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.

Hubris, Homo Sapiens undoing

Hubris, Homo Sapiens undoing

This book  as practically all other books/studies presume that homo sapiens is the supreme criterion by which to judge other species. This is evidently an extreme example of anthropocentrism. Within it’s own pov many more animals are far superior within their own context than homo sapiens.
In the realms of the disinterested natural evolutionary world homo sapiens is in evolutionary terms a dead end branch. It took the species a mere 100.000 years to arrive at the point where it is on the brink of multiple factors leading to extinction.
Unbridled procreation, with a distinct tendency to self-destruction coupled a primal brain which controls an unrivaled capacity for mass destruction is not going to able to compete with even mere jellyfish which outlive us by 500 million years.
Homo sapiens barely overcame in evolutionary time scales, it’s gene pool severely polluted by not only being descendant of the relative few that survived the multiple natural disasters such as the ice ages but nowadays by medicinal progress.
Eugenetics is a dirty word because it was abused by an ideology of the 20th century but anyone with a sound mind can reason that keeping non-viable specimens in that gene pool only serves to pollute it even more.

Homo sapiens has effectively put itself outside of the natural selection mechanism which as a mechanism caused the best specimens to survive and the weakest succumb. By intervening in this mechanism of we barely understand it’s long term implications it would surprise me if homo sapiens as a species would reach a million years let alone the crocodile with a brain the size of a walnut which so far made to 200 million years.

Hubris will be it’s undoing long before

selfreported ‘science’ proves alcohol changes mood

selfreported ‘science’ proves alcohol changes mood

In this ‘study’ alcohol moodiness seems to ‘prove’ that the sort of alcohol ingested (liquor, wine, beer) influences the state of mind of the person.

quote:

” Main outcome measures Positive and negative emotions associated with consumption of different alcoholic beverages (energised, relaxed, sexy, confident, tired, aggressive, ill, restless and tearful) over the past 12 months in different settings.

Results Alcoholic beverages vary in the types of emotions individuals report they elicit, with spirits more frequently eliciting emotional changes of all types. Overall 29.8% of respondents reported feeling aggressive when drinking spirits, compared with only 7.1% when drinking red wine (p<0.001). Women more frequently reported feeling all emotions when drinking alcohol, apart from feelings of aggression. Respondents’ level of alcohol dependency was strongly associated with feeling all emotions, with the likelihood of aggression being significantly higher in possible dependent versus low risk drinkers (adjusted OR 6.4; 95% CI 5.79 to 7.09; p<0.001). The odds of feeling the majority of positive and negative emotions also remained highest among dependent drinkers irrespective of setting.”

 

Evidently the more one consumes in alcohol quantity, be it liquor/wine/beer/etc the influence will be more influential however to write and get accepted a paper stating that the sort of beverage influences the mood is beyond absurd.

The use of ‘report/reported’ in this paper should have been more than enough to have it refused for publication, how inebriated where the participants?

Unfortunately it’s not only with alcohol where self reporting has been used as a valid measurement.

I invite anyone to do a word search ‘report’ in the fields such as psychology, sociologically, psychiatry, air pollution or whichever field which can’t be empirically proven

Going by my personal experience self reporting in those fields is overwhelming

 

 

Why current EV vehicles will not replace ICE vehicles

Why current EV vehicles will not replace ICE vehicles

Simple. There is no national grid that can nor will supply the energy needed to replace the energy currently supplied by hydrocarbons. Not daily, not hourly.

I’ll keep it extremely simple to be comprehensible. To transport the equivalent of hydrocarbon energy content to electricity you need very high capacity 24/7 power plants. You need to have high capacity transport lines in the 1000 kV range which need multiple transformers to  step down the energy to the level it won’t blow up your car.

You need the cables, either from aluminum or copper to take up the charge. No national grid has this. So you need to replace the whole infrastructure down to the connection of your domicile to the grid.

The grid needs to be able to compensate for the wildly varying supply now that so called green power plants come on line. Solar doesn’t work at night, wind farms don’t work when there is either to much or to little wind.

But even if they would work 24/7 (current levels are at best 20% of rated capacity in the northern hemisphere) still no city has the infrastructure to cope with a projected demand of 100% EV vehicles, ships, airplanes.

In fact even the very big conglomerates with the most modern infrastructure won’t be able to supply all energy needs including vehicles without melting the transport lines.

On purpose i refrained from introducing the calculations of how much energy is generated using hydrocarbons and how there is noway anyone will be able to replace it by green energy nor realistically transmit it to the end-user.

The problem here is that those who profess this replacement live in large cities, with relatively few EV vehicles and electricity supplied by fossil fuels without realizing that the the rest of the world doesn’t have an infrastructure even capable to keep a refrigerator running without fail let alone charge an EV vehicle.

And don’t get me started on long haul trucks. Only a very small part of the world has flat straight roads with high capacity power lines.

Or transatlantic freight-ships. Where are you going to charge your 200.000 tonnes capacity container-ship? The Panama canal?

 

 

 

The Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization

The Rise and Fall of the Western Civilization

Anyone with a classic education has read “The Rise and Fall of the Roman Empire”

Those same persons will undoubtedly recognize the uncanny resemblance between that civilization and the reasons for its demise as what is happening now with is called the “Western Civilization”

Now granted most of the the latter is positioned geographically to the east of the Greenwich Meridian but for the sake of the argument i’ll use Western.

As with the Roman empire the Western ‘Empire’ suffers from the slow decay of  the cohesion once uniting them albeit for different reasons. Still the mechanism is alike as is the result.

In my opinion the basic problem in the Western civilization is the extreme rationalization of cultural differences. Worse still the rationalization of core values once fought for to the point they cease to exist.

Anyone with an open mind can easily see how since the Renaissance Europe became a beacon of all that  made the difference between humanity as being more than any given primate colony and the rest of the world’s population.

Take for example the African continent, I’ve written about it’s failures Africa’s forever wars which to this day still cause untold suffering. Than we have the Arabic Peninsula and the Middle East where war, pillage, rape and overall inhumanity are still rife.

No way no how is it possible to integrate those violent and intolerant cultures into the dying Western Culture (where children are indoctrinated there exist untold genders making the DSM definition of Gender Confusion the law of the land) without the Western Culture being overrun by barbaric tribes as happened to the Roman Empire.

The disease of over rationalization which plaques Western culture is no match for the cultures which live by the sword, which laugh at our weak convictions using them to their own goal:

Conquer

 

Defending the car industry because it is too stupid to defend itself.

Defending the car industry because it is too stupid to defend itself.

Here’s what you need to know.

  1. Dieselgate was about higher than allowed NOx emissions caused by car manufacturers rigging their engines to cheat emissions tests.
  2. EPA imagines NOx as a precursor to fine particulate matter (PM2.5).
  3. It is claimed that PM2.5 causes millions of deaths every year.
  4. Scare Pollution debunks the claim that PM2.5 kills anyone. So NOx kills no one.
  5. So there is nothing to the extra NOx emissions and this study except a lot of junk science.

The media release is here

It must be said that none nowhere ever  managed to show a causal link between pm2.5 and health/longevity , at the very best one could show that in fact pm2.5 has no effect on health except when taken in extreme doses as in smoking (which counts for 20.000 times the pm2.5 per cigarette as compared to the outside air and even than it’s impossible to pinpoint if the smokers died from cancerous/toxic substances in that smoke rather than the particulate matter).

As of today nobody can show a death certificate which claims pm2.5 as cause of death but by setting the standards of air-pollution to the level of pm2.5 all air on the whole of earth can be deemed as being polluted as long as one keeps on setting the ‘safe’ level lower and lower.

So in fact in the western world there is no notable air-pollution if one just discounts the fairytale of particulate matter as a danger to public health.

It is however a perfect system to scare people to pay exorbitant prices for energy. The most ‘green’ countries have the highest consumer prices for energy which is great for the industry. Those benefit most since all subsidies for ‘green’ energy makes for a gorgeous business model. Money for free. No wonder many jump on the bandwagon 

 

Autonomous driving cars in day to day traffic

Autonomous driving cars in day to day traffic

Are an illusion. Why? Quite simple they depend on multiple sensors which in turn depend on clear clean road conditions and the willingness to cleans all sensors arduously over their lifetime.

Snow, Rain, Dust, highly reflective surfaces are the least of your worries. The point is unfortunately 99.99% of the worlds infrastructure doesn’t resemble California highways at all.

Even in France or Germany with their very high standard highways the infrastructure mostly consists of badly maintained single lane roads often following the terrain resulting in very low grade daily commute connections.

The state of road infrastructure in 3 world countries is evidently even worse.

Please explain how an autonomous car is going not kill you on this extremely popular route

https://www.google.fr/maps/dir/18039+Vintimille,+Imperia,+Italie/Nice/@43.751186,7.3647427,12z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m17!4m16!1m5!1m1!1s0x12cded8f4abeb795:0xd833ac5bc1e1bc5a!2m2!1d7.6075864!2d43.7912366!1m5!1m1!1s0x12cdd0106a852d31:0x40819a5fd979a70!2m2!1d7.2619532!2d43.7101728!2m1!1b1!3e0!4e1

2016-12-15_14-13-26

A twisting single lane road through multiple congested villages mostly along cliffs without a protective barrier at all. Still a a very busy commute road. So there you sit in your futuristic autonomous car, sun high & reflections all over the place, obstacles like fallen rocks a plenty, a road which is only recognizable as such because there is tarmac somewhere, passing motor-scooters at breakneck speed right and left, cars coming up on the other lane towards you.

And thats actually a reasonable road compared to for example India.

Self driving cars? Sure in the tiniest part of the world where well indicated multiple highway lanes exist.

I invite you to come over here with your Tesla during winter, the trip only takes about 40 miles. You’ll hardly reach your destination even when driving yourself due to severe drain caused by height differences, gale-force winds  but for sure not with even the most advanced software someone can come up with if you go autonomous.