THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS SAFE NUCLEAR POWER

[dre]

What storage capacity? No storage capacity is added to the grid by having a bunch of homeowners connected in this way. The only storage capacity is if there is a large hydro dam connected to the grid, and that is only applicable in certain areas.

And that is the real problem. To smooth out load-supply variability, you need storage capacity. For a single homeowner, the grid looks like a giant storage bank. But it's not. The grid has no inherent storage. It is not a giant capacitor.

The power grid is not like the internet. In the internet, if there is a failure in one spot, that spot becomes effectively disconnected, but most other parts of the network can continue to function and communicate with each other. In a power grid, a failure of one part now means all other areas experience insufficient power, brownouts, and possible overloads which can lead to further damage.

Additionally, consider scenarios such as storms and other natural disasters. Right now, if these cause power failure, it is usually a matter of repairing a few broken power lines or centralized transformer stations or power plants. That is something authorities can deal with quickly and usually get back online within a few days at the very worst. But now imagine if there are millions of homes, each contributing to the grid, and the storm causes damage to the solar panels on the roofs on a large portion of them. It will take months to get it all back up and working at full capacity.

When you talk about advantages of redundancy and stability that are inherent to distributed networks, there is an assumption that failures are random, statistical in nature. But, if there is a strong correlation between failures of different components of the network, such as if failures are caused by natural disasters that strike large parts of the network simultaneously, then this advantage disappears. Instead you are just left with the disadvantage: the difficulty of repairing distributed systems.

I'm not familiar with the acronym GTI. What does it refer to?

Grid Tie Interface

And any house that generates its own power will have storage, and the GTI can draw down that storage as power is required. Eventually most homes will have electric cars in their garages as well, which will add even more storage to the grid.

When you talk about advantages of redundancy and stability that are inherent to distributed networks, there is an assumption that failures are random, statistical in nature.

No you dont have to make that assumption.

That is something authorities can deal with quickly and usually get back online within a few days at the very worst. But now imagine if there are millions of homes, each contributing to the grid, and the storm causes damage to the solar panels on the roofs on a large portion of them.

A proper installation is as strong as the roof itself. Wind storms WILL damage the grid which is one of the benefits of distributed generation. Even if the grid is down, consumer/producers will be able to at least produce enough energy for their emergency needs.

Im not saying there isnt work to do still but the technology IS inherently more stable, and tolerant to faults, plus with all the added storage you will waste less power. Right now in order to handle load adjustment we run generators in dissipative standby mode, but once a residence has enought storage to power itself for a day, and that storage is connected to the grid... we wont need to do anywhere near as much of that.

Large scale blackouts happen typically because the grid itself is damaged or because large facilities go down.

[dre]

You're right about the need for a much smarter grid, Bonam. If there was a problem in one area the losses and difficulty of sourcing from long distances away pose severe challenges.

It doesn't help when we have political snags, like the new transmission lines that are stopped from crossing through areas disputed by Six Nations. Those new lines were to enable using the new power from upgrades at the Niagara Falls generating station. Now McGuinty says we don't need the lines anyway. Which brings questions like why did we build that new capacity and why did we start those new transmission lines in the first place?

I would suggest that if Six Nations doesn't produce any power themselves then if they want to block power to others why should we supply power to them? Seems rather one-sided to me. If they want to make a political point they have every right but if they are indeed the "stewards of the earth" as they love to claim then surely they can produce their own power and in a green fashion, as well.

I don't have deep enough knowledge but I have a hunch that if the grid WERE capable enough storage capacity would not be as much of a problem. There could be so many household contributors that we would offset the need for storage with excess. The "Grey Line" of sunrise moves slowly but wind covers both day and night, when it is there. Again, the grid would have to be able to transport power from much greater distances and respond much more quickly to changes in load.

We are nowhere near that ability, at the moment. Perhaps McGuinty wlll strike another deal with Samsung to make it happen in a few weekends!

There could be so many household contributors that we would offset the need for storage with excess.

Well those households will BE the storage. Each consumer/producer will have an appliance the size of a washing machine, that is a GTI, but also has a fair ammount of storage capacity. Houses will store energy they generate in that device. If each home had a storage array equivalent to 20 conventional deep cycle batteries you would be adding about 500 million killowatt hours in storage that the grid can acess via the GTI network.

[Bonam]

Grid Tie Interface

And any house that generates its own power will have storage, and the GTI can draw down that storage as power is required. Eventually most homes will have electric cars in their garages as well, which will add even more storage to the grid.

No you dont have to make that assumption.

A proper installation is as strong as the roof itself. Wind storms WILL damage the grid which is one of the benefits of distributed generation. Even if the grid is down, consumer/producers will be able to at least produce enough energy for their emergency needs.

Im not saying there isnt work to do still but the technology IS inherently more stable, and tolerant to faults, plus with all the added storage you will waste less power. Right now in order to handle load adjustment we run generators in dissipative standby mode, but once a residence has enought storage to power itself for a day, and that storage is connected to the grid... we wont need to do anywhere near as much of that.

Large scale blackouts happen typically because the grid itself is damaged or because large facilities go down.

Well those households will BE the storage. Each consumer/producer will have an appliance the size of a washing machine, that is a GTI, but also has a fair ammount of storage capacity. Houses will store energy they generate in that device. If each home had a storage array equivalent to 20 conventional deep cycle batteries you would be adding about 500 million killowatt hours in storage that the grid can acess via the GTI network.

1. Quickly googling around about GTIs, I don't see any support for the assertion that a typical one has a "fair amount of storage capacity".

2. 500 GWh of energy storage batteries would cost about $250 billion. I don't know what scale you were talking about this amount of energy storage being added, but based on the cost I'm going to assume you were referring to the US national grid, since that is the only scale on which such investment is even remotely possible (even if done by individual homeowners rather than a government program). US energy consumption is about 80 TWh/day. 500 GWh of energy storage would provide smoothing over timescales of only 15 minutes, whereas what you need is something closer to a 12-24 hour smoothing period. So you'd need about 60 times that energy storage, at a cost of about $15 trillion. The cost will likely fall over time as it does for any technology, but needless to say it will be decades before this amount of energy storage could be realistically added to the grid.

3. The whole subtopic of discussion here was the advantage for homeowners of having the option of selling/buying power to/from the grid. That advantage being not having to invest in expensive energy storage, and just using the grid as their storage. If you start talking about needing to invest huge amounts of money in energy storage (whether distributed or centralized), that advantage disappears.

Edited September 28, 2012 by Bonam

[dre]

1. Quickly googling around about GTIs, I don't see any support for the assertion that a typical one has a "fair amount of storage capacity".

2. 500 GWh of energy storage batteries would cost about $250 billion. I don't know what scale you were talking about this amount of energy storage being added, but based on the cost I'm going to assume you were referring to the US national grid, since that is the only scale on which such investment is even remotely possible (even if done by individual homeowners rather than a government program). US energy consumption is about 80 TWh/day. 500 GWh of energy storage would provide smoothing over timescales of only 15 minutes, whereas what you need is something closer to a 12-24 hour smoothing period. So you'd need about 60 times that energy storage, at a cost of about $15 trillion. The cost will likely fall over time as it does for any technology, but needless to say it will be decades before this amount of energy storage could be realistically added to the grid.

3. The whole subtopic of discussion here was the advantage for homeowners of having the option of selling/buying power to/from the grid. That advantage being not having to invest in expensive energy storage, and just using the grid as their storage. If you start talking about needing to invest huge amounts of money in energy storage (whether distributed or centralized), that advantage disappears.

1. No GTI's dont necessarily have storage. The appliance Im proposing is both a GTI and storage device. Something about the size of a dryer that can be made in China so it doesnt have to be all that expensive... especially since every single house will have one. Shouldnt cost more than 2 to 5 thousand dollars.

2. My estimate was based on North America and an estimate that theres 150 million houses. And I dont know why you would need 12-24 hours of storage in order to handle load adjustement, and because generation is distributed you are never ever going to have to supply 80 TW's of energy from storage. Thats not even what "smoothing" means, so Im not sure what youre talking about here. "Smoothing" just means dealing with fluctuations in capacity and demand. It would allow you time to spin up a hydro electric or gas turbine. Or maybe the system would reduce consumption instead by slightly reducing the ammount of current going to electric car charging ports. Like I said... currently generators have to run in dissipative standby mode wasting fuel just in case theres a spike.

3. Yes and as a practical matter any house that sells energy to the grid will have storage. At least Iv never seen an installation without it. Iv done two of these things now, and storage wasnt even the expensive part. Its the damn panels. They need to come down in price for this all to work.

[Bonam]

1. No GTI's dont necessarily have storage. The appliance Im proposing is both a GTI and storage device. Something about the size of a dryer that can be made in China so it doesnt have to be all that expensive... especially since every single house will have one. Shouldnt cost more than 2 to 5 thousand dollars.

Making something in China doesn't save you a lot of money if the bulk of the cost is in materials.

2. My estimate was based on North America and an estimate that theres 150 million houses. And I dont know why you would need 12-24 hours of storage in order to handle load adjustement, and because generation is distributed you are never ever going to have to supply 80 TW's of energy from storage. Thats not even what "smoothing" means, so Im not sure what youre talking about here. "Smoothing" just means dealing with fluctuations in capacity and demand. It would allow you time to spin up a hydro electric or gas turbine. Or maybe the system would reduce consumption instead by slightly reducing the ammount of current going to electric car charging ports. Like I said... currently generators have to run in dissipative standby mode wasting fuel just in case theres a spike.

Do you have any idea how long it takes to "spin up" an idling power plant?

Adjusting consumption by "reducing the amount of current" going to certain things would not be easy. Appliances draw current based on their impedance and the voltage applied across them. To lower the current to something, you'd need to lower the supplied voltage, but you can't just go changing voltages to parts of your grid for obvious reasons. Of course, you could have the appliance adjust how its load looks to the grid, but that means you would need some kind of centralized network control of the car charging ports. Such systems may be a good idea for some applications, but they aren't part of the current grid.

3. Yes and as a practical matter any house that sells energy to the grid will have storage. At least Iv never seen an installation without it. Iv done two of these things now, and storage wasnt even the expensive part. Its the damn panels. They need to come down in price for this all to work.

Perhaps, I don't know too much about how such systems are done commercially. But it seems to me that if you are connected to the grid, you wouldn't need energy storage in your house. Whenever your house is producing more energy than you need, you pump the excess into the grid. Whenever you need more energy than you are producing, you take the energy from the grid. Thus the grid becomes your storage. That is what Wild Bill was talking about when I responded on this topic.

[RadAreGoodForYou]

I wish to say I'm sorry to everyone for being such an insulting idiot. My information was wrong as I was sucked into believing everything I saw on the internet.

[Wild Bill]

Perhaps, I don't know too much about how such systems are done commercially. But it seems to me that if you are connected to the grid, you wouldn't need energy storage in your house. Whenever your house is producing more energy than you need, you pump the excess into the grid. Whenever you need more energy than you are producing, you take the energy from the grid. Thus the grid becomes your storage. That is what Wild Bill was talking about when I responded on this topic.

And there is no possible way that our present grid would have any hope of operating in such a manner!

We are talking decades of upgrades, at least. People who keep proposing such ideas should keep that in mind. We have to do what we can when we can.

Otherwise we are merely dreaming.

[dre]

And there is no possible way that our present grid would have any hope of operating in such a manner!

We are talking decades of upgrades, at least. People who keep proposing such ideas should keep that in mind. We have to do what we can when we can.

Otherwise we are merely dreaming.

No duh... I never said I expected this to happen today. The distributed smart-grid is definately the direction we are headed in, but as you say it will take a long time. Did anyone suggest otherwise?

Otherwise we are merely dreaming.

Or maybe just having a discussion about what energy systems might look like in the future?

Edited September 28, 2012 by dre

[Wild Bill]

No duh... I never said I expected this to happen today. The distributed smart-grid is definately the direction we are headed in, but as you say it will take a long time. Did anyone suggest otherwise?

Or maybe just having a discussion about what energy systems might look like in the future?

My good friend, it wasn't all about YOU!

[Mr.Canada]

Nuclear power is very safe. it's only the waste that is not safe. A few meltdowns here and there are bound to happen. it isn't a big deal. We have no alternative to creating the amount of power we need. Nuclear power is very clean it only creats steam vapor as a result of making the power. Very green power source.

Edited September 29, 2012 by Mr.Canada

[Wayward Son]

I wish to say I'm sorry to everyone for being such an insulting idiot. My information was wrong as I was sucked into believing everything I saw on the internet.

I want to thank you for doing something that very few people do on the internet. Not only realizing that you had been mistaken about something, but having the ethic to admit it to people. Most people just dig in and defend their incorrect position more and more strongly.

[GostHacked]

Nuclear power is very safe. it's only the waste that is not safe. A few meltdowns here and there are bound to happen. it isn't a big deal. We have no alternative to creating the amount of power we need. Nuclear power is very clean it only creats steam vapor as a result of making the power. Very green power source.

A few meltdowns are bound to happen here and there? They seem to cause a big deal when a meltdown happens. I mean each one of us have already absorbed a couple hot particles from Fukushima over the past year and half. And that site is FAR from even being contained, forget clean up. Remember 3 reactors went into full meltdown only days after the quake/tsunami. Sure all that were extenuating circumstances, but once in a life time(Chernobyl - 1 reactor running less than 25% capacity)? Twice in a lifetime(Fukushima 6 reactors running full on, 3 go into complete meltdown)?

As these things age as well, the maintenance will get just more expensive. Companies need to make profits and corners will be cut. If we are to use nuclear energy, it should be done with the utmost care. The location of where these things are built needs to be taken into huge consideration. Fault lines move, oceans. seas, and rivers surge, ect ect.

The waste alone makes the whole process quite dumb. YAY ENGERY .. k what do we do with the glowing stuff left over?

How long is a rod used for to generate energy?

How long do you need to store the waste before it is safe to be around?

[dre]

My good friend, it wasn't all about YOU!

Ok. My apologies if I turned up the old defensive dial a few more notches than warranted WB.

[Jiblethead]

I cannot believe how many people advocate in favor of nuclear power! In theory, nuclear energy is 100% green and 100% safe. In reality, people make mistakes, and this is why it is not safe. The more we rely on this energy source, the more likely we will continue to have disasters...

[Mr.Canada]

I cannot believe how many people advocate in favor of nuclear power! In theory, nuclear energy is 100% green and 100% safe. In reality, people make mistakes, and this is why it is not safe. The more we rely on this energy source, the more likely we will continue to have disasters...

We have no choice. There is no alternative source that can generate the amount of power we need as cheaply as nuclear power. We don't want to burn coal there are only so many suitable rivers, wind doesn't generate enough and solar is very expensive and space consuming. Until something better is developed we're stuck with nuclear.

[Jiblethead]

We have no choice. There is no alternative source that can generate the amount of power we need as cheaply as nuclear power. We don't want to burn coal there are only so many suitable rivers, wind doesn't generate enough and solar is very expensive and space consuming. Until something better is developed we're stuck with nuclear.

SOLAR is the answer. Currently we don't have very efficient technology, but it is a million times safer than nuclear energy. As time goes on, the technology we have for solar is getting more and more efficient, and eventually, it will be able to meet all of our energy needs.

[Mr.Canada]

SOLAR is the answer. Currently we don't have very efficient technology, but it is a million times safer than nuclear energy. As time goes on, the technology we have for solar is getting more and more efficient, and eventually, it will be able to meet all of our energy needs.

Solar is very expensive and it doesn't generate the amount of power we need to power everything like all streetlights, office towers etc. I like solar for homes though and would like to see every home with solar panels on the roof selling power back to the grid. That would be great. Very expensive to set up though.

[Jiblethead]

Solar is very expensive and it doesn't generate the amount of power we need to power everything like all streetlights, office towers etc. I like solar for homes though and would like to see every home with solar panels on the roof selling power back to the grid. That would be great. Very expensive to set up though.

The power being sold back to the grid is what can be used to power street lights etc. And as for it being expensive, its only a high starting cost. I know people who own farms, and are now profiting after installing solar panels only a few years ago. They have already made back their starting costs and are now making pure profit

[Mr.Canada]

The power being sold back to the grid is what can be used to power street lights etc. And as for it being expensive, its only a high starting cost. I know people who own farms, and are now profiting after installing solar panels only a few years ago. They have already made back their starting costs and are now making pure profit

It can definitely be the future. I like solar power. I don't want to destroy the planet either but I also don't want to pay more for power either. Costs are high enough now as it is. If only we can start shooting the nuke waste into the Sun all will be well minus the odd meltdown....haha.

[Jiblethead]

If there werent so many mistakes already made, i would be a lot more in favor of nuclear power. Fact is, Murphy's law states what can happen will happen, so i fear only more and more nuclear disasters are to come.

[Mr.Canada]

If there werent so many mistakes already made, i would be a lot more in favor of nuclear power. Fact is, Murphy's law states what can happen will happen, so i fear only more and more nuclear disasters are to come.

Sadly, it's usually only through mistakes that we can learn what not to do. Problem is that with nuclear power there are no small mistakes.

[Guest Manny]

Solar is very expensive and it doesn't generate the amount of power we need to power everything like all streetlights, office towers etc. I like solar for homes though and would like to see every home with solar panels on the roof selling power back to the grid. That would be great. Very expensive to set up though.

Solar efficiency is very low. Less than ten percent of the energy is converted to electricity. Even if youcovered your whole roof with panels, the most power you could expect is something on the order of enough to run your clothes drier at around 5000 watts. And that would ony be when the sun is shining brightly. Otherwise,it's best to dump the solar power into the heat in your water tank. Even doing this is grossly inefficient. You'd be better off to use the heat from the sun to heat your water directly.

[Wild Bill]

If there werent so many mistakes already made, i would be a lot more in favor of nuclear power. Fact is, Murphy's law states what can happen will happen, so i fear only more and more nuclear disasters are to come.

I guess you just jumped in without reading the previous posts.

We already covered this. Your suggestion won't work! Except for those already on Dalton's program, which is no longer accepting new applicants, selling power to the grid is illegal and likely to stay that way in Ontario.

You therefore would have to buy a battery bank of deep cycle batteries, which is NOT cheap! Right now systems to get the average home completely off grid are running about $30,000, Look at your monthly electricity bill and do some simple math. How long will it take you to pay off the investment and begin to enjoy free power?

I will be 60 next week, If I installed such a system I would likely be dead before I enjoyed any benefit, Certainly,I wouldn't last beyond the break even point very long.

Like most simplistic ideas, it sounds easy when you are not familiar with the details. Perhaps someday it will be possible, but not today and not any time soon.

[segnosaur]

SOLAR is the answer. Currently we don't have very efficient technology, but it is a million times safer than nuclear energy.

Errr... not really.

I've already posted the following link, but I guess since nobody bothers reading things they don't agree with, here it is again: http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull211/21104091117.pdf

Overall, there are more deaths caused by solar power than by nuclear.

You see, here's the thing... a nuclear plant is big, impressive, and it can be very dangerous. But it also generates a huge amount of power, in a very small, isolated area. Yes, disasters are possible (and I'm under no illusion that they will have perfect safety records), but if you look at the lives lost (per KW/h generated) its actually pretty safe.

On the other hand, Solar (and even wind) might seem like the safest thing out there... how can a solar panel hurt anyone? The problem is, each individual panel only generates a limited amount of power. So you need more of them. More manufacturing (which can lead to industrial accidents), more raw materials (so more mining accidents), more accidents during installation. If you look at the number of deaths caused by solar (per Kw/H) its higher than that of nuclear.

So, which is more important, a small risk that hundreds might die from a nuclear accident all at once, or a guarantee that hundreds will die, but that those deaths will be spread out over more locations?

As time goes on, the technology we have for solar is getting more and more efficient, and eventually, it will be able to meet all of our energy needs.

Errr... probably not likely. It may have a place, but its not going to be the 'main' power source. (I believe one of my earlier postings referred to an article where a nuclear technician pointed out that even solar power 'experts' he's talked to don't think Solar will be the key solution.

[segnosaur]

The waste alone makes the whole process quite dumb. YAY ENGERY .. k what do we do with the glowing stuff left over?

Ideally you reprocess it. If its done right, all of the energy that you'll need in your life could probably result in the amount of radioactive material you can hold in your hand. After that, you bury it at some place like Yucca mountain.

What are the alternatives? Solar/wind? Because they generate less energy per installation, more of them are needed. That means more industrial waste, more mining waste, etc. So yeah, build solar panels and you avoid a handful of radioactive waste. But you end up with other material left over as waste products.

Edited October 2, 2012 by segnosaur