More renewables mean less stable grids, researchers find

More renewables mean less stable grids, researchers find

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.”

Source

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.

No dose effect on mortality by particulate matter PM2.5

No dose effect on mortality by particulate matter PM2.5

pm2noeffect

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.

 

Why large scale implementation of EV vehicles isn’t possible

Why large scale implementation of EV vehicles isn’t possible

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?

France’s electricity to remain cheap


There are artificial self-imposed targets, plans and even laws – and then there’s reality, if ‘keeping the lights on’ is a priority. Scrapping nuclear capacity implies either having something convincing to replace it with, or risking the wrath of the voters if/when things start to go wrong. The French environment minister Nicolas Hulot says the […]

via France delays reduction of nuclear power — Tallbloke’s Talkshop

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt?

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt?

Energy Source               Mortality Rate (deaths/trillionkWhr)

Coal – global average         100,000    (41% global electricity)

Coal – China                         170,000   (75% China’s electricity)

Coal – U.S.                               10,000    (32% U.S. electricity)

Oil                                               36,000    (33% of energy, 8% of electricity)

Natural Gas                                4,000    (22% global electricity)

Biofuel/Biomass                    24,000    (21% global energy)

Solar (rooftop)                              440    (< 1% global electricity)

Wind                                                 150    (2% global electricity)

Hydro – global average          1,400    (16% global electricity)

Hydro – U.S.                                     5    (6% U.S. electricity)

Nuclear – global average              90    (11%  global electricity w/Chern&Fukush)

Nuclear – U.S.                                0.1    (19% U.S. electricity)

 

source

Evidently Nuclear is still the least lethal form of energy production and has the advantage of stifling the CO2 hysteria by being almost emission free  

Smokers in clinical studies who say they’ve quit often haven’t

Smokers in clinical studies who say they’ve quit often haven’t

SOCIETY FOR THE STUDY OF ADDICTION

A new US study published by the scientific journal Addiction has found that a high proportion of smokers enrolled in stop-smoking programs during a hospital stay report having quit when in fact they have not. The findings mean that in these kinds of study it is vital to check claims of having quit using an objective measure.

This nationwide study followed five large smoking cessation clinical trials in the US that enrolled smokers at hospitalization. At 6-month follow-up, 822 participants (out of 4,206 who completed the follow-up survey) reported they had not smoked in the past 7 days and provided a usable saliva sample for verification by testing for a chemical called ‘cotinine’. The liver converts nicotine in the body to cotinine and so this chemical is a very accurate measure of whether someone has smoked in the past few days. More than 40% of those 822 self-reported quitters failed the saliva test.

The misreporting rate may be even higher because, despite the offer of $50 to $100 for providing a sample 18.6% of people who had said they had quit smoking did not reply, even after multiple attempts. These participants were excluded from the study. The study also excluded anyone who said they were using another nicotine product such as smokeless tobacco, nicotine patches or e-cigarettes. Even very heavy exposure to other people smoking would not have raised cotinine levels to those found in this study.

Lead author Dr. Taneisha Scheuerman says “Our study shows that in studies where participants may feel pressure to say they have quit when they have not, it is essential to verify claims of quitting using an objective test such as cotinine to know true quit rates. For clinical researchers, another important finding is that misreporting rates were similar across intervention and control conditions, suggesting that the relative effectiveness of interventions tested was the same using self-report and cotinine levels.”

Professor Robert West, Editor-in-Chief of the journal, Addiction, that published the article comments, “Other research has shown very low misreporting rates in population surveys of smoking. Hospital patients and pregnant women would be likely to feel strong pressure to have stopped smoking.”

One cannot help but wonder what the outcome would be for alcohol

Most adolescents suffer from Gender confusion

Most adolescents suffer from Gender confusion

Seven chimpanzees of different ages and sexes living in the Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University were part of the experiment. They sat in a booth housing a computer-based touchscreen and were trained to choose the stronger of two options (based on the rules of the game) they saw on screen. They first learnt the paper-rock sequence, then the rock-scissors one and finally the scissors-paper combination. Once they knew how the pairs fitted together, all the different pairs were randomly presented to them on screen. Five of the seven chimpanzees completed the training after an average of 307 sessions.

The findings show that chimpanzees can learn the circular pattern at the heart of the game. However, it took them significantly longer to learn the third scissors-paper pair than it did to grasp the others, which indicates that they had difficulty finalizing the circular nature of the pattern.

The research team then also taught the game to 38 preschool children to compare the learning process of chimpanzees with that of humans aged three to six. The children had little difficulty grasping the game, and on average did so within five sessions. Their performance was, however, subject to age. The older the children were, the more accurate they became when all three pairs were randomly presented to them. Participants older than 50 months (about four years) played the game with more skill rather than luck.

“This suggests that children acquire the ability to learn a circular relationship and to solve a transverse patterning problem around the age of four years,” says Gao. “The chimpanzees’ performance during the mixed-pair sessions was similar to that of four-year-old children,” adds Gao, who hopes the findings will inspire future studies into how age and sex influence the ability of members of various species to learn circular relationships.

There are  but two genders

much has been written about the gender confusion during early adolescence but biology and evolution proves all mammals have only 2 : male and female 

The mammal Homo Sapiens has adopted the psychological construct there could be a rainbow of genders. Which science did prove long time ago has shown that the physical build of the brain determines gender

In other words there is a thing as gender dysphoria

A tiny minority but unfortunately loud political correctness platform made it look like a majority.

please stop

pretty please?