Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

July 29, 2015, 4:19 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

≪ Previous: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by jim2

$

0

0

Rud – Quick bio correction. I have a Masters of Electrical Engineering from University of Southern California, not Caltech. I’ve worked in generation and transmission for over 30 years for different sized utilities, participated and held leadership roles in various research groups and reliability organizations.

David – I don’t think this post needs “credentials” to back it up. The words stand on their own. In a lot of debates there are two perspectives. That’s not really the case here. I don’t think anyone with any knowledge in the field would challenge what we are saying here. (Which is that the characteristics of Microgrids have been exaggerated and spoken of in ways to create misimpressions). As said above, it’s just pandering, parroting and puffery. I don’t know (but I welcome) any rebuttals to the assertions here. Find a source that gives backing to the “claims” that Microgrids in any significant way better facilitate “clean” energy than the traditional grid.

---

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

July 29, 2015, 4:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

$

0

0

Restating what I said below, hopefully more clearly. Grids don’t cause losses. The more transmission conductors and paths (all else equal)-the less losses. Having generation distant from load causes losses. A microgrids limits your flexibility so that you can’t have generation distant from load. You could through choice, willpower or regulation force load and generation to be more balanced in proximity with a traditional grid. We don’t because the interchange across distance so often provides significant benefits (often time “environmental” benefits-not just economic).

At the lowest level a home tied to the grid but providing all it’s own generation causes no losses. A step up two connected cities each in balance won’t cause a lot of losses if they each balance load and generation. But if you want to use excess wind in another area, backup another area because they had an unplanned outage, run more efficient units in one place and back off less efficient units in another – you will get more losses with a big grid, but those options are closed with independent microgrids.

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

July 29, 2015, 4:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

$

0

0

PE

Are quotations from anonymous blog authors considered reliable citations for things like peer reviewed papers, a masters thesis, or even ordinary class homework?

I’m sorry dude if you were all that much you would be an anonymous author riding on Curry’s coattails. Let’s keep it real, eh?

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

July 29, 2015, 4:42 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

$

0

0

“People want different things from the electric supply but low cost is of critical importance to so many.”

Not really. Availability is by far the most critical. A refrigerator for instance uses very little electricity but it’s a health-critical item and must have a constant supply of electricity.

Only 17% of households in the world have a refrigerator. Food (pun intended) for thought.

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

July 29, 2015, 4:50 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

$

0

0

Health care costs for my family are 500% of our electric bill and there’s no preexisting conditions or anything like that driving up costs. Not a cadillac plan or anything like that either. Thousands of dollars in deductables for major problems, $44 copay for doctor visits, etc. I can easily do things to drive down the household electrical consumption but since it’s not a big cost item it isn’t a big concern. What I can’t easily do is drive down the cost of health insurance or avoid illness and accident.

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

July 29, 2015, 4:56 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

$

0

0

My cable TV/internet and cell phone bill is twice the electric bill.

There is very little perspective evident in the author’s concerns and not much better in the commentary. It’s a bit on the senseless side and more than a little obsessive. Both sides of the debate are guilty of it. Blogs attract it like flies to shiit. This is entertainment. Serious, productive endeavors in science and engineering don’t happen on blogs fercrisakes.

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

July 29, 2015, 5:03 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

$

0

0

Engine mechanics pop up as fast as demand for them. Manufacturers provide step by step pictorial instructions in service manuals. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to follow clear instructions. Mostly it takes the proper tools.

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

July 29, 2015, 5:18 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by David Springer

$

0

0

David Springer

Since you care, my BSEE is from The Ohio State University. In terms of Power Engineering when I got my degree I believe they were in the top 5 nationally.

Is there anything said in this piece that is questionable? The case for pairing microgrids and renewables has been made by many without credentials, knowledge or experience but more importantly without explaining the mechanisms of why they would pair well together. If you don’t answer this question, I probably will not engage with you any further, “What parts of this article do you doubt and why?”

I am not offering these blog posts as references to be cited for homework, peer reviewed papers, master’s thesis or public testimony. I offer these pieces as provoking thought and spurring discussion. Some one could build upon the ideas and suggestions I’ve offered and with a little work and ingenuity and submit homework, write a paper, develop a Masters Thesis or bolster their public testimony. Don’t take my word for it. Ask those who tout Microgrids and renewables to explain the mechanisms that provide benefits and how they make up for all the benefits lost by the grid.

I don’t think correlation is causation, but some of the things that no one else was saying when I made some of my early posts, are being said more widely now. Getting ideas out improves the dialogue.

---

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Peter Lang

July 29, 2015, 5:35 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

$

0

0

Rob,

Yes we disagree. I don’t understand what your are basing your beliefs on. Unclear fuel is effectively unlimited and the only known energy source that can power our ever growing per capita energy demand for thousands of years. Renewables cannot. They are not sustainable.

There are massive technical problems with hydrogen as a fuel. The costs and practicalities seem to preclude it being a realistic option in the foreseeable future (storage, distribution, etc.),

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

July 29, 2015, 5:40 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Peter Lang

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Peter Lang

$

0

0

David Springer – I agree with you that electricity is an incredible value and that most of us could and would pay far more for it if need be (while making some cuts in response to price). But not everybody is like you and your neighbors. You reference only 17% of households with refrigerators and mention availability as the prime factor. Cost and availability are inextricably linked. The higher the price the less the availability, the lower the price the more universal the availability. Not everyone has internet, cable TV, cellular phone service or a medical plan and many that do have a tough juggling act among the parts.

But more importantly the cost of electricity says a lot about the ability to support businesses and jobs. Price of electricity is critical to locating production facilities and that becomes of critical importance to many. Business are not altruistic in that they do mind paying a premium for power.

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Peter Lang

July 29, 2015, 5:41 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by blunderbunny

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by aplanningengineer

$

0

0

Rob,

Have you followed the reports of the research into production of transport fuels from sea water. US Navy and Audi both estimate about $3-$6 per gallon using current technology. But that is based on producing hydrogen by electrolysis. If the hydrogen is produced by high temperature nuclear reactors (like the HTR), the cost of the fuel could be halved. Then there will be cost reductions as poduction ramps up and competition and innovation improve processes and reduce costs. Then we have unlimited electricity and unlimited transport fuels. And no need to replace all our transport systems and and fuel distribution and storage systems.

Comment on Hansen’s backfire by blunderbunny

July 29, 2015, 5:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Roger Caiazza

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Peter Lang

$

0

0

Never been a big Hansen fan, but he can spark a discussion and that in itself is a good thing. The advancement of science kinda depends on it. As always the big question in all of this is sensitivity. Hansen’s now trying to show that even the lower ends of the range are dangerous. Personally, I don’t think he’s done a good job but I actually think that was the point. None of this occurs in a vacuum and this is really a political endeavour. Unfortunately he’s become more of an advocate than a scientist these days. As to the wider question of what sensitivity is and what’s a safe range. I think the pause is important to this. As it would indicate that sensitivity is on the lower side and that natural variations play a similarly significant part. With regards to what’s safe and what’s not, I think that’s very interesting and it’s one of the reasons I follow the discussions on this site avidly. The world is not really steady state. It’s not a friendly environment generally. We have the good fortune to have experienced relatively benign and temperate conditions. In the short term I don’t think this will change very much even with our influences. Longer term.. The planet has spent longer swathed in ice than not, maybe we should be concerned more about that. A kilometre of ice above your head can kinda spoil your day….

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Roger Caiazza

July 29, 2015, 5:56 am

≫ Next: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

≪ Previous: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by blunderbunny

$

0

0

I wish the politicians in New York had been reading the excellent posts by Planning Engineer and Rud Istavan, albeit the chance that they would have incorporated any of their cautionary tales is remote. Meanwhile, they are pushing ahead with their plan to revolutionize the electric sector.

On July 28, the New York State Department of Public Service released a proposal to revise the economic interests of utilities with the State’s Reforming the Energy Vision (REV) proceeding (http://documents.dps.ny.gov/public/MatterManagement/CaseMaster.aspx?MatterCaseNo=14-m-0101&submit=Search+by+Case+Number document – 7/28/15 White Paper on Ratemaking and Utility Business Models). The summary in this document outlines the “plan”.

The Framework Order recognized that utilities must retain their universal service obligations to maintain a delivery system that provides reliable, resilient power at just and reasonable rates. The Commission was also clear that the changes contemplated in REV must ensure that the State be able to achieve or exceed its goals to protect the environment through increased use of energy efficiency and renewable energy, coupled with market enabling measures that integrate those resources in a manner that achieves both economic and environmental sustainability. New York’s State Energy Plan corroborated this statement, establishing that New York will achieve, by 2030, a 40% reduction in greenhouse gases and 50% of electricity from renewable sources. As recognized in the plan, reforming ratemaking approaches so utility interests are appropriately aligned with achieving these targets is essential.

The Commission found that significant technological innovation in software and hardware systems that improve the intelligence and flexibility of the delivery system, and similar advances that have significantly reduced the cost and increased the value of DERs, present the opportunity to fundamentally improve how utilities meet their service obligations. The Commission stated that business-as-usual is no longer a viable option for meeting its statutory responsibilities to New Yorkers.

Utilities now have the ability to capture the value of third-party supplied customer-sited resources and a smarter grid to improve the reliability, resiliency, and value of the system. When enabled by adequate information and pricing, DERs can drive greater system efficiencies, facilitate the integration of variable renewable resources both in front of and behind the meter, and reduce the overall energy bill for the benefit of all New York customers.

Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

July 29, 2015, 6:29 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review | Climate Etc.

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by Roger Caiazza

$

0

0

Sprung, “My cable TV/internet and cell phone bill is twice the electric bill.”

Good for you. The “basic” portion of your cable and cellphone bills are less or at least are less in most areas. Being able to access local weather warnings or call 911 are considered “essential” services. If you want more, you pay for it. That is your option.

If you increase the base electric rate you increased the cost of all goods and services that use electric by about 4 times the rate increase. That means the about 80% of people that make less than “average” are dis-proportionally impacted.

Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review | Climate Etc.

July 29, 2015, 6:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review | Climate Etc.

≪ Previous: Comment on Microgrids and “Clean” Energy by captdallas2 0.8 +/- 0.3

$

0

0

[…] publication of Jim Hansen’s new paper, discussed previously [here], has raised a host of issues that are apart from the actual content of his paper.  Some of these […]

---

Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review | Climate Etc.

July 29, 2015, 6:47 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by qbeamus

≪ Previous: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review | Climate Etc.

$

0

0

[…] policy-relevant papers in these journals, particularly Science.  You may recall my recent post The beyond-two-degree inferno, I raised a concern about Chief Editor Marcia McNutt’s advocacy editorial in that it would […]

Comment on Hansen’s backfire by qbeamus

July 29, 2015, 6:49 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on The beyond-two-degree inferno by Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review | Climate Etc.

$

0

0

I just watched a very interesting show on Netflix, called “The Honest Liar.” It’s about the Amazing Randi. In it they discussed “Project Alpha,” a hoax perpetrated by Randi and a couple of his young sidekicks. The two kids (they were about 18) purported to have psychokinetic power, and submitted themselves to rigorous scientific testing, of the sort that Uri Geller submitted to. Meanwhile, Randi was on the outside, getting reports from the kids on how they were tricking the scientists, and then sending letters to the scientists, warning them how they could be tricked, and giving them specific instruction that would defeat the slight-of-hand that the kids were developing. The thing that fascinated me so much was the way the scientists were so easily talked into breaking the rules that Randi was providing them, because they so badly wanted to believe in psychokinesis.

The relevance to climate science should be apparent.

Comment on Hansen’s backfire by PA

July 29, 2015, 6:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Hifast

≪ Previous: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by qbeamus

$

0

0

climatereason | July 29, 2015 at 4:03 am |
Vaughan

I suspect that JIm D got that figure from here.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2013/09/rising-seas/if-ice-melted-map

tonyb

As a courtesy to VP I tried to find where this claim comes from.

I took the logical step of “asking a scientist” to see what a scientist thinks to establish the facts.

http://www.amnh.org/ology/features/askascientist/question18.php
If all the ice covering Antarctica, Greenland, and in mountain glaciers around the world were to melt, sea level would rise about 70 meters (230 feet). The ocean would cover all the coastal cities. And land area would shrink significantly. But many cities, such as Denver, would survive.

The increase in surface area is why the increase in sea level is only 70 m. Which means most ice melt sea level claims are 50% too high.

Now to where the claim came from:
http://water.usgs.gov/edu/watercycleice.html

Which points to:
http://nsidc.org/glaciers/quickfacts.html
Which is a dead link.

The active link is the glacier quick facts page::
https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/quickfacts.html
“If all land ice melted, sea level would rise approximately 70 meters (230 feet) worldwide.”

Presumably either the original NSIDC page was wrong, or more likely – someone in the USGS was cruising the NSIDC glacier quickfacts page and thought the 70 m just applied to glaciers. The USGS seems to defer completely to the NSIDC on matters of ice.

The NSIDC site has some other troubling statements: “Glacierized areas cover over 15 million square kilometers (5.8 million square miles).”.
They define half of the world’s ice sheets as glaciers.

http://www.livescience.com/24168-glacier-volume-sea-level-rise.html
“Researchers calculated the ice thickness for 171,000 glaciers worldwide, excluding the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, which hold the bulk of Earth’s frozen water. Through a combination of direct satellite observations and modeling, they determined the total volume of ice tied up in the glaciers is nearly 41,000 cubic miles (170,000 cubic kilometers), plus or minus 5,000 cubic miles (21,000 cubic km).

If all the glaciers were to melt, global sea levels would rise almost 17 inches (43 centimeters), the scientists found.”

And that’s the way it is.

100,000 km3 is as a good a number as any for glacier volume.

Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Hifast

July 29, 2015, 6:54 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by PA

≪ Previous: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by PA

$

0

0

Reblogged this on <a href="https://hifast.wordpress.com/2015/07/29/assessments-meta-analyses-discussion-and-peer-review/" rel="nofollow">Climate Collections</a>.

Comment on Hansen’s backfire by PA

July 29, 2015, 7:00 am

≫ Next: Comment on Hansen’s backfire by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Assessments, meta-analyses, discussion and peer review by Hifast

$

0

0

The “100,000 km3 is as a good a number as any for glacier volume.” is an editing error and should have been deleted.