Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

General Discussion about electric vehicles.
User avatar
neptronix   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 13879
Joined: Jun 15 2010 5:56pm
Location: California refugee living in Utah, USA
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by neptronix » Aug 12 2019 5:28pm

At a local google STEM PR event, i was talking shop to a guy running a solar panel company's booth. Of course the conversation turned to electric cars and electric bikes. After showing some pictures of what i'd built, he decided to hand me one of these solar car toy thingies as a thanks for showing him some cool stuff 8)
solar-car.jpg
solar-car.jpg (105.19 KiB) Viewed 179 times
It's literally just a solar panel wired to the tiniest electric motor you've ever seen. Put it in the sun, and the wheels spin like mad.

It got me thinking about how the difficulties we have with energy today are mostly a problem of scale. An average car on America's roads is 4000lbs and designed to seat 5 people, yet 90% of what cars are used for is getting back and forth to work, getting groceries, the kinds of duties you'd not need a 4000lbs vehicle for exactly.

Meanwhile many of here use a 30-100lbs ebike for the same task.
Or you could use a 150-500lbs motorcycle for the same task.
Or a 1lbs pair of converse sneakers might work too.

If we continue to have a transportation system based on the 4000lbs vehicle, there is no winning move in this game of chess.

Maybe the mainstream transport should be more like the tiny solar car.
Efficiency is everything :bolt:

My first major build: 1.6kW 8T MAC motor on a Trek 4500.
The new all-arounder: Leafmotor 1500w @ 4kW on a Turner O2 full suspension.
The monster scooter: 20" eZee on a Cannondale Semi Recumbent.
Whipper-snapper: ? on a lightweight BikeE Semi Recumbent

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9914
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 12 2019 7:27pm

Punx0r wrote:
Aug 12 2019 12:53pm
Hillhater wrote:
Aug 12 2019 11:21am


A little late jim...we discussed this a month ago. But no one could answer my questions..such as...how can power from the battery cost less than the power used to charge it ?
To put it another way, you've had a month and still haven't worked that out? :D
Why dont you summarise that for me then ?....
..... or are you still trying to figure out an excuse for what caused the partial grid shutdown and black out in the UK of Friday ? :roll:
As i keep saying ,.... your collective refusal to post answers to simple questions says about your actual knowledge.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
ZeroEm   100 W

100 W
Posts: 102
Joined: May 03 2019 11:53am
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by ZeroEm » Aug 12 2019 9:41pm

by neptronix » Aug 12 2019 5:28pm
It got me thinking about how the difficulties we have with energy today are mostly a problem of scale. An average car on America's roads is 4000lbs and designed to seat 5 people, yet 90% of what cars are used for is getting back and forth to work, getting groceries, the kinds of duties you'd not need a 4000lbs vehicle for exactly.

Meanwhile many of here use a 30-100lbs ebike for the same task.
Or you could use a 150-500lbs motorcycle for the same task.
Or a 1lbs pair of converse sneakers might work too.
Totally agree, similar words came out of my mouth today!
I now use my bike for anything up to ten miles away (20 round trip) and try to go in the morning. 103F today!
The journey is more important than the destination!
2013 Nissan Leaf S 8 bars 4.9 miles/Kw

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9914
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 12 2019 10:11pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Aug 12 2019 4:32pm
.....Lots of interesting details, like costs based on 35 year project life, the "7% of LA" number is actually 7.1% of LADWP customer demand.
7.1% of the LADWP 22,500 GWh annual demand would be 1600 GWh..which would require an annual average CF of over 0.45 ? Unheard of for solar PV. !
Also the article quoted stated the expected solar output was 876. GWh annually...much more believable....but only 3.9% of demand !
Someone needs to check their figures.
35 years for a battery being cycled every day ??? :roll:
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9914
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 13 2019 3:20am

neptronix wrote:
Aug 12 2019 5:28pm
It got me thinking about how the difficulties we have with energy today are mostly a problem of scale. An average car on America's roads is 4000lbs and designed to seat 5 people, yet 90% of what cars are used for is getting back and forth to work, getting groceries, the kinds of duties you'd not need a 4000lbs vehicle for exactly.

Meanwhile many of here use a 30-100lbs ebike for the same task.
Or you could use a 150-500lbs motorcycle for the same task.

Maybe the mainstream transport should be more like the tiny solar car.
Bicycles, Ebikes, motor cycles (Honda Cub) ,...have all proved viable personal transport for millions of people, but they cannot fit the need fo getting the kids to school, granny to the doctors, kit from the hardware store, chair from Ikea, etc
The ultimate solution would be the introduction of cheap, autonamous', on demand , “share cars/ taxi’s” . That would eventually eliminate the need for personal vehicle ownership, and eliminate millions of cars from the roads, as well as the need for vast parking facilities.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5161
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Aug 13 2019 3:47am

Hillhater wrote:
Aug 12 2019 7:27pm
Why dont you summarise that for me then ?....
..... or are you still trying to figure out an excuse for what caused the partial grid shutdown and black out in the UK of Friday ? :roll:
As i keep saying ,.... your collective refusal to post answers to simple questions says about your actual knowledge.
We can't spoonfeed you everything - this isn't kiddy school any more and you're expected to be capable of independent learning at this level, or at least apply a little critical thinking :)

That said, Jimw1960 already posted you a link...

You are correct, there was a 40 minute blackout in the UK after a gas plant tripped out ("RWE said its power plant shut down automatically due to a technical issue which is “not uncommon” at power plants" and minutes later an offshore wind farm also tripped out (no explanation yet).

"National Grid called on backup electricity providers to ramp up their output within seconds of the unplanned outages. Some of these backup suppliers include small-scale power plant owners, battery operators and even supermarket fridges.

Usually these backup contracts can stabilise the frequency of the electricity grid before the frequency drops too far, but on Friday the safety net was not enough to stop parts of the grid from automatically shutting down.

National Grid gave the all-clear for these networks to begin restarting their system 15 minutes after the outages. It said that by 5.40pm [the gas plant went offline at 5:00pm] all the regional electricity networks had managed to restart their systems and restore power to their customers."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... t-blackout

The UK grid has quite low levels of reserve (lower than used to be) and there have been warnings that events like this were a risk. Still, I can live with an occasional <1hr outage. I remember multi-hour cuts several times a year 10-20 years ago. Care to try and spin this as being the fault of RE? Remember the gas plant went offline first - easy to claim the unreliable fossil generator caused the windfarm to trip out in a cascade failure!

Also, how long was that outage in New York?

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 772
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Aug 13 2019 8:41am

Punx0r wrote:
Aug 13 2019 3:47am
That said, Jimw1960 already posted you a link...
Minor correction. I didn't post him a link. I'm through trying to explain anything to his ignorant self. I'm quite sure he did not bother to watch the video, which was packed with technical details and references to other details that can be looked up. Yet he feels qualified to challenge the math of three technical experts in their field who were testifying in a public meeting to their board of commissioners, who are also experts in the field.

Not sure if you got a chance to watch, but it led me to some more info on the battery design. It is the same concept used in the Beacon Solar Project, which already has proven operational experience, only this project is 120 times the size! they also discuss how the battery is charged only by the variable top end of the solar output, so that, essentially, the solar panels provide a smooth 200 MW baseload until 7pm, when the battery takes over. Basically, the solar system changes from intermittent to dispatchable energy from 7am until 11pm. Also, some really good projections of their future renewables build-out which is on track to get them to 60% renewables by 2030! Maybe there is hope for the world.

Fact sheet on Beacon Solar Plant BESS: http://www.doosangridtech.com/datafile/ ... 178847.pdf
Last edited by jimw1960 on Aug 13 2019 10:21am, edited 1 time in total.

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5161
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Aug 13 2019 9:47am

For some people their own intuition is the highest possible authority on any subject ;)

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1164
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Aug 13 2019 11:14am

jimw1960 wrote:
Aug 12 2019 4:32pm
Seriously, it took me all of a few minutes to find out how the per-kWh cost estimates were derived. Anyone interested can find the presentation by LA Dept. of Water and Power staff to their board of commissioners here: http://ladwp.granicus.com/ViewPublisher ... 0843836842 just go to the June 18 meeting video. The presentation begins exactly at hour 3:00:00 in the video so you can skip all the previous discussion of data security and HR issues. Lots of interesting details, like costs based on 35 year project life, the "7% of LA" number is actually 7.1% of LADWP customer demand.
Some points to keep in mind from the video to keep the discussion running true: What State and Federal incentives are being leveraged to offer the bid price of $20/ MWh for the solar pv. Is the Federal Government still subsidizing new grid scale solar at $33/ MWH as it has been? And how much more is the State chipping in? The actual build price could be $60?/ MWh over 25 years. And, the pricing of the battery / MWh shows the "price adder" for going from a 100MW/ 400MWh battery, to a 150MW/ 600MWh battery is exactly 50% higher. So the battery pricing is just a capacity price and has nothing to do with the sale of the electricity from the battery. As in "buy low, sell high" the way that the Hornsdale BigF'nBattery is often quoted. Since this battery is on site with the dedicated overproduction of the generation and is not really farming from the greater grid. The battery price is just a CAP cost and has nothing to do with the sale of the electricity from the battery. And how much are the State and Federal subsidies applicable for the build of the grid scale battery that are not shown separately in the pricing?

User avatar
jimw1960   10 kW

10 kW
Posts: 772
Joined: Jul 23 2008 4:44pm
Location: San Antonio, TX

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by jimw1960 » Aug 13 2019 1:42pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Aug 13 2019 11:14am

Some points to keep in mind from the video to keep the discussion running true: What State and Federal incentives are being leveraged to offer the bid price of $20/ MWh for the solar pv. Is the Federal Government still subsidizing new grid scale solar at $33/ MWH as it has been? And how much more is the State chipping in? The actual build price could be $60?/ MWh over 25 years. And, the pricing of the battery / MWh shows the "price adder" for going from a 100MW/ 400MWh battery, to a 150MW/ 600MWh battery is exactly 50% higher. So the battery pricing is just a capacity price and has nothing to do with the sale of the electricity from the battery. As in "buy low, sell high" the way that the Hornsdale BigF'nBattery is often quoted. Since this battery is on site with the dedicated overproduction of the generation and is not really farming from the greater grid. The battery price is just a CAP cost and has nothing to do with the sale of the electricity from the battery. And how much are the State and Federal subsidies applicable for the build of the grid scale battery that are not shown separately in the pricing?
As far as I can tell, those costs per MWh fro the new California project are unsubsidized. I'm still looking for info about that, though. If you find any info about subsidies for this project or similar recent projects, let me know. With that said, I am OK with some level of subsidy because we are competing with highly subsidized gas and coal generation, which also generate huge externalities that they don't have to pay for, but cause huge cost to society.

Edit:
Still studying up on the subsidy issue. This article suggest that the production tax credit for wind energy goes away at the end of this year and the investment tax credit subsidy for commercial scale solar will drop from 30% to 10% in 2021. https://www.ewg.org/energy/22777/federa ... -our-money

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1164
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Aug 13 2019 1:58pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Aug 13 2019 1:42pm
I'm still looking for info about that, though. If you find any info about subsidies for this project or similar recent projects, let me know. With that said, I am OK with some level of subsidy because we are competing with highly subsidized gas and coal generation, which also generate huge externalities that they don't have to pay for, but cause huge cost to society.
This is another blindspot. Gas and coal electricity actually get very little in subsidies per MWh produced because the production is so high.
.
.
Image
.
.
Image
.
.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9914
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 13 2019 4:12pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Aug 13 2019 11:14am
And, the pricing of the battery / MWh shows the "price adder" for going from a 100MW/ 400MWh battery, to a 150MW/ 600MWh battery is exactly 50% higher. So the battery pricing is just a capacity price and has nothing to do with the sale of the electricity from the battery. As in "buy low, sell high" the way that the Hornsdale BigF'nBattery is often quoted. Since this battery is on site with the dedicated overproduction of the generation and is not really farming from the greater grid. The battery price is just a CAP cost and has nothing to do with the sale of the electricity from the battery. And how much are the State and Federal subsidies applicable for the build of the grid scale battery that are not shown separately in the pricing?
I think you are miss reading that sendler.
There are no hint of capital costs in any of the information,..only costs per kWh...wholesale to LAWPD.
2.0 c/kWh for supply direct from solar.
1.3c/kWh “adder” for power from the battery...so effectively 3.3 c/kWh (100MW/400MWh battery)
0.67c/kWh “adder” additional , effectively 4.0c/kWh, if the 150MW/600MWh battery is used.
( Note..wholesale price of nuclear power is less than 4 c/kWh !)
Why supply from a bigger battery should cost more per unit is interesting ?
Wouldnt you just go with another of the 100/400MWh battery systems instead and keep the lower price.
I wonder what the kW cost would be for a GW of battery supply ?
At the end of the day, this 150 MW is not going to go far towards helping with the 6+ GW peak that LA experiences
And it certainly does nothing for a secure 24 hr supply.
Even if they never have a cloudy day .
Also, whilst these are wholesale costs, does anyone actually believe the final retail cost to the customer will reduce ? Has any Solar/Wind utility installation anywhere, ever reduced the final retail cost ?
California itself is a good example of the effects of RE on power costs .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1164
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Aug 13 2019 5:15pm

So they get to charge more for every MWh delivered just because they built a bigger battery? That makes no sense.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9914
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 13 2019 5:33pm

Punx0r wrote:
Aug 13 2019 3:47am
Hillhater wrote:
Aug 12 2019 7:27pm
Why dont you summarise that for me then ?....
..... or are you still trying to figure out an excuse for what caused the partial grid shutdown and black out in the UK of Friday ? :roll:
As i keep saying ,.... your collective refusal to post answers to simple questions says about your actual knowledge.
We can't spoonfeed you everything - this isn't kiddy school any more and you're expected to be capable of independent learning at this level, or at least apply a little critical thinking :)
Ok .. so in other words, ..you dont know .
You are correct, there was a 40 minute blackout in the UK after a gas plant tripped out ("RWE said its power plant shut down automatically due to a technical issue which is “not uncommon” at power plants" and minutes later an offshore wind farm also tripped out (no explanation yet). ...
..... Care to try and spin this as being the fault of RE? Remember the gas plant went offline first - easy to claim the unreliable fossil generator caused the windfarm to trip out in a cascade failure!
Hmm ...as i expected, your bias shines through again.
1)..The blackout was a grid system protection shutdown resulting from a major frequency drop .
2)...That frequency drop was caused by the sudden loss of 850+MW of generation
3) ..the Hornsea offshore windfarm was operating near maximum capacity (1+GW..variable) prior to the shutdown
4).. the Barfield gas generator was operating at about 400 MW prior to shutting down automatically.
5)...The cause , anb timing of the wind farm shutdown is not known publicly ? But, Possibly high wind speed protection or a transmission fault
6)...(and the interesting one !)... the timeline sequence is not known in detail for all events other than the frequency drop out.
It is highly unlikely that a 400MW grid supply loss from the gas plant would affect a wind farm, much less a 60 GW grid, But knowing that the frequency and the 850 MW generation dropped together , firmly points the finger at the wind farm.
All will be revealed when investigations are reported.
The real issue is the reduction of the system stability from the spinning reserve that was provided by the thermal plants, and the subsequent increased sensitivity to changes in generator input.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9914
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 13 2019 5:34pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Aug 13 2019 5:15pm
So they get to charge more for every MWh delivered just because they built a bigger battery? That makes no sense.
It does to 8minute. !
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

billvon   100 MW

100 MW
Posts: 2750
Joined: Sep 16 2007 9:53pm
Location: san diego

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by billvon » Aug 13 2019 5:35pm

sendler2112 wrote:
Aug 13 2019 5:15pm
So they get to charge more for every MWh delivered just because they built a bigger battery? That makes no sense.
Makes perfect sense if that bigger battery allows them to deliver power during a time when utilities pay more for it.
--bill von

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9914
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 13 2019 6:59pm

jimw1960 wrote:
Aug 13 2019 8:41am
..... Yet he feels qualified to challenge the math of three technical experts in their field who were testifying in a public meeting to their board of commissioners, who are also experts in the field.
So you are not prepared to explain the maths that makes 400MW of solar produce 7.1% of 22,500 GWh ?
Yet another side step from a tricky question.

.
.......... they also discuss how the battery is charged only by the variable top end of the solar output, so that, essentially, the solar panels provide a smooth 200 MW baseload until 7pm, when the battery takes over. Basically, the solar system changes from intermittent to dispatchable energy from 7am until 11pm. ......
..providing they have 100% sunshine
....what is the backup plan...import more from other Nuclear or fossil fueled states ?

Those “experts” in the video were not exactly challenged with questions on details, nor were they exactly very keen to respond when they were asked something like..... “what happens after 11pm”.. ..answer..”we have other sources of supply”...Duhh ? ...such as ?..
It looked like a curtesy presentation to formalise a previously done deal .
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5161
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Aug 14 2019 2:49am

Hillhater wrote:
Aug 13 2019 5:33pm
Hmm ...as i expected, your bias shines through again.
1)..The blackout was a grid system protection shutdown resulting from a major frequency drop .
2)...That frequency drop was caused by the sudden loss of 850+MW of generation
3) ..the Hornsea offshore windfarm was operating near maximum capacity (1+GW..variable) prior to the shutdown
4).. the Barfield gas generator was operating at about 400 MW prior to shutting down automatically.
5)...The cause , anb timing of the wind farm shutdown is not known publicly ? But, Possibly high wind speed protection or a transmission fault
6)...(and the interesting one !)... the timeline sequence is not known in detail for all events other than the frequency drop out.
It is highly unlikely that a 400MW grid supply loss from the gas plant would affect a wind farm, much less a 60 GW grid, But knowing that the frequency and the 850 MW generation dropped together , firmly points the finger at the wind farm.
All will be revealed when investigations are reported.
The real issue is the reduction of the system stability from the spinning reserve that was provided by the thermal plants, and the subsequent increased sensitivity to changes in generator input.
1) In a "grid" system that is what tends to happen...
2) Right
3) Yes, I recall storm warnings around that time
4) Uhuh...
5) It's apparently being investigated. Note, no reason was given for why the gas plant automatically shut down, just "it happens"
6) Actually, the timeline is very well known due to clocks and computers and whatnot. "high unlikely"...in your opinon :roll: A 400MW outage can't disrupt a 60GW grid? Again, with the missguided armchair mathematics. A grid is divided into regions. The outage in question affect 1 million out of 20 million households, it wasn't a nationwide blackout :roll: So in Hillhater analysis: 5% of 60GW = 3000MW. 400MW of 3000MW = Abrupt 13% loss of generating capacity for that region.

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9914
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 14 2019 4:01am

Punx0r wrote:
Aug 14 2019 2:49am

6) Actually, the timeline is very well known due to clocks and computers and whatnot. "high unlikely"...in your opinon :roll: A 400MW outage can't disrupt a 60GW grid? Again, with the missguided armchair mathematics. A grid is divided into regions. The outage in question affect 1 million out of 20 million households, it wasn't a nationwide blackout :roll: So in Hillhater analysis: 5% of 60GW = 3000MW. 400MW of 3000MW = Abrupt 13% loss of generating capacity for that region.
Ok..so if it is very well known, what was the EXACT time the Hornsea facility dropped off line ??
The “National Grid” is a “synchronised wide area” network covering all England and Wales.
Ireland and Scotland are connected but not “synchronised”.
The key word being “ synchronised” meaning permanently connected.
So a glitch in a generator in Cumbria , can be detected in Kent....and can all be supported from France if necessary.
The portion that was shut down was simply the simply the subject of a. “ load shedding” disconnection to protect other generators and infrastructure , on the whole grid, from the potentially catastrophic results of frequency loss .
As i said, that 400 MW gas plant would not have disrupted the 60 GW grid !..
......( but it could have automatically shut down as a result of the frequency drop ! :wink: )
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5161
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Aug 14 2019 8:13am

Hillhater wrote:
Aug 14 2019 4:01am
Ok..so if it is very well known, what was the EXACT time the Hornsea facility dropped off line ??
The “National Grid” is a “synchronised wide area” network covering all England and Wales.
Ireland and Scotland are connected but not “synchronised”.
The key word being “ synchronised” meaning permanently connected.
So a glitch in a generator in Cumbria , can be detected in Kent....and can all be supported from France if necessary.
The portion that was shut down was simply the simply the subject of a. “ load shedding” disconnection to protect other generators and infrastructure , on the whole grid, from the potentially catastrophic results of frequency loss .
As i said, that 400 MW gas plant would not have disrupted the 60 GW grid !..
......( but it could have automatically shut down as a result of the frequency drop ! :wink: )
Approximate timings were given to the media by National Grid. I said exact timings were known, but I didn't say by ME. If you disagree then you are supposing that basic error logging and a digital clock is a technology too costly or advanced to be used by power stations or electricity grids. Don't be a fool so desparate to try and spin the order of events opposite to reality.

Can you at least try and be internally consistent in your silly arguments? You claim there is no way the outage of a 400MW can cause a blackout in a 60GW grid, not least because it will be automatically proped up by feeds from other countries, yet you're adament that the outage of 1000MW would topple the system?

Let's sample some more actual evidence: National Grid is under fire for this blackout (incidentally the first in 10 years) not least because they've narrowly avoided three others in the previous three months. Let's check out the details!
In June, the frequency of the grid plummeted to within a whisker of National Grid’s legal limit of 49.5Hz after all three units of EDF Energy’s West Burton gas-fired power plant in Nottinghamshire tripped offline without warning.
Fortunately the fast-acting grid-stablising systems intended to accomodate a large percentage of variable RE generation kicked in to avoid a blackout.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ity-source

When are you going to get it into your head that combustion-based generation is not perfect? They are complex, costly, maintenance-intensive and not particularly reliable. I mean FFS during the prolonged coal shortages in the mid-70's the electicty went off for FOUR DAYS EVERY WEEK FOR 3 MONTHS. And you're making a meal about a ~45 minute outage that affected only 5% of consumers?

sendler2112   100 kW

100 kW
Posts: 1164
Joined: Dec 07 2012 6:14am
Location: Syracuse, NY USA

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by sendler2112 » Aug 14 2019 8:25am


Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9914
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 14 2019 9:58am

Punx0r wrote:
Aug 14 2019 8:13am
Approximate timings were given to the media by National Grid. I said exact timings were known, but I didn't say by ME. If you disagree then you are supposing that basic error logging and a digital clock is a technology too costly or advanced to be used by power stations or electricity grids. Don't be a fool so desparate to try and spin the order of events opposite to reality.

Can you at least try and be internally consistent in your silly arguments? You claim there is no way the outage of a 400MW can cause a blackout in a 60GW grid, not least because it will be automatically proped up by feeds from other countries, yet you're adament that the outage of 1000MW would topple the system? ...
We dont know the exact order of events yet
As i said... some of the detail timings are not known PUBLICLY. Particularly the exact time of the Hornsea shut down.
But, what is known is the frequency drop was caused by a loss of 850+ MWh of generation ..".much more than the gas plants maximum capacity. .?.
And , no, the France interconnector cannot respond fast enough to react to that kind of frequency drop.
Let's sample some more actual evidence: National Grid is under fire for this blackout (incidentally the first in 10 years) not least because they've narrowly avoided three others in the previous three months.

When are you going to get it into your head that combustion-based generation is not perfect? They are complex, costly, maintenance-intensive and not particularly reliable.
No generation system is perfect. But coal & gas is infinitely more reliable than wind or solar, which are not only intermittent, variable when they are operating, and also completely unpredictable !
If that is not enough to make them a total joke, they also introduce huge instability and risk of damage , into existing grid infrastructure and fossil generators.....
......which is precisely why the UK has been seeing those “near miss” events recently, and most likely what caused this last one !
Brace yourself for more !
Last edited by Hillhater on Aug 14 2019 6:11pm, edited 1 time in total.
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

User avatar
neptronix   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 13879
Joined: Jun 15 2010 5:56pm
Location: California refugee living in Utah, USA
Contact:

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by neptronix » Aug 14 2019 4:16pm

ZeroEm wrote:
Aug 12 2019 9:41pm
by neptronix » Aug 12 2019 5:28pm
It got me thinking about how the difficulties we have with energy today are mostly a problem of scale. An average car on America's roads is 4000lbs and designed to seat 5 people, yet 90% of what cars are used for is getting back and forth to work, getting groceries, the kinds of duties you'd not need a 4000lbs vehicle for exactly.

Meanwhile many of here use a 30-100lbs ebike for the same task.
Or you could use a 150-500lbs motorcycle for the same task.
Or a 1lbs pair of converse sneakers might work too.
Totally agree, similar words came out of my mouth today!
I now use my bike for anything up to ten miles away (20 round trip) and try to go in the morning. 103F today!
Rad!

I've also been riding in the heat ( sans motor ) and noticed that if i strategically time my rides, the sun will cast enough shade from buildings and trees that my human engine won't overheat. My bike is a semi recumbent though, and i think this makes for both better ambient cooling, and a lower load from the human engine. Riding an upright w/o motor in this kind of heat is something i never got used to.

I'm dreaming up a way to mount solar panels on the top of one of my recumbents as a means of providing shade during the summer now, and providing a bit of a charge while i roll around. Between that and some seasonal fairing and tire changes ( we get a lot of snow ), i think i might actually be able to do everything on a bike year round.

I'm recovering from a complete bone fracture and find it easier to get in/out of a bike than my economy car, which is particularly low to the ground. 'what about the infirm and elderly?' when it comes to bikes is kind of a BS question.. bikes are the most adaptable vehicle on the planet, and anyone can ride a trike.
Efficiency is everything :bolt:

My first major build: 1.6kW 8T MAC motor on a Trek 4500.
The new all-arounder: Leafmotor 1500w @ 4kW on a Turner O2 full suspension.
The monster scooter: 20" eZee on a Cannondale Semi Recumbent.
Whipper-snapper: ? on a lightweight BikeE Semi Recumbent

Punx0r   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 5161
Joined: May 03 2012 8:16am
Location: England

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Punx0r » Aug 15 2019 2:42am

Hillhater wrote:
Aug 14 2019 9:58am

We dont know the exact order of events yet
As i said... some of the detail timings are not known PUBLICLY. Particularly the exact time of the Hornsea shut down.
But, what is known is the frequency drop was caused by a loss of 850+ MWh of generation ..".much more than the gas plants maximum capacity. .?.
And , no, the France interconnector cannot respond fast enough to react to that kind of frequency drop.
This is painful. Yes, 400MW of gas plant plus the wind farm = 850+ MWh[SIC] of generation. Either going offline on its own likely wouldn't have caused a blackout. Both going offline within a short space of time tipped the grid over the edge.

The gas plant went offline first, followed "some minutes" later by the wind warm. If you have evidence supporting an alternative sequence of events then post it. If not then stop posting misinformation.
Hillhater wrote:
Aug 14 2019 9:58am
And , no, the France interconnector cannot respond fast enough to react to that kind of frequency drop.
Hillhater wrote:
Aug 14 2019 9:58am
The “National Grid” is a “synchronised wide area” network covering all England and Wales.
...
The key word being “ synchronised” meaning permanently connected.
So a glitch in a generator in Cumbria , can be detected in Kent....and can all be supported from France if necessary.
Gotcha. So the interconnectedness of a grid means a gas plant going offline isn't a problem, but with a wind farm, with it's different electricity, the grid can't respond quickly enough and a cascade failure occurs resulting in a blackout :thumb:

Hillhater   100 GW

100 GW
Posts: 9914
Joined: Aug 03 2010 10:33pm
Location: Sydney ..(Hilly part !) .. Australia/ Down under !

Re: Wind and Solar vs Coal, Gasoline, Nuclear

Post by Hillhater » Aug 15 2019 5:56am

Punx0r wrote:
Aug 15 2019 2:42am
This is painful. Yes, 400MW of gas plant plus the wind farm = 850+ MWh[SIC] of generation. Either going offline on its own likely wouldn't have caused a blackout. Both going offline within a short space of time tipped the grid over the edge.

The gas plant went offline first, followed "some minutes" later by the wind warm. If you have evidence supporting an alternative sequence of events then post it. If not then stop posting misinformation.
Yes ..really painful.
We do not know which plant went down first ,...timing for the Hornsea plant has not been released....you are just repeating media reports....
.......unless you have evidence of course ?
Exactly what misinformation do you think i posted ?
So the interconnectedness of a grid means a gas plant going offline isn't a problem, but with a wind farm, with it's different electricity, the grid can't respond quickly enough and a cascade failure occurs resulting in a blackout :thumb:
No.! Read what i said again, and try harder to understand..
The difference between the plants is their CAPACITY....and the frequency dip to 48.77hz that triggered the grid outage, was caused by a generation loss of 850+ MW.
Can you join the dots yet ?
This forum owes its existence to Justin of ebikes.ca

Post Reply