Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

American manufacturing of solar panels -- worth protecting?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

    You keep mixing up cause and effect.

    Fossil fuel use causes climate change, therefore
    California wants to use less fossil fuel. I'm not sure why you think that means the grid would fail and people would freeze.
    wow, sounds almost like some religious mantra. You see I don't even have to think in this case- I'm simply referring to the events currently occurring as a result of political approach to a technical problem.

    I also lived through power outage when the temperature was below -4F. Things are getting damaged by frost in a matter of hours at that level so there were no politicians in sight when it happened: very professional crew came out instead and replaced shortened underground cable under very busy intersection in Toronto so the surrounding buildings got power back the same night and the intersection looked like nothing happened by the morning. Unless you start sounding as professional this discussion is kind of pointless: repeating 'mainstream climate science' stamps many times doesn't help ppl in Taiwan neither it works on me.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
      You keep mixing up cause and effect.
      Fossil fuel use causes climate change, therefore
      California wants to use less fossil fuel. I'm not sure why you think that means the grid would fail and people would freeze.
      Sorry Dan.
      Science thinks fossil fuel use COULD/CAN cause climate change. Several factors correlate. BUT Some non-government science thinks other factors cause climate change, But they don't exist in your reality, only green government approved science is allowed. I know where that will lead, but it's not in your playbook - rude surprise ahead for you if green science is wrong.

      As to California and green electricity, Kailfornia is on the brink of electric grid catastrophe. A little bit of instability here, a failure there, and the grid goes away. The gummimnet has been forcing generation plant dismantlement for years, to sell the real estate off, and becoming more reliant on out of state - imported power. All the while, growth of consumption has been happening, eating into the thinning reserves. Not even science, it's a fact. Not all the smart air conditioners and plug-in-EV's can stop it.
      But it will be OK, because it's mandated to be green. In times of power failures, people don't die from freezing (maybe a few) but most die from heat related illness. (and they are the weak ones that would have been bypassed to provide the rationed medical care to more productive, younger worker drones.)
      Powerfab top of pole PV mount (2) | Listeroid 6/1 w/st5 gen head | XW6048 inverter/chgr | Iota 48V/15A charger | Morningstar 60A MPPT | 48V, 800A NiFe Battery (in series)| 15, Evergreen 205w "12V" PV array on pole | Midnight ePanel | Grundfos 10 SO5-9 with 3 wire Franklin Electric motor (1/2hp 240V 1ph ) on a timer for 3 hr noontime run - Runs off PV ||
      || Midnight Classic 200 | 10, Evergreen 200w in a 160VOC array ||
      || VEC1093 12V Charger | Maha C401 aa/aaa Charger | SureSine | Sunsaver MPPT 15A

      solar: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Solar
      gen: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Lister

      Comment


      • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

        In the case of LADWP, it seems rather likely that efficiency will play a big role. California and Los Angeles actively encourage energy efficiency already, and will gladly do more if needed to reach their goals.
        Dan, efficiency is just a part of the equation. Load shed is a much bigger part to help eliminate the Duck Curve that CA sees. If it was up to me I would introduce load shed controls down to the home level so that to keep the "energy storage" systems from draining at night I could turn off unnecessary loads or control the larger loads like AC, water heaters, pool pumps and cloths dryers.

        As much as I don't want to have a POCO take control of my loads IMO leaving it up to the people to decide how to turn off their loads does not work as well as you think.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by SunEagle View Post
          Load shed is a much bigger part to help eliminate the Duck Curve that CA sees. If it was up to me I would introduce load shed controls down to the home level so that to keep the "energy storage" systems from draining at night I could turn off unnecessary loads or control the larger loads like AC, water heaters, pool pumps and cloths dryers.

          As much as I don't want to have a POCO take control of my loads IMO leaving it up to the people to decide how to turn off their loads does not work as well as you think.
          I didn't mention load shifting (I almost did, but edited it out of my response for simplicity), but of course that'll be a big part of it, too. Beyond the examples you gave, electrical vehicle chargers are going to need to respond automatically to price signals. I suspect that soft load reduction will be more popular, in the sense that loads will be asked to reduce their power use in a way that users don't notice, rather than turn off completely. That would have been hard 10 years ago, but nowadays it's practical to design that kind of behavior into new appliances. (And in the case of EV chargers, I bet there will be user override in case the user is in a hurry and doesn't mind paying a bit more.) For a look at how the state is planning for this, see e.g. https://www.caiso.com/documents/dr-eeroadmap.pdf and cpuc.ca.gov/General.aspx?id=7032 It's not simple!

          There are pilots going on testing out some of these ideas on consumer appliances now. Some of them use internet-connected appliances; others use price signals broadcast unidirectionally via FM radio's RDS (the same way program info is sent to car radios to show on the screen). See e.g. bpa.gov/EE/Technology/EE-emerging-technologies/Projects-Reports-Archives/Field-Tests/Pages/Smart-Water-Heater-Pilot.aspx

          Comment


          • Originally posted by max2k View Post
            I'm simply referring to the events currently occurring as a result of political approach to a technical problem.
            Sounds like you're assuming California would just shut off the fossil fuel use without having a plan for grid reliability. It may be fun to assume the state is run by and for idiots, but that's not the case. There will be many, many engineers involved, planning carefully, to make sure we don't end up with an unreliable grid. We won't shut off a fossil fuel plant until it's really not needed. And market mechanisms will be used to provide flexibility.

            Sorry I didn't realize you were underestimating California so badly. Your posts make more sense now.
            Last edited by DanKegel; 08-10-2017, 09:59 AM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
              I've found it's best to just ignore SK's threats and taunts. He's simply not worth the trouble.
              I got you banned a few times huh? Will not be long before you are gone for good.
              MSEE, PE

              Comment


              • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                Sounds like you're assuming California would just shut off the fossil fuel use without having a plan for grid reliability. It may be fun to assume the state is run by and for idiots, but that's not the case. There will be many, many engineers involved, planning carefully, to make sure we don't end up with an unreliable grid. We won't shut off a fossil fuel plant until it's really not needed. And market mechanisms will be used to provide flexibility.

                Sorry I didn't realize you were underestimating California so badly. Your posts make more sense now.
                Dan: I never realized you were so close to the policy and management end of CA energy affairs or the CA ISO policy folks that you're qualified to give policy direction to the I.O.U.'s, use "we" or that you have so much a say in resource management.

                I'm really impressed !!!!!!

                Your posts make less sense than ever but, IMO, continue to have the full compliment of ignorance you usually exhibit.
                Last edited by J.P.M.; 08-10-2017, 11:46 AM.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                  Sounds like you're assuming California would just shut off the fossil fuel use without having a plan for grid reliability. It may be fun to assume the state is run by and for idiots, but that's not the case. There will be many, many engineers involved, planning carefully, to make sure we don't end up with an unreliable grid. We won't shut off a fossil fuel plant until it's really not needed. And market mechanisms will be used to provide flexibility.

                  Sorry I didn't realize you were underestimating California so badly. Your posts make more sense now.
                  Now you gone complete bonkers and I'd feel bad if my posts made whatever condition you have worse. You won and I hope whoever reads this nonsense will be able clearly see your 'point' now.

                  Comment


                  • Sigh. Are we really going to go there? I was just trying to explain what motivates California to reduce fossil fuel use. Rather than accept that motivation, you seem to want to argue that it's bogus and/or that paying attention to climate science will end in disaster. Well, ok, here we go, let's discuss it.

                    Originally posted by Mike90250 View Post
                    Some non-government science thinks other factors cause climate change,
                    You've mentioned before that you prefer government scientist Roy Spencer's view that climate change is not caused by humans. He is at least consistent; he was listed in the credits in an oil industry propaganda video in 1998, is on the board of one oil-industry-funded think tank and on the list of advisors of oil-industry and evangelical anti-climate-change organizations. He also doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. Given all that, and seeing how he can look at a graph showing a clear warming trend and say with a straight face that it doesn't show a warming trend, I don't think he's a trustworthy source of objective science policy. But I can see where people who get their science from a bible, or who are simply looking for confirmation that fossil fuels are A-OK, might prefer his viewpoint.

                    If mainstream climate climate science is right, then we're all in for a very nasty surprise if we don't work on reducing our use of fossil fuels. Even folks who disagree with it shouldn't mind buying a little insurance in the form of practical reductions in our dependence on fossil fuels.

                    Kailfornia is on the brink of electric grid catastrophe. A little bit of instability here, a failure there, and the grid goes away.
                    The way you spell the state's name makes me suspect that your viewpoint is informed more by political than by technical thinking.
                    Since 2006, California has been paying more attention to grid reliability, and requires utilities to have 15% margin; see cpuc.ca.gov/RA/
                    We're handling things like the loss of nuclear, underused fossil plants, and Aliso Canyon well, and those events are spurring action to further increase grid reliability.
                    And we'll handle the eclipse just fine.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post
                      Sigh. Are we really going to go there? I was just trying to explain what motivates California to reduce fossil fuel use. Rather than accept that motivation, you seem to want to argue that it's bogus and/or that paying attention to climate science will end in disaster. Well, ok, here we go, let's discuss it.



                      You've mentioned before that you prefer government scientist Roy Spencer's view that climate change is not caused by humans. He is at least consistent; he was listed in the credits in an oil industry propaganda video in 1998, is on the board of one oil-industry-funded think tank and on the list of advisors of oil-industry and evangelical anti-climate-change organizations. He also doesn't believe in the theory of evolution. Given all that, and seeing how he can look at a graph showing a clear warming trend and say with a straight face that it doesn't show a warming trend, I don't think he's a trustworthy source of objective science policy. But I can see where people who get their science from a bible, or who are simply looking for confirmation that fossil fuels are A-OK, might prefer his viewpoint.

                      If mainstream climate climate science is right, then we're all in for a very nasty surprise if we don't work on reducing our use of fossil fuels. Even folks who disagree with it shouldn't mind buying a little insurance in the form of practical reductions in our dependence on fossil fuels.



                      The way you spell the state's name makes me suspect that your viewpoint is informed more by political than by technical thinking.
                      Since 2006, California has been paying more attention to grid reliability, and requires utilities to have 15% margin; see cpuc.ca.gov/RA/
                      We're handling things like the loss of nuclear, underused fossil plants, and Aliso Canyon well, and those events are spurring action to further increase grid reliability.
                      And we'll handle the eclipse just fine.
                      According to your state government, CA wants to go to 100% renewable using ONLY instate power generation. Yet 30% currently comes from out of state and more than 45% comes from fossil fuel.

                      On top of that more than 450,000 people in CA work for the fossil fuel industry. So shutting down the usage or production will hurt a major part of your job market not to mention about $30 billion the state gets from exporting fossil fuels.

                      Did your state CA think about how to keep those people in a job as well as not have that income from your export of that nasty fuel?

                      While you believe there are engineers in the formula to help move CA to cleaner fuels I believe it is the political community that is doing the driving of this action without any input from engineering.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by SunEagle View Post

                        ...
                        Is there a chance we can close this thread? It's been 12 pages long and by the end it is making less and less sense.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DanKegel View Post

                          Sounds like you're assuming California would just shut off the fossil fuel use without having a plan for grid reliability. It may be fun to assume the state is run by and for idiots, but that's not the case. There will be many, many engineers involved, planning carefully, to make sure we don't end up with an unreliable grid. We won't shut off a fossil fuel plant until it's really not needed. And market mechanisms will be used to provide flexibility.
                          Sorry I didn't realize you were underestimating California so badly. Your posts make more sense now.
                          Well Dan, you (and a lot of cali) are headed for a surprise if you believe what you just wrote. Arnold started the Green Power edict, carefully timed to go into effect after he left office. And if you think the politicos in Sacramento are going to slow their race to the bottom, you are not seeing what I see. The plant engineers will be doing their best to keep the power on, and with good weather forecasts, they do pretty well at getting reserves spun up, and scheduling maintenance for off-peak times. But the Flex-Alerts are happening, and when something disrupts power imports (24% of usage), the house of cards is coming down.
                          utilitydive.com/news/eia-california-iso-imports-26-of-its-electricity-from-other-states/437438/

                          I know of no "market mechanism" that can chop 20% of power in seconds, if a main importer feed or two, goes down.
                          The California ISO is declaring CAISO Grid RESTRICTED MAINTENANCE OPERATION for the period
                          from 08/21/2017 06:00 through 08/21/2017 20:00. (upcoming solar eclipse)
                          This one is only for the expected loss of solar power, other times, they know of a problem, but can't fix it, and so they halt maintenance.
                          That means, there's not enough power generation without deferring maintenance. I know what deferred maintenance leads to, look at calif roads.
                          Powerfab top of pole PV mount (2) | Listeroid 6/1 w/st5 gen head | XW6048 inverter/chgr | Iota 48V/15A charger | Morningstar 60A MPPT | 48V, 800A NiFe Battery (in series)| 15, Evergreen 205w "12V" PV array on pole | Midnight ePanel | Grundfos 10 SO5-9 with 3 wire Franklin Electric motor (1/2hp 240V 1ph ) on a timer for 3 hr noontime run - Runs off PV ||
                          || Midnight Classic 200 | 10, Evergreen 200w in a 160VOC array ||
                          || VEC1093 12V Charger | Maha C401 aa/aaa Charger | SureSine | Sunsaver MPPT 15A

                          solar: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Solar
                          gen: http://tinyurl.com/LMR-Lister

                          Comment

                          Working...
                          X