Stop Global Warming Virtual March

You can take a small step that will go a long way to stop the biggest political and environmental threat we face today. You don't have to spend money. You don't have to volunteer your time.
All you have to do is join with hundreds of thousands of other concerned global citizens in the Virtual March to Stop Global Warming.
www.stopglobalwarming.org
It's a non-political effort that was launched in April 2005 with Senator John McCain and Robert F Kennedy Jr. to move across the United States via the Internet from one town to the next presenting evidence of the effects of global warming while highlighting people's concerns and solutions along the way.
Join the Virtual March www.StopGlobalWarming.org. Be with David Whiteside, Walter Cronkite, former CIA director James Woolsey and the millions of others who demand action when the Virtual March reaches Washington, D.C. on Earth Day 2006.
www.stopglobalwarming.org

Jim Baber adds:
JoeSP wrote:

"SJC" wrote in message
"Jake" wrote in message
Remember, there's more to a system than just the panels. Don't forget the BATTERIES! I wish they lasted as long as PV's but they don't. In fact, they're the weak link in all systems.

If my system is grid tied, I do not need batteries. ....
Jim's comment: I do not understand why anyone that reads these comments

still has the incorrect impression that batteries are required for a grid tied system. They might be useful in a grid tied system that is designed to use the solar PV output to also maintain a set of batteries that is used for emergency off grid operation, but, this is very unusual and way beyond the capability of most users and requires some specialized equipment not normally used in on grid

...... I provide renewable energy to the grid when it is needed the most, in the summer,when peak demand can hit 3X average and natural gas peaker plants come online to provide the power. I would rather have a million solar roofs and wind farms.

I wonder about the potential problems that would occur with thousands of small grid-tied producers. The system would have to be redesigned to regulate load.
Jim's comment: It would NOT require redesign. Remember the only way

that any generated power can be added to the grid is for it to be at a slightly higher voltage than the grid is at that point in time.
All of the grid tied inverters therefore are designed to output their power at a voltage at a slightly higher voltage than the existing grid voltage so that any power not used by the local needs can flow into the grid automatically. Interestingly, this will cause the general voltage to increase, which in turn will allow the large plants to reduce their output if the system voltage approaches the peak allowed voltage.

When the major sources are large power plants, as is typical today, it's easy to respond to load by increasing power production in response to voltage drop. .....
Jim's comment: Not true all those small producers would drive the grid

voltage up.

Quite another thing with thousands of co-producers.
With a large number of small producers, there would have to be some sort of network of substations, ......
Jim's comment: The existing substation transformers will work both

directions, acting to raise the voltages in the lower voltage distribution network to the higher voltage transmission for distribution back to the generation plant where the grid's reduced load has caused voltage gains which will use the existing plant controls to lower the output voltage at the central plant.

........ with some sort of switching capacity, to switch in and out the small producers in response to load demand. A big challenge to this approach would be how to make it fair for everyone. Some sort of percentage reduction would have to be applied to everyone equally. Difficult to do without an elaborate computer controlled switching network.
With wind power, load can easily be regulated with variable pitch props. With solar, excess power output can be controlled by tilting the panels towards or away from direct sunlight. Another method would be to shunt excess power to storage batteries, heating or wasted off with a dummy load.
Also the phase synchronization would have to be centrally-controlled. It's not good enough for every small system to read line frequency and synchronize to it. Something similar to the precise centralized timing regime of the GPS system would be necessary.
Jim's comment: Not so if the inverters used meet the IEEE standards as

required in most states and by all utilities that I am aware of, they have to meet the cyclic synchronization or to immediately shut down. Grid tied inverters are not simple and you must not tie unapproved inverters to the grid.

All these considerations would add considerable expense to the system. Add to this the higher costs of producing electricity this way. To be competitive with large power plants, small producers, if they take on the role of primary production, could not get paid nearly so well for their power as they are in most cases today.
For these reasons, grid-tie production only seems to make sense on a small scale. Currently, grid-tie producers are paid fairly well for "helping out." Primary power production is a different matter. My guess is that most of our power in the future, if it has to be renewable, will be from massive wind and solar farms, perhaps augmented by helium fusion plants, not thousands of small grid-tied producers.
Jim's comment: I have to say 1 thing here. Consider that between 5%

and 8% of all the utility generated power is lost to transmission losses (resistive and inductive) thru out the US power grid, yet the power generated by the small grid tie producer is only going a few hundred feet not miles before a neighbor absorbs that power with a much smaller loss in transmission.

In such a scenario, it's doubtful a small grid-tied co-producer would make economic sense at all.
Jim's comment: Guess who voted for the Bush.

We could say that "It will never happen" can never happen?
"Derek Broughton" wrote in message

But not one of those is actually inconceivable (except maybe peace). Dan's argument would seem to be not that it _won't_ happen, but that it can't. He may be right. -- derek

Some major basic flaws in that argument.
1) The grid-tie and the grid have to be the same voltage as they are in parallel.
2) I have two batteries in parallel and the load is shared between them and they are exactly the same voltage. The voltage only has to be matched and the impedance of the source low enough to share the current draw.
"Jim Baber" wrote in message

Remember the only way that any generated power can be added to the grid is for it to be at a slightly higher voltage than the grid is at that point in time.
All of the grid tied inverters therefore are designed to output their power at a voltage at a slightly higher voltage than the existing grid voltage so that any power not used by the local needs can flow into the grid automatically. Interestingly, this will cause the general voltage to increase, which in turn will allow the large plants to reduce their output if the system voltage approaches the peak allowed voltage.

Solar Flare wrote:

Some major basic flaws in that argument.
1) The grid-tie and the grid have to be the same voltage as they are in parallel.

Line V1 -/\/\/\/\- V2
So if V1 equals V2 there is no current through the line. So there is no flow of power. So 1) is false if you are going to move power from the inverter to the grid.

2) I have two batteries in parallel and the load is shared between them and they are exactly the same voltage. The voltage only has to be matched and the impedance of the source low enough to share the current draw.

Here you have no flow of power from one battery to the other. It is not the same condition as power flowing from the inverter to the grid.
Best, Dan.

"Jim Baber" wrote in message
Remember the only way that any generated power can be added to the grid is
for it to be at a
slightly higher voltage than the grid is at that
point in time.
All of the grid tied inverters therefore are designed
to output their
power at a voltage at a slightly higher voltage than
the existing grid
voltage so that any power not used by the local needs
can flow into the
grid automatically. Interestingly, this will cause
the general voltage
to increase, which in turn will allow the large
plants to reduce their
output if the system voltage approaches the peak
allowed voltage.

-- "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption" George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Vice President Dick Cheney

Power flowing into the grid is a bit of a misnomer.
The power (energy) really flows into your neighbours house load. You are in parallel with the "grid" to supply it. If you raise the voltage at your grid-tie then the "grid" raises too.
It ***IS*** exactly the same as the battery analogy but thinkof the two batteries with a load. This is the same as the grid. You cannot feed your energy into nothingness.
This also depends on where your "grid" ends....LOL
"Dan Bloomquist" wrote in message

Solar Flare wrote:
Some major basic flaws in that argument.
1) The grid-tie and the grid have to be the same voltage as they are in parallel.
Line V1 -/\/\/\/\- V2
So if V1 equals V2 there is no current through the line. So there is no flow of power. So 1) is false if you are going to move power from the inverter to the grid.
2) I have two batteries in parallel and the load is shared between them and they are exactly the same voltage. The voltage only has to be matched and the impedance of the source low enough to share the current draw.
Here you have no flow of power from one battery to the other. It is not the same condition as power flowing from the inverter to the grid.
Best, Dan.

"Jim Baber" wrote in message
Remember the only way that any generated power can be added to the grid is
for it to be at a
slightly higher voltage than the grid is at that
point in time.
All of the grid tied inverters therefore are designed
to output their
power at a voltage at a slightly higher voltage than
the existing grid
voltage so that any power not used by the local needs
can flow into the
grid automatically. Interestingly, this will cause
the general voltage
to increase, which in turn will allow the large
plants to reduce their
output if the system voltage approaches the peak
allowed voltage.

-- "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption" George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Vice President Dick Cheney

Solar Flare wrote:

Power flowing into the grid is a bit of a misnomer.

Go to meter on the side of your house and tell me what that little wheel spinning represents then...

The power (energy) really flows into your neighbours house load. You are in parallel with the "grid" to supply it. If you raise the voltage at your grid-tie then the "grid" raises too.

There is a voltage drop on the line, I=E/R. Your previous claim was that there was no E hence no I, hence no energy flow. But I can see denial setting in...

It ***IS*** exactly the same as the battery analogy but thinkof the two batteries with a load. This is the same as the grid. You cannot feed your energy into nothingness.

It is not. There is no voltage drop between the batteries. But I can see denial setting in...

This also depends on where your "grid" ends....LOL

LOL? What did you write that was so funny, or even meaningful?
I see you are about to rewrite your origanal post, a squrming if you'd like. This should be fun...
Best, Dan.
-- "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption" George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Vice President Dick Cheney

I am not going to rewrite anything. I have spent enough time trying to convince you of basic electrical physics.
"Dan Bloomquist" wrote in message

Solar Flare wrote:
Power flowing into the grid is a bit of a misnomer.
Go to meter on the side of your house and tell me what that little wheel spinning represents then...
The power (energy) really flows into your neighbours house load. You are in parallel with the "grid" to supply it. If you raise the voltage at your grid-tie then the "grid" raises too.
There is a voltage drop on the line, I=E/R. Your previous claim was that there was no E hence no I, hence no energy flow. But I can see denial setting in...
It ***IS*** exactly the same as the battery analogy but thinkof the two batteries with a load. This is the same as the grid. You cannot feed your energy into nothingness.
It is not. There is no voltage drop between the batteries. But I can see denial setting in...
This also depends on where your "grid" ends....LOL
LOL? What did you write that was so funny, or even meaningful?
I see you are about to rewrite your origanal post, a squrming if you'd like. This should be fun...
Best, Dan.
-- "We need an energy policy that encourages consumption" George W. Bush.
"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue, but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." Vice President Dick Cheney

Anthony Matonak wrote:

Alan Petrillo wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:
...
It will never happen.
You know, there is an interesting list of things that people said would never happen.
There is an even longer list of things people said would never happen that, oddly enough, still haven't happened.

Yet.

Flying cars in every garage, hotels in space, moon colonies, peace, $1/watt PV, fusion power...

All it will take is will, engineering, time, and money. There are people working on those things as we write this. They have not happened yet, but they are not impossible, and I am sure they will happen eventually.
One of the things I do is write Science Fiction, so being a forward looking optimist is kind of an occupational necessity.
But as to the original post, will a truly distributed power grid happen? We can only hope. It is not impossible, and it already is happening in some places.
AP

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

Alan Petrillo wrote:
Dan Bloomquist wrote:

JoeSP wrote:
"Dan Bloomquist" wrote in message
Repeat after me. There is no such thing as excess power on the grid, there is no such thing as excess power on the grid, there is no such thing as excess power on the grid...
Why does this misunderstanding persist?
The original post was about a hypothetical future time when "most of the power is produced by thousands of small producers."
It will never happen.
You know, there is an interesting list of things that people said would never happen.
Electric power. Alternating current. Flight. Heavier than air flight. Supersonic flight. Space flight. Movies. Television. Telephones. Internal combustion engines. The automobile. Radio. Microcomputers. Robots.
Please re-read. Your arguing point has nothing to do with the subject.

My point has everything to do with the subject.
You said that a truly distributed power grid will never happen. I was simply pointing out by the use of examples that people have said that about all sorts of things before, and been wrong.
Making infinite statements like that is dangerous unless you have a really, _really_ good crystal ball.
Keep in mind also, I'm not saying it absolutely _will_ happen either, at least not in the Untied States. My crystal ball is a clunker, so I generally don't make infinite statements. As long as the utility conglomerates maintain their stranglehold over the legislative process it is unlikely that a distributed grid will happen, because the utility conglomerates could not maintain their control over it, and that would cost them many gigabucks.
AP

Alan Petrillo wrote:

it is unlikely that a distributed grid will happen, because the utility conglomerates could not maintain their control over it...

Then again, the new UK CHP systems are dispatchable. Negawatts are too. The cabal can send signals to turn on sources or turn off loads (1 kW and up) to meet grid capacity needs.
Nick

nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote:

Alan Petrillo wrote:
it is unlikely that a distributed grid will happen, because the utility conglomerates could not maintain their control over it...
Then again, the new UK CHP systems are dispatchable. Negawatts are too. The cabal can send signals to turn on sources or turn off loads (1 kW and up) to meet grid capacity needs.

Excellent. If it can be done there then it can be done anywhere.
AP

"Alan Petrillo" wrote in message

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

JoeSP wrote:
"Dan Bloomquist" wrote in message
Repeat after me. There is no such thing as excess power on the grid, there is no such thing as excess power on the grid, there is no such thing as excess power on the grid...
Why does this misunderstanding persist?
The original post was about a hypothetical future time when "most of the power is produced by thousands of small producers."
It will never happen.
You know, there is an interesting list of things that people said would never happen.
Electric power. Alternating current. Flight. Heavier than air flight. Supersonic flight. Space flight. Movies. Television. Telephones. Internal combustion engines. The automobile. Radio. Microcomputers. Robots.
The list goes on. They are endemic to modern day society. They all have one thing in common: At some point early in their development somebody who thought he knew what he was talking about said they would never happen. Saying "It'll never happen" seems to make engineers work harder to make it happen.

Certitude is the prime component of stupidity.

"Alan Petrillo" wrote in message

Dan Bloomquist wrote:

T.Keating wrote:
Only a fool would throw away that excess production..
The excess power can be put to good use..
For example... Making hydrogen...
Why not just store the energy? Why throw away perfectly good electricity on hydrogen?
Well, if the option is heating up a dummy load, then I'll take the hydrogen. It's inefficient as hell, but it's better than totally wasting the energy.

That sounds like someone who gets paid for a grid-tie, and thinks it will succeed on a large scale in the future. "Sure, produce all you can, and don't worry about the excess, we'll still get paid for it."
It won't work that way. Right now it's cheaper to pay a high price from small producers than to build a new plant, but that's not a sustainable solution for everyone in the future. Nothing beats the economics of scale from a large plant. Eventually the demand will justify a big new plant, and the little guys won't be needed.