• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Environmentally sustainable base load power

The point is that when you cut links with ice storms or the like you end up with something no worse than what you are envisioning as a starting point.
Actually, I was envisioning a starting point at which the lights are on and the fridges are humming. They're just doing it in separate networks instead of a single big one, connected by fragile wires. See, when wires are cut, stuff on this side of the cut keeps working, but stuff on the far side all quits, at the same time, and for all the time it takes to reconnect the wires. Grid pretty much depends on wires. I don't like them.

Ice storm was an example. Hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms, rainstorms, earthquakes, fires, bombs and airplane crashes might be other examples of outside forces that destroy some part of the grid, effecting all the other parts with which it is connected. Computer software, hardware, switch, transformer, wire, sensor, overload, surge, and human error are examples of internal failure that can do the same.
The point is, the more interdependent a large system the larger the area affected by any type or source of local failure. Separate, independent, multi-source systems would each be prone to the same failures, but would go down individually, not like dominoes.
(Bonus: not leaking all that expensive power along every mile it travels, and not endangering so many repair crews in extreme weather.)

None of which, btw, is any judgement on your GenIII nukes, which I have never attacked.
 
Last edited:
Does the regatta take up every inch of river from the springs to the coast? if not, there's space for power generation. You weren't planning to build your plant in the town centre, were you?
Todd River Regatta.

Plenty of water. :D

Ah, ok, that's a more serious problem. The picture I found had gushing water, but I assume that was a photo for tourists?
 
Does the regatta take up every inch of river from the springs to the coast? if not, there's space for power generation. You weren't planning to build your plant in the town centre, were you?
You never looked it up, did you?

Why don't you google it, and tell me where in the Todd River your preferred site would be for a base load river powered generating plant would be.
 
The point is that when you cut links with ice storms or the like you end up with something no worse than what you are envisioning as a starting point.
Actually, I was envisioning a starting point at which the lights are on and the fridges are humming. They're just doing it in separate networks instead of a single big one, connected by fragile wires. See, when wires are cut, stuff on this side of the cut keeps working, but stuff on the far side all quits, at the same time, and for all the time it takes to reconnect the wires. Grid pretty much depends on wires. I don't like them.

Ice storm was an example. Hurricanes, tornadoes, snowstorms, rainstorms, earthquakes, fires, bombs and airplane crashes might be other examples of outside forces that destroy some part of the grid, effecting all the other parts with which it is connected. Computer software, hardware, switch, transformer, wire, sensor, overload, surge, and human error are examples of internal failure that can do the same.
The point is, the more interdependent a large system the larger the area affected by any type or source of local failure. Separate, independent, multi-source systems would each be prone to the same failures, but would go down individually, not like dominoes.
(Bonus: not leaking all that expensive power along every mile it travels, and not endangering so many repair crews in extreme weather.)

None of which, btw, is any judgement on your GenIII nukes, which I have never attacked.

This is fucking idiotic. A large portion of my degree is network engineering. The larger the network, the more likely it is that some part of it is in some state of failure, sure, and every failure has some impact on the routing and load level of the rest of the network. The way you are intensely wrong, however, is that ONLY when a network is sufficiently large can it absorb the effects of local failure without consequences to its constituents. Preserving a network against the failure of a distribution node requires redundant nodes, and redundant nodes are only cost effective if they reduce load towards other network elements. This is seen in both data networks and electrical networks. It is why japan was able to get The lights on again after the tsunami, despite a nuke going offline. It is why a data center power outage at google doesn't disrupt services, and why a power outage in chicago doesn't stop a customer in New York from using TIVO. Things get slower, but nobody notices

Those 'unnecessary' connections that you are screaming about, they exist to stop the problems that you say they cause. And you are not an engineer, so why are you saying engineers here are wrong about engineer things?
 
Solar plus storage might work very well - once a practical storage system is developed that does not rely on both mountainous terrain and large volumes if water (neither of which is available anywhere near Alice Springs).

But there is a national grid, right? If there isn't, adding base load is going to a problem, because power consumption isn't that stable. And if there is a grid, the local conditions in Alice Springs don't really matter, do they?
There is a grid, but it isn't suited to shunting the entire town's power to the nearest place with mountains and water (and back) twice a day. Alice Springs is remote. Very, very remote. From everything.
Solar power is certainly a good idea in Alice Springs and similar desert cities; but it has to be backed up with reliable base load power plants, at least until new cheap, reliable, high-capacity storage is available. That could be several decades away.

About the same horizon as replacing existing coal base load generation.
Ah, here you are comparing apples to orange pips. A Gen III power plant takes about five years from the beginning of construction to commissioning. The designs are already drawn up; some have already been built. It is an established technology at commercial scale. Construction to replace aged coal plants could start tomorrow.

The guesstimate of 'several decades away' could perhaps, with all the best luck and a following wind, be only twice as long; or it could just as easily be more than six times as long. Cheap, reliable, high-capacity storage technology doesn't currently exist - except pumped storage hydro, for which suitable sites largely do not exist (certainly not in the Alice Springs scenario). If a workable idea came up tomorrow, it would likely be five to ten years before a working prototype was built; mass deployment would then still likely be five to ten years away. And it might take another decade again for production of whatever is needed for the things to be ramped up to a level that produces economies of scale etc. And it is at that point - not now, but 10-30 years from now - that you could START the process of replacing coal plants as they reach EOL.

Five years vs 'several decades' is not "about the same horizon"; not even close.
 
1. There is a finite level of renewable usable energy sources.
2. Population is growing without bound.
3. Growing population increase energy demands.
4. Under the capitalism growth model increasing population means increasing production of non essential goods increasing energy demands.
5. Without population controls sustainable energy is pissing in the wind. The current paradigms are not sustainable even with renewable sources.
 
1. There is a finite level of renewable usable energy sources.
Technically true, but irrelevant; Solar output is vastly more power than we could ever use.
2. Population is growing without bound.
No, it isn't. The best current demographic estimates have population stabilizing at 10 billion or so in about 35 years time.
3. Growing population increase energy demands.
True, but not anywhere even close as fast as growing technology does. Raw population is one of the least important contributors to demand.
4. Under the capitalism growth model increasing population means increasing production of non essential goods increasing energy demands.
So what? There is plenty of energy, and population has stopped growing, absent demographic lag effects.
5. Without population controls sustainable energy is pissing in the wind. The current paradigms are not sustainable even with renewable sources.
Tripe. Your conclusion is based on a series of false premises, and as a result is completely wrong.

If you want to revisit the interminable and pointless debate about the non-problem of population growth, there are plenty of other threads on which to do so. Please don't derail this one.
 
The point is, the more interdependent a large system the larger the area affected by any type or source of local failure. Separate, independent, multi-source systems would each be prone to the same failures, but would go down individually, not like dominoes.
(Bonus: not leaking all that expensive power along every mile it travels, and not endangering so many repair crews in extreme weather.)

I disagree--a properly designed grid harmlessly absorbs most failures and when it can't it should only cause localized failure. You just don't realize how well it does work--power plant trips are common but almost never cause more than a blink.
 
I disagree--a properly designed grid harmlessly absorbs most failures and when it can't it should only cause localized failure. You just don't realize how well it does work--power plant trips are common but almost never cause more than a blink.
A properly designed grid should do that, yes. The one we have, not so much.
I realize I'm a fucking idiot who knows nothing about anything.... except that I don't pay outrageous hydro bills and when the lights go out all up and down the road, I still get to watch Doctor Who. I like that. I'd like other people to have that. Maybe it's unreasonable.
 
I disagree--a properly designed grid harmlessly absorbs most failures and when it can't it should only cause localized failure. You just don't realize how well it does work--power plant trips are common but almost never cause more than a blink.
A properly designed grid should do that, yes. The one we have, not so much.
I realize I'm a fucking idiot who knows nothing about anything.... except that I don't pay outrageous hydro bills and when the lights go out all up and down the road, I still get to watch Doctor Who. I like that. I'd like other people to have that. Maybe it's unreasonable.

It is certainly unreasonable to bang on about it in a thread about environmentally sustainable base load power. If you want to discuss the reliability of your local power grid, why not start a thread for that?
 
Solar plus storage might work very well - once a practical storage system is developed that does not rely on both mountainous terrain and large volumes if water (neither of which is available anywhere near Alice Springs).

But there is a national grid, right? If there isn't, adding base load is going to a problem, because power consumption isn't that stable. And if there is a grid, the local conditions in Alice Springs don't really matter, do they?
There is a grid, but it isn't suited to shunting the entire town's power to the nearest place with mountains and water (and back) twice a day. Alice Springs is remote. Very, very remote. From everything.

In that case base load is a bit of a problem. You say you can't store energy easily, and can't rely on buffering from the grid, so you'll have to constantly adjust power generation to match consumption. For that to work you need as little base load as possible, a focus on energy conservation to smooth the spikes, and lots of small power generation facilities to spread the risk of outage and allow switching on and off rapidly. There may be a small role for a base load plant that runs all the time, but in a place as remote as Alice Springs, you'll need to arrange for a steady stream of fuel, waste disposal, expertise etc. to run a base load plant, and that's going to be expensive.

Togo said:
About the same horizon as replacing existing coal base load generation.
Ah, here you are comparing apples to orange pips. A Gen III power plant takes about five years from the beginning of construction to commissioning. The designs are already drawn up; some have already been built. It is an established technology at commercial scale. Construction to replace aged coal plants could start tomorrow.

Sure, but not all of them at once. You only want to replace plants at or near the end of their life, and there isn't capacity to replace all the coal plants immediately, even if you wanted to.

Meanwhile, we already have fuel cell powered machinery, and hydrogen power plants, both using hydrogen as an energy storage medium. And you can make hydrogen using solar power, which, around Alice Springs, is available in abundance.

bilby said:
If a workable idea came up tomorrow, it would likely be five to ten years before a working prototype was built; ...

No need. We already have working plants producing power.
 
Solar plus storage might work very well - once a practical storage system is developed that does not rely on both mountainous terrain and large volumes if water (neither of which is available anywhere near Alice Springs).

But there is a national grid, right? If there isn't, adding base load is going to a problem, because power consumption isn't that stable. And if there is a grid, the local conditions in Alice Springs don't really matter, do they?
There is a grid, but it isn't suited to shunting the entire town's power to the nearest place with mountains and water (and back) twice a day. Alice Springs is remote. Very, very remote. From everything.

In that case base load is a bit of a problem. You say you can't store energy easily, and can't rely on buffering from the grid, so you'll have to constantly adjust power generation to match consumption. For that to work you need as little base load as possible, a focus on energy conservation to smooth the spikes, and lots of small power generation facilities to spread the risk of outage and allow switching on and off rapidly. There may be a small role for a base load plant that runs all the time, but in a place as remote as Alice Springs, you'll need to arrange for a steady stream of fuel, waste disposal, expertise etc. to run a base load plant, and that's going to be expensive.

Togo said:
About the same horizon as replacing existing coal base load generation.
Ah, here you are comparing apples to orange pips. A Gen III power plant takes about five years from the beginning of construction to commissioning. The designs are already drawn up; some have already been built. It is an established technology at commercial scale. Construction to replace aged coal plants could start tomorrow.

Sure, but not all of them at once. You only want to replace plants at or near the end of their life, and there isn't capacity to replace all the coal plants immediately, even if you wanted to.

Meanwhile, we already have fuel cell powered machinery, and hydrogen power plants, both using hydrogen as an energy storage medium. And you can make hydrogen using solar power, which, around Alice Springs, is available in abundance.

bilby said:
If a workable idea came up tomorrow, it would likely be five to ten years before a working prototype was built; ...

No need. We already have working plants producing power.

Really? At what scale? Could you refer me to an example of such a facility that is not pumped storage hydro?
 
Really? At what scale? Could you refer me to an example of such a facility that is not pumped storage hydro?


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...0403-fuel-cells-hydrogen-wal-mart-stationary/


Electricity for Homes and Businesses

The world’s largest fuel cell plant, a 59-megawatt facility in South Korea that opened earlier this year, provides both power and heat to homes in Hwasung. Another fuel cell “park” is set to be built in Seoul. Those cities join several municipalities and companies that are using fuel cell power plants to provide baseload electricity for homes, data centers, fulfillment centers, and similar applications.
 
Really? At what scale? Could you refer me to an example of such a facility that is not pumped storage hydro?


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...0403-fuel-cells-hydrogen-wal-mart-stationary/


Electricity for Homes and Businesses

The world’s largest fuel cell plant, a 59-megawatt facility in South Korea that opened earlier this year, provides both power and heat to homes in Hwasung. Another fuel cell “park” is set to be built in Seoul. Those cities join several municipalities and companies that are using fuel cell power plants to provide baseload electricity for homes, data centers, fulfillment centers, and similar applications.

Well it's a start; but 59MW wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.

That's a one megawatt supply for not much more than two days. A base load plant is maybe a gigawatt. To reproduce that with solar, you need at least 2GW of generation capacity plus a GW of storage - just to cope with nighttime. More if you expect to ever see heavy cloud. And wind power has even longer dead periods.

On the other hand, Gen III ABWR nukes in the 1.06GW range are up and running - there are IIRC half a dozen such in Japan alone.
 
Really? At what scale? Could you refer me to an example of such a facility that is not pumped storage hydro?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...0403-fuel-cells-hydrogen-wal-mart-stationary/


Electricity for Homes and Businesses

The world’s largest fuel cell plant, a 59-megawatt facility in South Korea that opened earlier this year, provides both power and heat to homes in Hwasung. Another fuel cell “park” is set to be built in Seoul. Those cities join several municipalities and companies that are using fuel cell power plants to provide baseload electricity for homes, data centers, fulfillment centers, and similar applications.

Well it's a start; but 59MW wouldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding.

Sure, but it's well in advance of a prototype. It's an established commercial technology.

And as I was saying, big is worse in this case. Small plants are exactly what you need. One big plant is asking for trouble.

That's a one megawatt supply for not much more than two days. A base load plant is maybe a gigawatt. To reproduce that with solar, you need at least 2GW of generation capacity plus a GW of storage - just to cope with nighttime. More if you expect to ever see heavy cloud.

Still cheap, though. And it's not like you're hurting for space to put up collectors.

On the other hand, Gen III ABWR nukes in the 1.06GW range are up and running - there are IIRC half a dozen such in Japan alone.

Just not very suitable for this situation.
 
Still cheap, though. And it's not like you're hurting for space to put up collectors.
How would various parts of Australia provide sufficient storage for all the solar energy it collects?
 
Still cheap, though. And it's not like you're hurting for space to put up collectors.
How would various parts of Australia provide sufficient storage for all the solar energy it collects?

By using it to synthesise hydrogen. As far as I know we're only considering Alice Springs though.
 
Still cheap, though. And it's not like you're hurting for space to put up collectors.
How would various parts of Australia provide sufficient storage for all the solar energy it collects?

By using it to synthesise hydrogen. As far as I know we're only considering Alice Springs though.
Interesting. If it could work for Alice it could work for a lot of other places.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage
 
The 77 NYC area blackout. The best laid plans of mice and men.

Making a national grid fault tolerant and automatically responsive to conditions would be a monumental task.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_blackout_of_1977#Cause

'...The events leading up to the blackout began at 8:37 p.m. EDT on July 13 with a lightning strike at Buchanan South, a substation on the Hudson River, tripping two circuit breakers in Buchanan, New York. The Buchanan South substation converted the 345,000 volts of electricity from Indian Point to lower voltage for commercial use. A loose locking nut combined with a tardy upgrade cycle prevented the breaker from reclosing and allowing power to flow again.
A second lightning strike caused the loss of two 345 kV transmission lines, subsequent reclose of only one of the lines, and the loss of power from a 900MW nuclear plant at Indian Point. As a result of the strikes, two other major transmission lines became loaded over their normal limits. Per procedure, Con Edison, the power provider for New York City and some of Westchester County, tried to start fast-start generation at 8:45 p.m. EDT; however, no one was manning the station, and the remote start failed.
At 8:55 p.m. EDT, there was another lightning strike, which took out two additional critical transmission lines. As before, only one of the lines was automatically returned to service. This outage of lines from the Sprain Brook substation caused the remaining lines to exceed the long-term operating limits of their capacity. After this last failure, Con Edison had to manually reduce the loading on another local generator at their East River facility, due to problems at the plant. This exacerbated an already dire situation.
At 9:14 p.m. EDT, over 30 minutes from the initial event, New York Power Pool Operators in Guilderland called for Con Edison operators to "shed load." In response, Con Ed operators initiated first a 5% system-wide voltage reduction and then an 8% reduction. These steps had to be completed sequentially and took many minutes. These steps were done in accordance with Con Ed's use of the words "shed load" while the Power Pool operators had in mind opening feeders to immediately drop about 1500 MW of load, not reduce voltage to reduce load a few hundred MW.
At 9:19 p.m. EDT the final major interconnection to Upstate New York at Leeds substation tripped due to thermal overload which caused the 345kV conductors to sag excessively into an unidentified object. This trip caused the 138 kV links with Long Island to overload, and a major interconnection with PSEG in New Jersey began to load even higher than previously reported.
At 9:22 p.m. EDT, Long Island Lighting Company opened its 345 kV interconnection to Con Edison to reduce power that was flowing through its system and overloading 138 kV submarine cables between Long Island and Connecticut. While Long Island operators were securing permission from the Power Pool operators to open their 345 kV tie to New York City, phase shifters between New York City and New Jersey were being adjusted to correct heavy flows, and this reduced the loading on the 115 kV cables. The Long Island operators didn't notice the drop in 115 kV cable loadings and went ahead with opening their 345 kV tie to New York City.
At 9:24 p.m. EDT, the Con Edison operator tried and failed to manually shed load by dropping customers. Five minutes later, at 9:29 p.m. EDT, the Goethals-Linden 230 kV interconnection with New Jersey tripped, and the Con Edison system automatically began to isolate itself from the outside world through the action of protective devices that remove overloaded lines, transformers, and cables from service.[2]
Con Ed could not generate enough power within the city, and the three power lines that supplemented the city's power were overtaxed. Just after 9:27 p.m. EDT, the biggest generator in New York City, Ravenswood 3 (also known as "Big Allis"), shut down. With it went all of New York City.[3]
By 9:36 p.m. EDT, the entire Con Edison power system shut down, almost exactly an hour after the first lightning strike. By 10:26 p.m. EDT operators started a restoration procedure. Power was not restored until late the following day. Among the outcomes of the blackout were detailed restoration procedures that are well documented and used in operator training to reduce restoration time.

As a result of the 1977 blackout, the operating entities in New York fully investigated the blackout, its related causes, and the operator actions. They implemented significant changes, which are still in effect today, to guard against a similar occurrence. Despite these safeguards, there was a blackout in August 2003, although this was caused by a power system failure as far away as Eastlake, Ohio...'

This one I remember. No matter how much we computerize and automate, there is always human error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_blackout_of_1965

.
 
Back
Top Bottom