Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

A place to bring a contemplative / Dharmic perspective and opinions to current events and politics.
Locked
User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Solar Power = Low Quality Power?

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:01 pm

https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles ... as-peakers
The solar tragedy of the commons. In California solar power provides "dirty", unregulated power to the common power grid.
Think this is an exaggeration? Read on. And read "between the lines" to what is not said but implied. Solar power, at least from commercial solar power farms, can be a fully contributing "citizen" on the power grid but California government regulation and policy treats solar and wind power differently from hydro and fossil fuel generated power. The technology exists to fix the problem but it has not been applied. And solar farms would have to reduce their power output somewhat to provide the solution.

From greentechmedia.com
PV Plants Can Rival Power from Natural Gas Peakers wrote:First Solar Proves That PV Plants Can Rival Frequency Response Services From Natural Gas Peakers
In California, an important test for solar farms as grid-balancing agents JANUARY 19, 2017

Last summer, First Solar and California grid operator CAISO ran a set of tests to show that utility-scale solar PV , instead of being a disruptive influence on the power grid, could actually help stabilize it.

Over a series of days in August [2016], First Solar slightly curtailed power output at a 300-megawatt solar farm in California, enabled its array of inverters, and plugged into CAISO’s [the local power grid] system. It then orchestrated the plant’s output to follow CAISO’s automatic generation control (AGC) signals, respond to its frequency regulation commands, and use inverters for voltage regulation, power factor regulation and reactive power control.

The results, according to a report released [in Jan 2017] , showed that First Solar was able to meet, and sometimes exceed, the frequency regulation response usually provided by natural-gas-fired peaker plants.
Conventional coal, gas or hydro power plants reserve about %10 of their maximum capacity for two vital reasons. First the reserve is just there in case of a sudden increase in power demands. The second is to provide what is sometimes called "grid services" - keeping the alternating current (AC) in sync and maintaining the shape of the AC waveform. The last issue, a improperly shaped waveform, is a known issue with power inverters which convert the DC power from a battery or solar panel to the AC power like you get from your power outlet at home.

Solar power farms in California are often allowed to sell as much power as they generate onto the grid. And the grids are required to buy all the power produced by home grid-tied solar panels. Meanwhile fossil fuel powered plants are providing well regulated power and helping to maintain the quality of power on the grid. That means that solar power is a kind of "free rider" on the common power grid. When solar and wind was less than about %20 of the total this wasn't too much of a problem. Now it is.

The amazing thing to me is that in California, the home to Silicon Valley, it took until 2017 to get the results of the full scale test that solar power can provide the same quality power as other power generators in the state! Why? Reading here and elsewhere the answer seems to be partly "greed" but mostly politics, a failure of regulation and requirements that the power companies buy all the power produced (this is especially true of home solar power) and requirements that large amounts of power come from renewable. Because of politics and social policy commercial and home grid-tied systems can get away with producing the quality of power they produce when they want to. And leave other generators to fill in the gaps and provide the services required to maintain stable, quality power on the grid.

Important Note: The article above applies only to commercial solar farms and not to the power produced by the PV panels on homes. Grid-tied solar power from home based systems are allow to put all the power they can produce onto the grid and the grid operators in California are required to pay a premium (higher than the bulk market) price for it. This power is effectively subsidized.

-----------------------------------------
Is the situation really like that? Consider this technical paper presented at a conference in 2012.
https://cdn.selinc.com/assets/Literatur ... 23_Web.pdf
Power Factor Control for Grid-Tied Photovoltaic Solar Farms

Solar farms use devices called inverters to convert the DC power from the solar (PV) panels into AC at a different voltage.
The point of common coupling (PCC) is where the output of all the inverters come to together to tied into the general power grid.
Power Factor Control for Grid-Tied Photovoltaic Solar Farms wrote:The main components of [solar farms] are solar PV panels and PV inverters that convert dc power generated from the panels to ac power tied to the electric grid. This energy conversion mechanism can potentially deteriorate the power quality of the grid, especially as the number of gridtied solar farms increases .

The common-point power factor at the point of common coupling (PCC) of multiple PV inverters can fluctuate unpredictably outside of the utility requirement range. The variation depends on the power quality and harmonic distortions injected by the inverters . Therefore, maintaining the power factor at the PCC is critical for maintaining the power quality and stability of the overall system. A power factor adjustment can improve the efficiency of the overall utility network [6]. The power factor adjustment gives the utility greater flexibility to supply the power quality required by the loads.

VII. CONCLUSION
Utilizing the components of a typical PV generation site, an active closed-loop power factor control system can be easily implemented. This is accomplished by utilizing the communications capabilities of the components, which allow the controller to collect the required control data and make decisions to adjust the inverter outputs. The implemented solution proves to be simple and cost-effective for achieving the desired power factor reference set point.

Once the PI controller parameters are chosen appropriately after field testing and tuning, the controller can track the power factor changes at the PCC quite well. An implemented solution proves that the controller can keep the power factor within 5 percent of the reference set point.
-----------------------------------------------

But wait, there's more!
http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-fi-e ... ity-solar/
California invested heavily in solar power. Now there's so much that other states are sometimes paid to take it

By IVAN PENN JUNE 22, 2017
Sometimes the next door state of Arizona, shuts down it's solar power farms, and takes excess power from California so that California's power grid doesn't burn out. California has to pay Arizona for the privilege. A similar thing is happening in Germany. Some neighboring countries have received permission from the EU to block power at the border to protect their power grids.

This story seems like something from a Dickens novel. If I get any information wrong please quote the sentence and give me a URL to the correct information.

Nuclear Power on the other provides greenhouse gas free power 24/7. It has been been able to for over 50 years.

------------------------------------------------
The northern part of the state of Texas has some of the best winds for wind power in the continental US. I don't know the Texas power grid system is handling this issue. On the peak hour on the best day they have reported over half their power coming from wind. To do this the Texas grid has invested a considerable amount (over a billion $ ??) in new power lines to connect the wind turbines in the northern part of the state to the major population centers in the south.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:44 pm

Thanks for all this stuff on wind and solar, Leeuwenhoek2. Most of it does seem correct, even the bits you weren't sure about. Most of the negatives you quote (and there are rather more of them than balanced reporting would provide :thinking: ) are due to (1) the fact that the technology is changing so fast and regulators and grid managers are continually scrambling to keep up, and (2) distortions forced on grid operations by political pressures, largely from established power generators who are, of course, heavily invested in fossil fuels and aggressively defend their investment.
Think of (1) as speed bumps - temporary problems. Think of (2) as something you, as an interested citizen, should be vocally opposing in the interests of lower power prices and a more reliable supply.

Then there's your last sentence, which finally gets us :focus:
Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:Nuclear Power on the other provides greenhouse gas free power 24/7. It has been been able to for over 50 years.
That gives me a chance to share this scientific paper with a critical reader or two. I don't want to say what I think about it because I don't want to affect your reading of it. Here it is.
Abstract: This paper presents evidence of the disruption of a transition from fossil fuels to nuclear power, and finds the benefits forgone as a consequence are substantial. Learning rates are presented for nuclear power in seven countries, comprising 58% of all power reactors ever built globally. Learning rates and deployment rates changed in the late-1960s and 1970s from rapidly falling costs and accelerating deployment to rapidly rising costs and stalled deployment. Historical nuclear global capacity, electricity generation and overnight construction costs are compared with the counterfactual that pre-disruption learning and deployment rates had continued to 2015. Had the early rates continued, nuclear power could now be around 10% of its current cost. The additional nuclear power could have substituted for 69,000–186,000 TWh of coal and gas generation, thereby avoiding up to 9.5 million deaths and 174 Gt CO2 emissions. In 2015 alone, nuclear power could have replaced up to 100% of coal-generated and 76% of gas-generated electricity, thereby avoiding up to 540,000 deaths and 11 Gt CO2. Rapid progress was achieved in the past and could be again, with appropriate policies. Research is needed to identify impediments to progress, and policy is needed to remove them.
:reading: http://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/10/12/2169/htm

:popcorn:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7484
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:21 am

lyndon taylor wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:38 pm
30,000 homes for one hour is not massive, a million homes for one hour, that would be massive.
Did you read my previous post?
This battery is more than twice as big as the next biggest battery in the world.
This battery can inject 100 megawatts of power into a sagging grid within milliseconds automatically.....and maintain that increased supply for an hour....which is adequate to prevent brown/black outs in most cases.

THIS IS MASSIVE!

chownah

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by lyndon taylor » Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:59 am

We're talking about the state of Southern Australia, millions of people.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

chownah
Posts: 7484
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:54 am

lyndon taylor wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 3:59 am
We're talking about the state of Southern Australia, millions of people.
When the supply grid approaches a brown out what happens is that the supply (coal, oil, gas, wind, solar....all of the supply) remains fixed at its maximum ability and yet the demand increases. Demand increases could be like a million people turning on their air cons at home for example. What happens is that the generators are already working at maximum and demand increases which creates a situation where if allowed to continue equipment will be damaged....so....the system is constructed so that if a danger point is reached the system will start a shut down scenario. Depending on how the system is constructed and depending on what the exact conditions are at various places throughout the grid circuit breakers will trip to avoid equipment damage. THis causes a major difficulty in that while turning it off is automatic, turning it back on is manual and it can take a long time to do.

Anyway, when the grid approaches the danger zone, generating equipment does not stop working.....the voltage of the grid drops causing lights to dim (this is why it is caused a brown out...a blackout is when the breakers trip and power is cut off) and tesla's battery system has sensors which sense the voltage drop and automatically starts ADDING its power as a new supply to the grid...it is an ADDITIONAL supply above and beyond all the other generating equipment.....the other generators do not stop and they can still supply the vast bulk of what the demand is...but they can't quite keep up and it only takes a bit more supply to keep the total supply adequate to avoid the blackout. The battery doesn't need to supply all of the power but only a smallish fraction...I'm going to guess that it would be less than 10% but I don't really know....AND....it doesn't have to keep supplying for very long because there are other sensors on the grid which notify people at the "emergency" generators which are normally not used to be turned on to add additional suppy to the system and there are sensors which tell people watching the power supply to large industrial users to reduce or cut the supply to these users (these users know as part of their regular running scheme that in the event of a brown out that their power will be reduced or cut).

So...you see....the batteries only have to provide a small fraction of the total power being supplied to the grid....just enough to keep it topped up until other measures can be taken to bring on line additional back up power generators and to reduce the demand.

I think that this is about as clear as I can make it. Please note that the battery pack has already performed this function at least once as can be seen in reports on the internet.
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:33 am

Kim OHara wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:44 pm
Thanks for all this stuff on wind and solar, Leeuwenhoek2. Most of it does seem correct, even the bits you weren't sure about. Most of the negatives you quote (and there are rather more of them than balanced reporting would provide :thinking: ) are due to (1) the fact that the technology is changing so fast and regulators and grid managers are continually scrambling to keep up, and (2) distortions forced on grid operations by political pressures, largely from established power generators who are, of course, heavily invested in fossil fuels and aggressively defend their investment.
The notion of balanced reporting is contradicted by your analysis. (See the marked sections above)

My analysis did not speak to motivations or particular actors or influences as yours did -- only to what the situation was. IMO you pushed into a different spin on the story -- one that requires a good degree of subjective judgment.
IMO your analysis is partial, one-sided and misses a couple of important influences. For instance I believe the voters have have pushed policies requiring increasing percentages of total power to be from renewables, a push which tends to want to paint practical power engineering issues as somehow tainted. And look here, your response seems to offer evidence for this theory.

This technology that you say "is changing so fast" has been around for a couple of decades. The ability of inverters to be controllable so they can high quality power and even grid services is not new. Whether or not the commercial inverters have the control inputs built in or can easily retrofitted is an aspect of the story the articles didn't report on.

--------------------- / ------------------------


California, home of the Sierra Club, is a state with strong environmental and green passions. But wise environmentalism is difficult and challenging. I think there is a type of sloppy environmentalism that shoots itself in the foot and then blames others for the injuries. It's not just establish power generators who are heavily "invested" in their desires and agendas and who aggressively defend their investments! The basic teaching of the dharma anticipate this. The default state of humankind is to be invested, the aggressive defense of which causes suffering.

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by lyndon taylor » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:55 am

I'm sorry but preaching against renewable energy is so last century!!
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by lyndon taylor » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:12 am

chownah wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:49 pm
lyndon taylor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:01 am
The Tesla battery in SA is a lot of hype, it can only power 30,000 homes for one hour then the battery is flat and has to be recharged. Mostly is just a money making scheme for the owners, they charge it up with cheap renewable energy when the price is low, then sell the power back to the market during peak demand when the price is high, that is the main function of the battery, to make money for its owners(not the SA government, they don't own it), sure the government has the option to step in and use the power stored in an emergency, but like I said 30,000 homes for one hour is not really that big a deal, in a real crisis it wouldn't have anywhere near enough power stored in the batteries, like in the crisis that caused the massive blackouts in SA last year.
I think you will find that a french company called Noeon and Tesla formed a consortium and signed a contract with the gov't of SA.....I don't know exactly how the contract reads but it seems likely that the gov't of SA owns the facility and it is to be built and managed by the consortium for the gov't of SA.

I think that the idea isn't that the battery will be used to power 30,000 homes. I think they claim this just to give an idea of how massive it is. The idea for how it will be used (I think) is that a blackout or brownout occurs when the demand gets above what can be supplied and when this happens the grid sort of shuts down and it is a long process to get it started again.....the battery will be used when the demand is rising to where it almost exceeds supply and then the battery will kick in to keep the supply in the safe zone until either an auxilliary generator can be started or some industrial client who draws alot of juice can reduce its demand....or both. The idea is that the batteries will just boost the grid supply enough to keep it out of trouble while other measures kick in.

Of course, in the future, if all cars have batteries and if all houses have solar and batteries the entire grid pretty much could be stabilized or even locally run entirely in some areas.....that scenario is not here yet but it is certainly reasonable if not inevitable......and again if surplus energy is used to make hydrogen from water it could provide that additional grid supply when needed..........this is all very do-able.....
chownah
Chownah, I get my news from Australias public news service, the ABC, maybe you should too. The owners of the batteries are free to make profit buying cheap selling high 99% of the time, then in an emergency, the Australian government is allowed to step in and use the batteries for back up power. I standby my reporting, I did notice though that the ABC paints quite a different picture of the situation than many international news sources where I assume you got your ideas.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by Kim OHara » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:33 am

Leeuwenhoek2 wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:33 am
Kim OHara wrote:
Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:44 pm
Thanks for all this stuff on wind and solar, Leeuwenhoek2. Most of it does seem correct, even the bits you weren't sure about. Most of the negatives you quote (and there are rather more of them than balanced reporting would provide :thinking: ) are due to (1) the fact that the technology is changing so fast and regulators and grid managers are continually scrambling to keep up, and (2) distortions forced on grid operations by political pressures, largely from established power generators who are, of course, heavily invested in fossil fuels and aggressively defend their investment.
The notion of balanced reporting is contradicted by your analysis. (See the marked sections above)
I was trying to correct some of the imbalance in your own selection of news by presenting some of the positives you - deliberately or not - missed.

And I will say again, the technology is changing so fast that no-one is really keeping up with it. You may say it has been around for twenty years, and some of it has, but efficiencies have improved and prices have dropped so far and so fast that the technologies are, for all industrial-scale purposes, effectively new again every year. We're in a time of chaotic transition such as we haven't seen since motor cars and trucks replaced horses.
Here's yet another example: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/re ... -time-ever

:coffee:
Kim

chownah
Posts: 7484
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:51 am

lyndon taylor wrote:
Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:12 am
chownah wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:49 pm
lyndon taylor wrote:
Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:01 am
The Tesla battery in SA is a lot of hype, it can only power 30,000 homes for one hour then the battery is flat and has to be recharged. Mostly is just a money making scheme for the owners, they charge it up with cheap renewable energy when the price is low, then sell the power back to the market during peak demand when the price is high, that is the main function of the battery, to make money for its owners(not the SA government, they don't own it), sure the government has the option to step in and use the power stored in an emergency, but like I said 30,000 homes for one hour is not really that big a deal, in a real crisis it wouldn't have anywhere near enough power stored in the batteries, like in the crisis that caused the massive blackouts in SA last year.
I think you will find that a french company called Noeon and Tesla formed a consortium and signed a contract with the gov't of SA.....I don't know exactly how the contract reads but it seems likely that the gov't of SA owns the facility and it is to be built and managed by the consortium for the gov't of SA.

I think that the idea isn't that the battery will be used to power 30,000 homes. I think they claim this just to give an idea of how massive it is. The idea for how it will be used (I think) is that a blackout or brownout occurs when the demand gets above what can be supplied and when this happens the grid sort of shuts down and it is a long process to get it started again.....the battery will be used when the demand is rising to where it almost exceeds supply and then the battery will kick in to keep the supply in the safe zone until either an auxilliary generator can be started or some industrial client who draws alot of juice can reduce its demand....or both. The idea is that the batteries will just boost the grid supply enough to keep it out of trouble while other measures kick in.

Of course, in the future, if all cars have batteries and if all houses have solar and batteries the entire grid pretty much could be stabilized or even locally run entirely in some areas.....that scenario is not here yet but it is certainly reasonable if not inevitable......and again if surplus energy is used to make hydrogen from water it could provide that additional grid supply when needed..........this is all very do-able.....
chownah
Chownah, I get my news from Australias public news service, the ABC, maybe you should too. The owners of the batteries are free to make profit buying cheap selling high 99% of the time, then in an emergency, the Australian government is allowed to step in and use the batteries for back up power. I standby my reporting, I did notice though that the ABC paints quite a different picture of the situation than many international news sources where I assume you got your ideas.
Please bring a link to what it is you have been reading. I found many references that talked about the Noeon-Tesla consortium signing a contract with the SA gov't. I couldn't find anything on the terms of the contract although I didn't look very hard. I think that the SA gov't paid for the batteries so I think that they are the owners.....but it depends on exactly how the contract is written.
Please do bring a link with some details.
chownah
edit: I don't think what I said goes counter to what you are saying in this post of yours except for who owns the batteries which I admit freely that my view is an assumption on my part. Do you take issue with something else I said?....if so then what?
chownah

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by lyndon taylor » Mon Jan 08, 2018 12:48 pm

The SA government payed some of the money for the batteries because they get to use them in case of emergency, but they do not own them, the consortium does, as I said 99% of the use of the batteries is a money making endeavour for the consortium, the SA government doesn't make the money, they just get to use the batteries when there's an emergency.
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

User avatar
lyndon taylor
Posts: 1835
Joined: Mon May 02, 2011 11:41 pm
Location: Redlands, US occupied Northern Mexico
Contact:

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by lyndon taylor » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:01 pm

Here's one of the ABC articles that confirms what I was saying;

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-23/w ... sa/9183868
18 years ago I made one of the most important decisions of my life and entered a local Cambodian Buddhist Temple as a temple boy and, for only 3 weeks, an actual Therevada Buddhist monk. I am not a scholar, great meditator, or authority on Buddhism, but Buddhism is something I love from the Bottom of my heart. It has taught me sobriety, morality, peace, and very importantly that my suffering is optional, and doesn't have to run my life. I hope to give back what little I can to the Buddhist community, sincerely former monk John

http://trickleupeconomictheory.blogspot.com/

chownah
Posts: 7484
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Mon Jan 08, 2018 2:11 pm

Thanks for the link....it clears up the ownership issue....it is owned by Neoen-Tesla.....and the link tells about the uses for the complex which includes that in normal times the owners can use it for storage during off peak hours to sell during peak hours and that the grid gets to use a portion for grid stabilization and the grid gets to use all of its capacity during grid crisis times.
Thanks again for bringing the link,
chownah

User avatar
Leeuwenhoek2
Posts: 194
Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:24 pm

Worlds Most Powerful Li-on Battery in Australia

Post by Leeuwenhoek2 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:46 pm

chownah it looks like your analysis is correct regarding the anticipated main use for this battery.
It's for short term stabilization until extra generators can be brought on line. It's mostly for providing power for minutes rather than hours.

In other studies I've seen the short term period is less than 5 minutes which is about the time it takes quick reaction generators to get up to speed. Most of the newer gas-fired plants are of this type. The battery should provide an important and useful service to the grid. Because wind and solar power is more variable than hydro, fossil fueled or nuclear power this type of stabilization service is becoming more important.

One modeling study looked a filling in for temporary power reductions from solar power when passing clouds shade the panels. Since the loss of power due to cloud shading doesn't happen all at once and/or automated systems could give some advance warning their simulations showed that the ability to fill in for only 90 seconds could reduce brown-outs by a big factor. By then the backup, quick response generators would be ready to take over.

A couple of sentences from this article gives the clues.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-23/w ... sa/9183868
Elon Musk's giant lithium ion battery completed by Tesla in SA's Mid North wrote:... the SA Government will have access to some of the battery's output to provide stability services to the grid.

The Government will also have the right to tap the battery's full output to prevent load shedding blackouts ...

It was one of several measures announced in Premier Jay Weatherill's $550 million energy plan, prompted by supply shortfalls, soaring prices and concerns over security of the electricity grid.

The plan also included a fleet of diesel-powered backup generators, which have already been installed
It appears they are planning on splitting the batteries up into several banks. They are not going dedicate the entire installation to one purpose.

Without a store of electricity to draw on some of the diesel-powered backup generators would have to be started up earlier in order to supply "spinning reserves". This is equivalent to a car sitting still but with the motor idling. The generators are turning and ready but they are not producing power.


COMMENT: I think that without some basic understanding of how the system works citizens cannot understand and make informed decisions about these issues.

chownah
Posts: 7484
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: Discussion of Nuclear Power and Safety

Post by chownah » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:46 am

It appears they are planning on splitting the batteries up into several banks. They are not going dedicate the entire installation to one purpose.
They probably won't do that. With state of the art controls and metering they will just inject what is needed into the grid and monitor it. I don't really know how the agreement reads but since Neoen-Tesla are in the early stages of the implementation of a new technology the public relations and bragging rights about how beneficial their system is for the entire grid is probably more valuable going forward than is the small amount of income they can generate through power swapping.

Notice how the income they have derived from power swapping has not made headlines. I don't think they are trying to hide it as their profit from this can't be huge because if it was huge then EVERYONE would be doing it.

Notice how the power grid disruption which was caused hundreds of kilometres away and which was ameliorated with the battery made international news.....the ability to do this pretty amazing and I suggest that it be viewed as a raised middle finger to the coal industry.

I really think that we are nearing the end game for the struggle between the energy through rose colored glasses and the nay sayers......and the rose colored glasses have won. This battery has shown without doubt that all of those overblown concerns about the stability of the grid with the use of solar/wind have been laid to rest. Now the only thing that remains is for the wider application of storage and this is something that is happening every day....and happening at an ever increasing rate of speed....

So.....this is going to be a HUGE industry (solar/wind/storage). Interesting that trump is almost guaranteeing that the usofa is not going to be a leader. Interesting that china is already a leader (THE leader) in solar and difficult to imagine that they will not continue to expand and with a planned economy they can expand at a much greater rate than most economies......they already have plans to build a couple of battery manufacturing facilites that will be larger than the one presently being built by tesla....
chownah

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests