Dr. James Dinicolantono wrote . . . . . . . . . For more than 40 years, we’ve been told eating too much salt is killing us. Doctors say it’s as bad for our health as smoking or not exercising, and government guidelines limit us to just under a teaspoon a day. We’re told […]
Renewables rent seekers keep telling us how cheap wind and solar are, compared to those ‘evil’ fossil fuels, coal and gas.
But ‘price’ and ‘value’ are not the same animals. What we pay for something, and what it’s worth depends entirely upon what we get. And, in relation to the consumption of electricity, whether or not we get it, at all.
Wind power might be ‘free’, but try purchasing it, at any price, when the wind stops blowing.
Comparing weather dependent wind generation with sources available, around-the-clock, irrespective of the weather, is a game played by intellectual pygmies. There is, of course, no comparison.
So when you’re faced with a pile of numbers said to show how wind stacks up against the big boys, the obvious retort is, ‘when’? When I need it, or when the wind is just right?
Donn Dears picks up that thread quite neatly in this…
View original post 592 more words
Due to the significant drop in nuclear power consumption, Germany has been unable to reduce fossil fuel consumption as much as previously hoped. This shortfall is especially the case with natural gas, which has been a central cause for concern given the political leverage held by massive Russian exports to Germany, and to the European Union more broadly. On this issue, progress has been limited, and seems to be getting worse.
As the table below demonstrates, Russian natural gas exports to Germany are only increasing, and show no signs of abatement, mirroring anecdotal reports and the steady progression of the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
Total imports, including those from Russia (except a 2011-2012 decrease due to supply diversions resulting from extreme cold weather), have increased while both domestic production and consumption have decreased.
In 2016, Germany sourced over 46 percent of its natural gas imports from Russia, up from 40 percent in 2006. The other two key suppliers, Norway, and the Netherlands, both maintained relatively stable exports over the period examined.
In short, Germany’s Energiewende is big failure. Having spent 100s of billions of euros on ‘alternative energy production’ the only result is that the consumer end price for electricity risen to amongst the highest in Europe ( What German households pay for power ) whilst dependence on fossil fuels has augmented.
Worst still, due to the unpredictability of their alternative energy Germany has been forced to pay other nations to please pretty please take their surplus energy of their hands to prevent their infrastructure glowing red from overproduction whilst at the same time having to pay spot prices to import energy those nights the sun doesn’t shine, those cloudy days it also doesn’t do much, those days the wind doesn’t blow or those days it doesn’t blow at all or to strong.
Inevitable conclusion: their endlösung for energy production doesn’t work in real life.
The research, led by University of California neurologist Claudia Kawas, tracked 1,700 nonagenarians enrolled in the 90+ Study that began in 2003 to explore impacts of daily habits on longevity.
Researchers discovered that subjects who drank about two glasses of beer or wine a day were 18% less likely to experience a premature death, the Independent reports.
Meanwhile, participants who exercised 15 to 45 minutes a day, cut the same risk by 11%.
“I have no explanation for it, but I do firmly believe that modest drinking improves longevity,” Kawas stated over the weekend at the American Association for the Advancement of Science annual conference in Austin, Texas.
Other factors were found to boost longevity, including weight. Participants who were slightly overweight — but not obese — cut their odds of an early death by 3%.
“It’s not bad to be skinny when you’re young but it’s very bad to be skinny when you’re old,” Kawas noted in her address.
Subjects who kept busy with a daily hobby two hours a day were 21% less likely to die early, while those who drank two cups of coffee a day cut that risk by 10%.
Further study is needed to determine how habits impact longevity beyond people’s genetic makeups.
Grid stability is likely to be increasingly challenged as power distribution moves from a centralized to a more decentralized model, new research has found.
According to a paper published this week in the journal Nature Energy by researchers from Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Dynamics and Self-Organization and the UK’s Queen Mary University of London, integrating growing numbers of renewable power installations and microgrids onto the grid can result in larger-than-expected fluctuations in grid frequency.
The researchers collected data from grids of various sizes in Germany, France, the UK, Finland, Mallorca, Japan and the US. Based on this data, they developed mathematical models that “can establish the influence of making the grid smaller or of adding a bit more renewable energy” in order to aid in planning, said Professor Christian Beck of Queen Mary University, one of the paper’s co-authors.
The team found that small grids like Mallorca’s displayed larger frequency deviations than larger grids, such as continental Europe’s. And comparing different regions showed that a larger share of renewable generation resulted in larger frequency deviations.
“The grid operators want the frequency to be 50 Hz, but it fluctuates a little bit around this all the time,” said Beck. “We can now establish the probability that the deviation is more than 2 per cent or so, which is a big deviation, and we found that the probability of that is higher than expected from pure random fluctuation.”
Beck told PEi that the research team’s “first surprise was that energy trading had a significant impact on the grids studied” after Germany’s grid and others displayed particularly large fluctuations every 15 minutes, corresponding to spot market trading.
“The grid frequency had big jumps every 15-30 minutes,” he said, “and it wasn’t clear to us before that trading has such a big effect. Most people were worried about renewables because they are unpredictable and certainly produce fluctuations in frequency. Trading gives a similar order of, or stronger, fluctuation, which hadn’t been clear to us or, I think, to most people.”
Comparatively, the research showed that a larger share of renewable generation in a given region resulted in larger deviations from the standard 50 Hz. For example, the UK, with more renewables than the US, also had larger frequency deviations. To integrate more renewables onto the UK grid, the research team recommends increasing primary control and demand response.
“The UK is somewhat special,” Beck said, “in that it has a much higher component of wind power contributing, and it also has an overall smaller grid than the rest of Europe. Still, frequency fluctuations caused by trading seem to be at least as relevant as fluctuations caused by renewables.”
Asked about the effects on microgrids, he said that “the maths allows us to extrapolate the effects depending on the size of the grid. If we extrapolate our results to smaller grids, then indeed we would be implying that the effects are more pronounced there, and if people wish to have a microgrid then they need to relax a little bit the conditions they demand on constant frequency.”
“I don’t think we are saying anything against microgrids,” he added. “You just have to complement them with suitable control strategies to make sure the frequency is constant enough.”
The idea that by some miraculous yet to be invented ‘smart’ grid this problem can be overcome belongs to the domain of futuristic solutions. Obviously the more failure prone advanced electronics you add to the problem, the solution becomes a problem.
And all this still is based on the current situation without having provisions for the enormous extra load Electric Vehicles will put on that grid.
If ever the general transport currently based on hydrocarbons where to be replaced by electric the current grid and further infrastructure would buckle at the first time the 47 quadrillion Btu in 2012 to 94 quadrillion Btu in 2040 for the transport sector alone would be trying to get that of any electric grid, being it smart or super-intelligent.
Enstrom’s study: Fine Particulate Matter and Total Mortality
As with the fake science ‘supporting’ AGW this latest effort to scare people into paying exorbitant eco taxes for non existent problems begins to unravel fast.
It’s really amazing how time and again ecowarriors try to get away with baseless fake science in order to get their hand in your wallet.
The tactic is always the same: propose a very scary problem, pump it up with hundreds of taxpayer/donation funded studies whose premise is: Here is the desired outcome now please write us a paper saying it is so.
As with the air quality standards. Air in the Western World became so clean over the last decades it’s having a measurable effect of the amount of sunlight actually striking the ground. Standards for what constitutes ‘clean air’ are now so strict that nature itself can’t adhere to it. Natural causes of air ‘pollution’ (hey we as a species managed to overcome much worse over the last million+ years and we prosper) are worldwide the main driver.
Just as with CO2 not being a pollutant but a highly necessary trace gas for vegetation so is PM2.5 a in greater part a natural phenomenon we live with since time memorial.
The truck can drive 500 miles on a single charge, which was higher than some analysts had expected. That may mean that, in terms of range, the vehicle could meet the needs of long haul truck drivers.
“There apparently were eight charging ports, and with a 100kw battery behind each that would be 800Kw. To deliver 90% of capacity in 30 minutes you’d have to deliver approximately 1.5 Megawatts plus losses; batteries are 80-85% charge efficient during the bulk phase until they reach about 80% of capacity (at which point their efficiency goes down materially) and the electronics to control the charge have loss too — probably in the neighborhood of 10%. So we have a 76%, more or less, efficiency on the charge rate which means we must deliver almost exactly 2 Megawatts to the truck for that 30 minutes.
I note that 500 kilowatts has to be dissipated somewhere for that entire period in the truck or the batteries, controller equipment or both catch on fire. This is a serious problem all on its own that I am not convinced Musk can solve.
Then there is the economic issue. Musk claims he’s going to “guarantee” a 7c/kwh price for all that power. How he thinks he can do this in a commercial environment where demand meters are used by law is beyond me; the first time a trucker needs to be charged at 4:00 PM on a 95 degree day there will be a very large surprise delivered in the form of the bill. Never mind that the trucker (or company) will be paying for the 25% losses too; you get to pay for the entire megawatt-hour even though you only keep 75% of it; the rest heats the air. Apparently Musk thinks that he can simply build “battery packs” to store energy and thus charge them when the power is cheaper. Ok, that’s fine and well, except (1) now you have another 25% loss, stacked (you take one when you charge the pack when “cheaper” and then when the truck is charged) and for each truck’s worth of capacity in said battery bank he gets to buy another battery that would otherwise go in the truck, plus another 25% to cover the losses when the truck is charged, plus the electronics to charge, discharge and control that “banked” pack. Somehow this all is going to “work out” to 7 cents/kwh.
Let me make this clear: No it won’t. If Tesla guarantees that rate to the buyer then Tesla will absorb billions in losses and the more trucks are on the road and the more miles they drive the more money the company loses.
But it pales beside what Musk claims to be able to do when it comes to charging these trucks in the first place. The average house in the United States consumes about 12 megawatt/hours of energy over the entire year, or about a megawatt-hour per month. Musk intends to suck twice as much energy from the electrical grid as your house consumes in a month in 30 minutes.
To put some perspective on this that means that one such truck charging will place approximately the same load on the grid as 1,400 houses. One truck.
What happens when 20 of them show up at the truck stop? You know they do that today — they fill their diesel tanks and they’re on their way, although they typically only fill said tanks half as often as these batteries will require charging.
So it won’t be 20 of them it will be 40 since their range-before-refueling is about half of common OTR trucks now. Now we’re talking about the load of roughly 57,000 additional houses that will be instantly presented to the grid and which the grid must be able to support — per truck stop or terminal!
Who’s going to pay to build all that out and with what will they do so?