101 comments on ASPO-USA: Support for Global Energy Flow modelling and a Net Energy database
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
101 comments on ASPO-USA: Support for Global Energy Flow modelling and a Net Energy database
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Re: The disadvantage of wind is intermittency and the relatively "low energy density" of the electricity that is produced
Yes, people on my ASPO-USA thread were arguing about this but I'm not sure I fully understand "low energy density" for wind. It's generating electricity, right? feeding power into the grid? What's the deal?
I want to learn more here.
Imagine the wind is the size of the picture frame - in fact its really much bigger than that. These little wind mills only capture a tiny fraction of the energy available.
Compare that with Hydro - where the glacially sculpted land surface captures most of the water and diverts it, through gravity, into streams, rivers and eventually a water fall where man can capture lots of the solar energy. The Sun evaporates the water, and gravity (which no one really fully understands yet) concetrates all that water into one point where man can convert it to energy. Even better than that, by building a dam he can release that energy when he needs to use it.
Wind is a bit different. In its primary form it is very diffuse and man can only capture a tiny amount of all the energy that is available. What's more, the wind doesn't always blow when man wants it to - so he needs to devise ways of storing or controlling this energy resource - which in some other respects is free.
Electricity, is the way that man utilises wind, hydro and many fossil energy resources. The fossil energy resources are very concentrated, but in converting them to electricity, man actually dilutes that concentraion of energy significantly - the compensation here is that the energy is in a very user friendly format - ready to use - when you want to use it.
The problem with wind, is that it is dilute and not always there - and storing the electricity in a battery it is diluted - eg 100 mile range for an electric car with a big battery comapred with 400 - 500 miles for a gasoline car with a small tank.
The main point is that with a high ERoEI >> 15, wind may provide an energy bounty, and some of the energy it produces may be used to solve some of these low density, intermitency problems.
As for the double Y axis chart - we live in a multi dimensional universe - so more of those to come.
CW
If they are necessary, they are a sad necessity, and shouldn't be viewed in such embellished, glorifying terms in my opinion.
I guess I do feel differently about the systems that just divert water through a generator along the stream, however.
Distributed PV and wind are far better and less destructive than dams in my opinion. All of our annual electrical needs are currently being served by 18 modest-sized panels on our suburban roof - no maintenance, good for decades. What's wrong with that?
It's not Earth we're worried about. The Earth will be OK in a couple million years after we're gone and done trashing it. It's our sorry asses we need to worry about and whatever vital animals & plants might be saved. But I digress.
Re: it is diluted ... and intermittent
Yes, I understand all that. Now, consider these quotes on my ASPO-USA thread..
From here:
And from here: And from here: So, this whole subject seems more complex than I had imagined, I am embarrassed to say.Somebody needs to post on the "Challenges of Wind" as it gets integrated into the electrical power grid.
For one thing we could easily capture GWs of power with water electrolysis and create hydrogen for storage... IF we just had them. The only thing that happens there is that we take a huge efficiency loss. And still the overall efficiency would stay quite good, especially if that hydrogen becomes part of the transportation fuel cycle.
In any case, the power grid, if designed properly for peak loads will not go down. To build a power grid that can shift twice the amount of power around than it does today will require investments, of course. The power companies will need to be re-imbursed for those moneys and we will see them shift their business model from producers of power to transmitters of power.
No problem here. Except that one has to think a bit more on the system and a little bit less on the circuit level.
:-)
That's a really big IF, isn't it? How do think hydrogen is created? Doesn't it usually involve one of those fossil fuel words?
Re: No problem here. Except that one has to think a bit more on the system and a little bit less on the circuit level
So, do your feet ever actually touch the ground -- which is where the rest of us live? Or do you just float around above the Earth?
InfinitePossibilities? The only infinite possibility I see here is the ability of human beings to screw up. And, you did not even remotely begin to address my questions about integrating wind into the power grid.
The synergies are fairly outstanding!
So, when somebody tells me to think at the "systems" level and not the "circuit level", I view that as some sort of fantasy. For example, when I flip the switch to turn on one of those energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs, I have a definite interest in whether it will actually come on. If that's thinking at the "circuit" level, then I am guilty.
Assume we have a hydrogen can-opener...
So that leads us with a few possibilities: Spend trillions on storage systems such as: depleted NG caverns for compressed air. Huge water pump storages on mountain tops. A massive scale up in commercial battery sites, such as flow batteries. A fleet of EVs and PEHVs that all use V2G setups. Or channel our excess energy production into hydrogen/ammonia generation/storage. Choose your poison. You have to use some of these set ups to avoid becoming a renewable 'export' country :P
Doable and affordable IMHO.
Alan
But please, don't get me wrong! I love alternatives including wind/solar. I simply think people are looking in the situation with one eye not only covered, but sowed up, locked up behind a bullet proof eye patch, which is then stapled to their heads. Just as we will need a basket of renewables to replace oil, we will need a basket of storage systems to make it viable.
Oh, and we have an infrastructure for hydrogen...we make fertilizer out of it :P
Three more could have been built at the 2 GW Raccoon Mountain site. They picked one end of the ridge because it was closer to existing transmission lines and land acquistion would be easier.
The Upper Penisula of Michigan can site massive pumped storage (close to Dakota & Manitoba wind and Manitoba hydro).
Ozarks have potential, etc. etc. etc.
Alan
An unfamilar term outside felines to me.
I see a need for more pumped storage in almost any scenario so I disagree with "build what we don't need".
And "will already be built" in the future ?
I assume you are talking about Vehicle to Grid using EV batteries. I think that is likely a bad idea since cycling chemical batteries shortens their life. VERY expensive battery storage.
And American consumer behavior is hard to predict (see recent auto sales). I expect many to recharge during evening peak demand (dinner time). So more grid capacity required.
Alan
Take a look at THESE BATTERIES
BTW, a CAT is a Compressed Air Transportation device, or a CAT car
========Hype only company (Altair Gold ??) with week old "breakthrough" report. And we are to base our future on new nanotechnologies ?!?
You need to check the crediability of your sources of information !
Even if 3M or GE announced the same "breakthrough" I would expect 12 to 15 years till mass production capable of replaceing half of US fleet.
No Hope for BS,
Alan
Alan, that's with a "business as usual" approach. In WWII we ramped to 100,000 planes in about 2 years.
"business as usual" won't implement anything at lightning speed: neither rail nor EV's.
Also, keep in mind that we don't have to replace half the fleet to cut half the fuel consumption: probably the newest 40% of vehicles get 60% of the miles, and 40% of vehicles is only 5 years production. Ramping up production is the variable, and that simply depends on the priority it gets: it could be done in 2 years on a war basis, and 5 on a normal commercial high-priority basis (say, $180 oil).
They did this without advanced technology, just "coal, mules & sweat" and 3% of today's GNP. And it was done as a commercial boom.
You underestimate the time required to implement from benchtop prototype breakthrough of, say, a carbon nanotechnology battery to millions/year production. WW II production did not use major breakthroughs in technology (except 3 hand made A bombs) and there is a learning curve with new technologies that simply takes time.
There is simply no humanly possible way to expect a novel technology to go from benchtop breakthrough to million + large scale production in 24 months.
Durability testing, for example, simply takes time.
Wind turbines have been steadily improving for 20+ years and are on the verge of being ready for the "big time". But the first large offshore wind farm (2 MW WTs by Vestas) had to pull EVERY WT back for rework & re-engineer (from memory).
Best Hopes,
Alan
hmmm. If your point is that rail could make an enormous difference in 20 years, I agree. I would guess that a large rail project would take at minimum 15 years from conception to completion, and perhaps 12 years from drawings to completion - does that sound roughly right?
"There is simply no humanly possible way to expect a novel technology to go from benchtop breakthrough to million + large scale production in 24 months."
That's not what I was suggesting. I believe that existing technology is sufficient, if necessary. That's what the Tesla uses. They plan to incorporate incremental battery improvements as they are proven. EV's are much simpler than ICE vehicles - only the batteries and power electronics are challenges, and they've gotten good enough.
OTOH, I would point to two things: first, there are a number of improved battery technologies which, while not proven, have a very high likelihood of success very, very soon. One of the most intriguing is Firefly, which is a spinoff of Caterpillar, and very credible. They expect to be in large-scale production in 2007. Probably the most important is A123systems, which is in production now for Dewalt powertools - it's here now, though it's optimized for powertool use (high power) rather than EV use (high energy density). They're working on an EV version now.
2nd, while benchtop to factory floor would be very difficult to do in 2 years, it can be done in 4, and was by A123systems - see:
COMPANIES: AI23 SYSTEMS AND BLACK & DECKER
The guys in the aisle at Home Depot don't know it. But that $800 DeWalt cordless power-tool set - the one they really want for Christmas, but are just too scared to ask for - gets its butt-kicking oomph from a Nature Materials paper published only four years ago. It's taken that time for a battery cathode based on phosphate nanocrystals to rip its way from a lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, through financing, design, development and manufacture in east Asia, to its current position, driving 36-volt power tools from Black & Decker - owner of the DeWalt professional-grade marque. (registration required)
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061030/full/444016a.html
I'm confident that this could be reduced somewhat, if it was sufficiently high priority.
Anyway, it's a somewhat moot question: we don't need any lab breakthroughs at this point to go forward with an ambitious PHEV/EV program.
Does that make sense to you?
I talked to a planner for Washington DC Metro and he said the entire 103 miles (original, now 106 with more planned) could have been built efficiently (minimum cost) in 12 years. Someone involved in actually building it said 15 years.
We have preliminary plans (most with dust) for 56 cities that I have identified. I may post the list tomorrow. We could start construction on those plans in 1 to 3 years (depending upon level of dust, etc.) and finish them in 1 to 12 years (2nd Avenue Subway in NYC, Red Line Subway to the Sea in LA, Miami 83 new miles of elevated "subway" would take longest).
I think that we could build MANY more GEMs and Priuses within a few years (ramp up production of existing design, including speciality components, in a few years). New tech is much more iffy (wasn't A123 delayed almost a year ?).
I question the wisdom of EVs beyond GEM. We need not only the direct savings but indirect savings of Urban Rail (via revised Urban form).
Best Hopes,
Alan
Would you agree with my analysis (posted to you elsewhere in more detail) that the difference in transportation energy needs between EV's and rail is negligible (90% reduction vs 87%)?
Are you saying that you like the Urban form for reasons other than transportation energy, like improved quality of life, reduced HVAC needs, etc?
The gallons per capita in cities with good Urban Rail systems are much lower than can be explained by direct savings. Ed Tennyson had a post recently that set the average at 159 gallons/capita annual delta.
Postal delivery can walk their route, police bicycle their beat, UPS can make 2 or 3 deliveries from one stop, go 2 blocks and make another, plumber puts far fewer miles on his van, etc. People walk to stores, etc.
Urban Rail results in far greater savings that EVs.
Best Hopes,
Alan
BTW, suburbia was built to be biodegradeable. No great loss and no need to rebuild it in place.
Ed Tennyson has a LONG & distingushed history in transit. Testified against GM on streetcar destruction trial (GM lost, fined $1,000), helped plan DC Metro, electrified Harrisburg to Philly commuter RR, his riderhsip estimates for DC Metro off by 3%, ran San Diego Trolley build (first modern light rail in US).
Alan
So, rail gives a 27% reduction in gasoline consumption?
Miami has local funding (1/2 cent sales tax) to expand their 20 mile elevated "subway" to 103 miles. 90% of the current population will be within 3 miles, half within two miles.
Upon completion or a few years after, I would expect Miami gasoline demand to drop by 1/3rd to 1/2 relative to, say, Ft. Lauderdale.
In 2004, 15 of 23 construction cranes were within 3 blocks of a Metro station. The mere announcement of expansion started a rush to reform the city around rail. (In Dallas, they are building next to stations a couple of years before scheduled opening).
Do NOT underestimate the indirect savings from Urban Rail. I use 6 gallons/month and walk or ride transit for many destinations. This very walkable, pleasant and beautiful neighborhood exists because of the St. Charles streetcar.
Best Hopes,
Alan
The general rule appears to be a 1/4 reduction - why do you suggest 1/3 to 1/2 for Miami?
A map at:
http://www.miamidade.gov/citt//RailMap.htm
Dark Brown lines are scheduled post-2016 :-((
Today's population has 90% within 3 miles of a station and half within 2 miles. This is Rapid Rail (subway, Heavy Rail), not Light Rail with fast average speeds, massive capacity, and potentially frequent service.
The climate & flat landscape is walking & bicycling friendly. GEM EVs could work well once SUVs head towards extinction as another way to get to the stations. Add some streetcar line feeders and neighborhood circulators AND massive condo/office/apartment construction within 3 or 4 blocks of stations AND higher fuel prices and I see a revolutionized city that is now strangling on congestion.
Miami has the potential to be the "best case" example in the US.
Best Hopes :-)
Alan
Well, given that we can expect to have plenty of renewable electricity; that EV's would only add about 6-10% to the load on the grid to handle the rest; and that EV's are only slightly more expensive than ICE's; then, the sensible thing would be to use EV's for the other 50-75%, no?
We are a LONG way from "plenty of renewable electricity". Better to emphasize the higher efficiency uses.
One should also ask the question, how can the US of ~2035 function well with ~400 million people and 7 million barrels of oil per day (very little for transportation including services) ? And dramatically reduce GW GHGs ?
A revised urban form is the only way that I can see that happening. GEM EVs can support a better urban form (unattractive on a 19 mile daily commute, but great for a couple of miles), but bigger & better EVs can slow the needed transformation.
Thus I am agnostic about EVs. They should be, at most, a secondary emphasis IMHO.
These posts are getting
T
o
o
N
a
r
r
o
w
If we go to renewable electricity in 2035, and we have enough, what's wrong with EV's on an energy basis?? They certainly eliminate oil useage, right?
You have said in the past that you feel that an all-renewable grid is possible, and at a price point that's affordable. So, what's wrong with EV's from an energy point of view?
I feel like we're not quite communicating here....
best hopes,
Alan
Best Hopes,
Alan
Thus I use the Ft. Lauderdale: Miami ratio as a metric. Ft.L gas consumption drops, Miami gas consumption can drop off a clift.
Best Hopes,
Alan
The challenges (i.e. infrastructure) for hydrogen use in transportation are much, much greater than for centralized use for power storage - not that I think hydrogen is the best way, but it is feasible.
Thanks for all your work.
2734_web_doc_wind_eng.pdf (application/pdf Object)
Best Hopes,
Alan
"Because wind's effects on the BPA system are small and roughly symmetrical, there is
no simple answer to the question: how much capacity should BPA set aside day-ahead to allow
for uncertainties in the real-time output of wind farms. Answering this question is difficult for
several reasons."
http://www.bpa.gov/power/pgc/wind/Wind_Integration_Study_09-2002.pdf
Wind_Integration_Study_09-2002.pdf (application/pdf Object)
There may be another constraint on wind, the rate with which it can grow may be constrained by the experience required for grid operators to be comfortable.
For example, Grid XY may be capable of 38% of energy coming from wind "as is", but wind cannot grow more than 2%/year after reaching 10% due to operator conserns.
There are rates of growth for wind that may be required for PO & GW, but cannot be supported by the human "software" !
Best Hopes,
Alan
- Providing a solution for the Grid, ie Large Scale Centralized power generation and metering it out to people.
- Independant energy solutions for small scale. ie Individual home owners, small groups of home owners, or a villiage/community solution.
These are two VERY VERY different approaches to the Energy problem.Most of the discussions revolves around "How do we keep the LARGE Scale, Centrally distributed (ultimately big business owned/operated/ and profitted), Life like we currently live it"
Like Large scale windfarms, Large Scale distribution.
I don't know if that is the best way to go as a civilization.
If we are at a major fork in the road, We should chose something scaleable. If we have perpetual growth in population we lose no matter what course we chose.
But, I am focusing on the "Individual home owners, small groups of home owners, or a villiage/community solution."
The more independant(and energy conservative) individuals and communities are, the less drag on the "Grid" and large distibution systems there will be for the Major Cities to draw from. (large cities are toast anyway in my view).
When you start a thread, which problem are you addressing,
- Large scale, grid type solution
- Small scale, independant solution
This is where much confusion lies here at TOD and other places. A person addressing #1 arguing with someone addressing #2.John Carr
I will post something on this subject, but I have simply not had time and want to provide good explanations as well as references to back the facts up. In brief, main base power stations are required to generate continuous electrical power.
2 They must keep the system balanced to stop frequency drift.
3. To provide voltage control which is necessary due to impedances of branches. When a current flows through a branch, the branch impedance causes a voltage difference to occur between both ends of the branch. These voltages are not the same everywhere and it is important that node voltages don't exceed the maximum. They are mainly affected by reactive power, which wind and other intermittent sources in most instances can not provide. Reactive power can be controlled by changing the current in the rotor winding and is done through the exciter.
4 They must be able to supply a fault current. When a short circuit occurs the output current of synchronous generators increases substantially and can easliy damage equipment.
Intermittent power sources can't do some of these things and most people have no idea of the importance of the control of reactive power in a system of power grids. I never see the term mentioned here because 99% of people don't even know what it is..
Interuptions to grids in modern economies causes enormous problems when voltages, frequencies and phases are out of balance which can occur connecting supplies from differing generators. I would like to give you a fuller explanation when I get time as I have operated AC electricial systems which used reactive power to balance the power output of synchronous generators and hence the load.
I have had a lot of discussion with Alan from Bigeasy about balancing wind with a variety of other sources - which seemed quite straight forward.
What we are talking about here is upgrading the energy quality from wind so it can be used - and it is really high time that this issue got settled once and for all.
See my long summary at foot thread.
CW
Reactive power occurs when the voltage and current don't go up and down together in the AC frequency cycle, i.e. when the current and voltage are out of phase with each other by 90 degrees and is measured as VARs (voltage,amps reactive), it is used to control voltage and balance generator output by travelling back to the generator and through the windings of the excitation fields and travels back in the circuit in opposition to active power. Often wind generators can't provide this reactive power or are too far away to be effective.It is a strange concept to get your head around and is sometime called phantom power. Google "Reactive Power" for better explanations than mine
Probably what's needed is an explanation of why AC was first used over DC, it can produce far more power(over 100,000 volts) for a given generator size because of the use of three phases and the ease of taking off power from a fixed armature with a rotating field rather than a DC generator with a rotating armature with the output collected from the rotating commutator.
I will contact you by email shortly. I am not an electrical engineer and in fact have only a very basic understanding of electrical systems which are more complex than most people realize. I was first exposed to the complexities of reactive power, phase balancing, voltage and frequency controls etc when I converted onto B727 aircraft many years ago and have had to go back to the books to refresh my memory.
I simply haven't had the time to do a good post on this with the necessary references and make sure that what I am saying is correct.
In both cases grid operators insisted that connecting small external generators would destroy the stability of the grid. The reality was that it is easier, and possibly more profitable, for them to have monopoly control over the grid and that their life is much easier without all those pesky small generators.
Once regulations were passed that forced them to accept small generators, they had no choice and made it work. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar wasn't at work here. Grid operators have always done it the old way and have no incentive to take risks and make changes. Allowing wind into the grid is all risk and no gain to them. However, it is a small risk and huge gain to society.
In the case of netmetering, the grid operators were reminded there were more important interests at work than them having easy jobs. And now the electricity delivered to the grid by small generators is far greater than the levels that the engineers said would bring the whole system to a halt.
I am just bringing this up as an example and to show that the various interests involved in the discussion each have their biases. I do not know if this is the case here, only that the similarities are remarkable.
Lessons In Electric Circuits -- Volume II
Copyright (C) 2000-2006, Tony R. Kuphaldt
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/index.html
Chapter 11
Power in resistive and reactive AC circuits
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/AC_11.html
Power Systems Engineering Research Center
What is Reactive Power?
Peter W. Sauer, Dept. Electrical and Computer Engineering
Univ. Illinois
http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/Sauer_Reactive%20Power_Sep%202003.pdf
Regulatory and economic issues:
Federal Energy Regulatory System
Principles for Efficient and Reliable Reactive Power Supply and Consumption
Staff Report * Docket No. AD05-1-000 * February 4, 2005 (warning - 177 pages!)
http://ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20050310144430-02-04-05-reactive-power.pdf
--... ...-- ;-)
Four very good links there. I have read the one by Peter Sauer. The last link on page 7 has a good insight to part of the problem
CW
It sounds like you are an electrical engineer. I feel as though I am going round and round in circles concerning renewables and grid stability and I think that TOD would benefit from a well informed guest post on this subject.
Currently I have settled on the view that renewables may be balanced against hydro and coal and that a variety of storage strategies such as pumped hydro and batteries may help deliver a stable grid.
So is this a fantasy of renewables enthusiasts (I'm neutral on this) or can it really be made to work with investment and incetivised utilities?
My email is in my contact details - so please get in touch if you are interested in this.
Euan
Recent advances in wind turbines are starting to add limited reactive power and I need to confirm that modern DC conversion does as well (heard that it did but need harder data).
For WTs, adding reactive power adds some cost & complexity and there is currently limited demand for it.
I have some concerns in the UK (which Hz varies instead of V vary as most of US (except Texas) does) is when the grid slows Hz from 50 to 49.85 Hz (example) that the WTs also have to slow down their rotations "at the end of the line".
Proper control systems can be installed, but are they retrofitted to older WTs and new "cost driven" WTs ?
A "small" detail, but a concern of mine.
Best Hopes,
Alan
What do we have to store the energy from wind when we produce on a particular day more than we need?
If a home owner has a microhydro, windturbine, PV, What does she/he do with the excess when they have it? About all we have is the lead acid battery that Ben Franklin even had.
IF we had made advances in STORAGE of energy in the same scale that we have seen in other industries, (Computer chip for example), I would be home free as a home owner generating my own.
Giving it back to the grid to me is not a storage device.
Being involved in the home energy generation field, what you commonly hear is "Dumping it to Ground" or "Heating your hot tub" when your batteries are fully charged.
The advances that I have seen on this and other sites (www.otherpower.com www.fieldlines.com ) are still laboratory curiosities at the present time by and large.
Lead Acid is about the BEST that a personal home owner can get for storage.
John Carr
Zero chemical disposal issues, lifetime of centuries, 81% cycle efficiency, reasonable unit costs.
Sorry if you do not like the grid, but there are good economic & engineering reasons for it's universal use.
Best Hopes,
Alan