuel to cover about two lease payments per year (~$430) versus my current fuel usage, or about half that versus a Prius.
=Smidge=
All hydrogen fuel cell vehicles are essentially H2-electric hybrids. Not only because a fuel cell produces electricity, but because HFCVs also incorporate sizable batteries.
A fuel cell can't be readily throttled, and making one that's powerful enough for acceleration demands is expensive and space consuming. A battery is used for peak power demands and to buffer the fuel cell so it can operate at a more consistent, more optimal output. As a bonus, the battery also allows for regenerative braking.
=Smidge=
While the sticker price may be higher for an EV, if you lease the total cost can actually be less. Not saying an EV will pay for itself overall, but the savings in fuel even over a Prius is enough to knock down monthly cost of ownership and make up the difference in lease payments.
People shouldn't compare price, they should compare cost.
=Smidge=