How many people really understand energy usage and production? - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2024, 09:00:17 am
content: There seems to be debate raging all around first world countries over energy, particularly low emission energy.In this country there is always talk of such and such can power so many homes, an analogy I find essentially something more suited to early primary school children.Never any mention of powering industry or trains or the pushed transportation and often the only figure given is a nameplate figure of such and such megawatts or kilowatts.So it made me wonder how many people truly understand electricity usage on a country wide scale and what exactly is required if a country wanted to go down a low emission route. How many understand how much storage is required, how many transmission lines, how much intermittent generation must be overbuilt to power everything and top up storage for 24/7/365 for all homes, offices, industry, transportation and so on. And how long everything lasts before it needs to be replaced.All I seem to be seeing is politicians and swindlers and grifters and economists all having their say.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2024, 09:56:41 am
content: The hydrogen targets for EU are huge, the modeling based on which EU targets are set is pretty realistic. When rubber hits the road politicians just use the idiots and the disingenious nuclear shills to hold off the hardest decisions.At the end of the day it's just a money issue and we're very rich indeed. Complaining about a bit of fudging, but not complaining about putting off planning for peak everything and demographics is not seeing the forest for the trees. Technology will have to save us from the fuzzy planning regardless. The net zero costs are the least of those.https://www.ecemf.eu/ecemp/european-climate-and-energy-modelling-platform/PS. I'm not saying nuclear support is disingenious, I'm saying some hydrogen detractors are being disingenious by not being up front about doing it from the perspective of majority nuclear generation.

author: magic
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 03, 2024, 10:38:15 am
content: Quote from: .RC. on January 03, 2024, 09:00:17 amI suppose only those who actually work in the energy generation and transmission industry, and not all of those of course.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2024, 02:49:11 pm
content: Quote from: .RC. on January 03, 2024, 09:00:17 amIf they understand how cost effective thermal storage is for HVAC, they'll realize how much better of an investment it is compared to batteries for most locations. The main problem is that a big block of ice or hot water isn't "sexy" and therefore gets little attention.Then there's automated load management, but there being practically no standards and (relatively) only a few locations offering real incentives has greatly limited adoption. With the low cost of a Raspberry Pi (or similar) and some smart plugs, it easily offers the best return on investment wherever there's a significant difference in energy costs over the course of a day.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 04, 2024, 05:17:23 pm
content: Quote from: .RC. on January 03, 2024, 09:00:17 amFor the physics/chemistry/biology which applies everywhere, plus specific application to the UK, seehttps://withouthotair.com/and the PDF athttps://withouthotair.com/download.htmlKey concepts: "numbers not adjectives", "I don't care what is chosen provided the numbers add up", "here are number of alternative strategies".Note thatall "sides" give it top marks, from BigEnergy to RabidGreens.

author: Rick Law
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 04:39:51 am
content: Quote from: .RC. on January 03, 2024, 09:00:17 amIn my view, at the last sentence of your post, you answered your own question.It is only human for one to push an ideology as truth if one could benefit by such pushing. There are of course true believers, but I think true believers are far out numbered by the benefit seekers. The benefit-seekers exaggerate and misrepresent a kernel of truth to a basket of nonsense if it would benefit them.Saving the environment is a good thing. But I am not at all sure something like the EV today is a solution. It is simply too fragile -- the battery pack is so damn expensive and it has "zero repairability". Even minor damage to it requires a new battery pack which often exceed the market value of fairly new EV's. So fairly new EV's in minor accident results in total write off of the vehicle. The market value of the repaired vehicle is less than that of a new battery pack that would be needed for repair.A youtuber (called "motormouth") documented a recent case, a $55,000 (CND) 2022 Kia ran over some debris on the road that resulted in some scratches on the battery pack protector under the car. He completed his otherwise uneventful road trip and took the car in for check up later. Beside the scratches on the bottom cover, it was determined that potentially some additional unknown damage to the protector and/or batterymight have occurred(<-edit added) since the space between the cover and the battery is wider now. The battery module is not a repairable part, replacement battery cost is $56,649 CND, total cost to repair is just over $60,000 CND -- to repair a $55,000 car when newly purchased. So that 1 year old car is a total write-off just hitting some debris on the road. You can search youtube for the title "$60,000 to replace battery" if you want to see it.He is not alone with that experience. According to an insurance company (Progressive Insurance's Website), insuring an EV cost more because: "Today's electric vehicles also have fewer moving parts than conventional automobiles, but those parts can be pricey. If the battery pack is damaged, certain safety protocols are often necessary, adding more to the repair bill".For EV to succeed, the battery pack must be more robust and be a smaller percentage of the total cost of the vehicle. It simply make little sense to waste so much energy to create something that is so fragile when in practical use. Right now, the battery packs are the glass-jaws of the boxer.EDIT: added a missing important point "...might have occurred..."

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 06:25:05 am
content: The whole "This can power X number of homes" is mostly just a way of putting the amount of power into perspective for the average Joe, so it is easier to grasp as compared to for example "50 MW of capacity". Much like Americans will measure big things in units of 'football field lengths' because people know how big that is. Not everyone has electrical knowledge like people on this forum have.The people who operate power grids understand exactly how much power is needed everywhere and can even predict power usage for a period of time into the future. They need to hold a delicate balance of production vs consumption, because when they get it wrong you get blackouts.But yeah how the power production of a country is planned are mostly political moves rather than carefully calculated engineering decisions.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 09:36:12 am
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 04, 2024, 02:49:11 pmNo. It is because a big block of ice / hot water needs to be the size of an olympic swimming pool to be usefull for storing energy on a seasonal scale. It takes too much space. If you want to use thermal storage, you need to do this in the ground. But this is very expensive and hardly worthwhile.

author: NiHaoMike
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 01:50:33 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 05, 2024, 09:36:12 amTrying to store a whole season of energy in a battery would be even less practical. But that scale of storage isn't really needed, what is is storage on the order of a few days to a week or two. A battery of that size is only sort of affordable on the low end of that time scale, while thermal storage remains cheap.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 02:33:18 pm
content: Quote from: NiHaoMike on January 05, 2024, 01:50:33 pmThe problem with that is that renewable sources like solar panels have quite a large time where having them is not useful and you still need to rely on generation capacity. Long time storage lowers the amount of generation capacity needed.For example: I have 12 solar panels on my roof which provide me with enough electricity for a year. The problem is that they produce most in the summer and next to nothing in the winter. Currently there is subsidy so I get an equal amount of money per kWh I supply and which I use. When that subsidy stops in a few years, I might need to pay to deliver electricity to the grid so I have to cap the output of the solar panels to supply only what I use. A system that can store a few days worth of electricity could help that to even out day / night but I'd still be producing 2 times more electricity in the summer which I don't need right then. Worse, I'm also paying for the generation capacity during the summer. With seasonal storage, much less generation capacity is needed so costs should go down.

author: JohnG
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 03:26:55 pm
content: I mostly stay away from these discussions, but I'll throw in my $0.02.Rant on:In a past job, I had the privileged of working at a research center with people who worked on these matters full-time for a large industrial conglomerate. I did not directly participate in the analysis, but would rely on them for results when I was either justifying a program or writing a grant.These folks knew their s**t. I saw them give talks predicting several major resource-related trends, and then I got to see things play out pretty much as predicted years (3-10) later, within a year or two of the predictions. Some examples: the uptake of wind and solar, including cost predictions and anticipating much of the politics as well; the increase in electricity demand for computing infrastructure over time, electricity demand for air-conditioning and subsequent grid disruption, availability of potable water, the market for large-scale battery energy storage. Note that the company did not always pay attention because it conflicted with internal beliefs and politics, or they did pay attention but executed poorly. But, the folks who did the predictions had a really good track record. A lot of them predicted trouble for the company, and they were right about that as well.As a result, I mostly dismiss these kinds of discussions on the internet. So many straw man examples or anecdotes, such strong feelings because they saw some Youtube videos, or if they really were into it, bothered to read a few reports. Gimme a f**king break.The folks who do this for a living do it full time for years, and are well paid because they make actionable predictions that are surprisingly (to me) often close to reality, and that information is valuable if you are a big company involved in resource extraction and movement. You don't just give it away on the internet. It takes years, sometimes decades to build big infrastructure or take advantage of big trends. You have to look ahead, because if you wait until you see it happening, it's really difficult to catch up. All this change in energy you see today has been in the works for decades.But, big companies are like countries - lots of players, competing factions, different motivations, internal turf battles, etc. Don't expect them to be operating logically in all things. Lots of them make stupid mistakes as a company. And, lots of things happen that are not predicted. That's life.Finally, my apologies, but I cannot resist commenting on the car insurance. There is another reason a car insurance company charges more for an EV. It's because EVs are still a niche and the people who buy them pay extra for the privilege. That means you can bump up the insurance cost and they will pay a little more just because they are told they have to, making extra profit. The excuse written on the web page is written by marketing, for cryin' out loud. It's purpose is to soften the blow enough to let the insurance company extract another percent or so. It's truth value could be anywhere from 1% to 99%. Since it's an insurance company, my opinion is that it's on the lower end of that.So, the short answer is that there are people, or groups of people, who understand these things surprisingly well. They are valuable and tend to be well paid. There are also a bigger group of people who are worse at it, but they make up for it by being good at convincing people. They don't last long in healthy companies. They might get promoted up and out of the way in a plateauing or declining company. If that doesn't work, they are perfect for Youtube.Rant off:John

author: Berni
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 04:41:09 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 05, 2024, 09:36:12 amEnergy storage on those scales is indeed not practical, but the grid operators don't need to cover periods this long.The most annoying are the minute to minute variations on the grid since all of the big powerplants that are providing the majority of the power are not agile enough to tweak the output power up and down that quickly. To cover that they need to have smaller more agile plants on the grid that can do that, those make profit by selling power only in the highest of peak demands, meaning they can sell it at a very high cost per kWh. So you only need storage that lasts an hour or two so that the big plants have time to get up to power and take over.One easy way of storage is thermal energy inside the walls of houses, since houses already have walls. The temperature inside a building will not change by any meaningful amount if you stop the air conditioning for 30 minutes since the walls hold on to the cold/heat. So when the grid is seeing a spike in demand, instead of using batteries to push more power into the grid, you could install tell the AC in many buildings to switch off for a bit, reducing the load on the grid, then once the big power plants have caught up the AC runs at higher power to catch up. Similar for when there is sudden excess of power on the grid, crank up the AC for a few minutes, then get the energy back later on by being able to turn it down.This reduces the need for the fast response power plants to be revved up and ready to take the load if required. Once you get to the time scales of days then you get into slow enough timescales where even the slow nuclear plants can modulate their output to match demand.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 04:46:32 pm
content: Quote from: Rick Law on January 05, 2024, 04:39:51 amTesla charges 20k$ for a full battery swap and there's some specialized shops already which just test the packs and replace individual batteries because of how silly complete replacement is 99% of the time.This is a problem of labour shortages and misalignment of profit motives. Of course dealers should be able to just take out the battery and do a quick visual and electrical diagnostic to determine if the battery pack is still good ... but the Canadian dealer just charges 50k$ because he can.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 04:51:23 pm
content: Quote from: tggzzz on January 04, 2024, 05:17:23 pmIts amusing reading the comments under the videos on Youtube related to that book. Any lecture on Dunning-Kruger could find some excellent example material there.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 05:30:27 pm
content: QuoteMan, that book is a bit old in the tooth.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 05:44:47 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 05, 2024, 05:30:27 pmYes, but it has aged well, as most of its arguments rest more on physics than current costs. True costs are hard to figure out, as they get so twisted with subsidies and apples to oranges comparisons. Physics isn't called a hard science without reason.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 06:24:46 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 05, 2024, 05:44:47 pmUnfortunately in the real world physics don't matter where it comes to energy. Only cost for the end user does. The latter is why any comparison based on efficiency is absolutely not relevant.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 06:30:19 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 05, 2024, 06:24:46 pmYou can only manipulate prices for so long. Eventually physics smacks you in the face.

author: tggzzz
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 07:30:34 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 05, 2024, 04:51:23 pmAnother example of why I ignore yootoob unless someone gives a coherent reason why a video is worth my time.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 08:23:51 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 05, 2024, 06:30:19 pmThat makes no sense at all. In the end all consumers care about is price. You can apply physics all day long but if your product is more expensive compared to the competition, people are not going to buy your product.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 05, 2024, 08:27:38 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 05, 2024, 08:23:51 pmYou can't sustain low prices unless they derive naturally from physics. If you keep manipulating prices you eventually go bankrupt. Physics always wins in the long term.

author: HarryDoPECC
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2024, 03:26:32 am
content: To the OPs question about how many people are trying to understand this issue - sadly, not so many, and many of those seem to be in the pockets of those who own fossil fuel energy infrastructure and do not want to see those assets lose value. (NB NB Hydrogen enthusiasts in this context)Have a look athttps://medium.com/the-future-is-electric/electrifying-everything-everywhere-all-at-once-is-key-climate-wedge-2e30366f931bOne of the many things I like about Michael Barnard's approach is the system-level view that is shown so well by his use of Sankey Diagrams (as in the post above). It's a worldview-changing insight to realise that once you allow for the dismal energy efficiency of fossil fuel extraction, distribution and combustion, electric alternatives only have to collect and deliver a fraction of the fossil energy in order to deliver most of the replacement.Anyway, recommend a search on Michael Barnard

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2024, 03:50:19 pm
content: Quote from: HarryDoPECC on January 08, 2024, 03:26:32 amHis analysis is highly misleading, as it misses a huge part of the picture. Electrifying everything means we move to a massively more mineral resource hungry economy. Take copper. We will need a lot more if everything is electrically powered. We already use alternatives, like aluminium, where that is feasible. How much copper does the Earth have? Quite a lot. Where is it? Well, the most concentrated pools have mostly been mined out, so we are getting copper from places where we need to process ever larger amounts of material to extract the copper. Processing == energy consumption. Getting all the minerals we need is going to require vast amounts of energy. Currently copper is cheap enough to use, but expensive enough that most of it gets recycled. The huge amounts of copper we need are for the expansion of electrically powered devices, and to make up the losses, because you'll never be able to achieve something close to 100% recycling.... unless you have massive amounts of energy to spare to do the necessary waste processing. Everything we do comes down to energy. Things are only workable if the energy returned on energy invested (EROI or ERoEI) is really strong.If you look up Michael Barnard also look up Simon Michaux. He's a mining and minerals guy who has done a lot of analysis of the mineral impacts of moving away from fossil fuels.

author: tszaboo
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2024, 04:34:25 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 05, 2024, 08:27:38 pmSolar thermal is dead, because it needs to pump water to your roof. It's not weatherproof, it requires so-called moving parts so maintenance.And most of the world has this thing called freezing.I mean it is an OK solution for countries like Greece and most part of Spain. Even in those countries you rarely see more than 1 solar thermal heater, because that's enough. But guess what? It's cheaper to add like 4 PV panels to your system and use it in your boiler than to route the water to the roof.If you have two competing systems, one is 90% efficient, and it costs 10x to make, the other one is 25% efficient, and it takes 1x to make, the 25% efficient system will be used everywhere, who has space and sense.Long term storage, P2G, the round trip efficiency is like 70% now. Sounds low. But it just means we need to install 42% more dirt cheap PV to cover the inefficiency. So as an estimate for Europe, instead of 5KW solar system, an 7KW solar system, and we have seasonal storage losses covered. And the market will take care of it, since companies doing seasonal storage can create CH4 or H2 from electricity that costs negative. Imagine that, carbon neutral gas, that earns you money when you make it, plus carbon credits when you sell it.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2024, 04:40:28 pm
content: Quote from: tszaboo on January 08, 2024, 04:34:25 pmMost rooftop solar thermal systems pump water glycol to the panels, so freezing is not an issue. Solar thermal has its problems, but this is not one. If you are going to compare systems don't just make up problems that don't exist.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2024, 04:47:39 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 08, 2024, 03:50:19 pmMinimally ... it's a rounding error. Net zero is on a long enough timescale that replacement mostly happens on write off schedules and a little more grid and electrical motors aren't what's going to drive society off the cliff. Nor large scale thin film PV.Peak everything is a problem because we're terrible at recycling, but running at that problem a couple percent faster doesn't make it much worse.

author: nfmax
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2024, 08:03:55 pm
content: Quote from: coppice on January 08, 2024, 04:40:28 pmMaintenance costs. My solar thermal has cost more in service and repairs than it has ever saved me, over the last 20 years. Solar PV would be better, but the planning laws have changed and I wouldn't be allowed to put anything on that roof now. The solar DHW is 'grandfathered' in so there it stays until it finally fails beyond repair.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2024, 08:06:08 pm
content: Quote from: nfmax on January 08, 2024, 08:03:55 pmWhat maintenance issues did you have?

author: nfmax
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 08, 2024, 08:21:41 pm
content: One pressure gauge, two automatic de-airing vents, one pressure relief valve, one expansion vessel. Plus flush system & new antifreeze in that case.

author: .RC.
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2024, 08:04:42 am
content: Quote from: HarryDoPECC on January 08, 2024, 03:26:32 amI have always wondered how energy efficient biofuels are. By the time the grower, tills the ground (or sprays if zero till), sows the seed, harvests the seed, delivers the seed, then the processor, processes the seed, delivers to the point where the customer gets it. How much of what they delivered was used up getting it to that point.I also think a lot of people seem to think their personal use is the end of the matter. They might use say 100kWh of electricity a month, and they think their life only used that much. When everything has to be added on. Even military use which I wonbder how many think of would have to be accounted for, then divided by the population of the country and everyone gets that added to their personal total.

author: coppercone2
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 11, 2024, 08:09:09 am
content: I feel the opposite in the end more is better and trying to produce exact accounting only serves to save relatively small amounts of money on something that is considered long term infrastructure.there is so much bloat in governments they will likely just reduce over spending in some other less critical location if you over spend on energy. Even if you found a precise solution I doubt it would be too useful.its not like the government even knows WTF to do with the money and there is little chance it will go where you want because there is so many forces at work. Its like 'oh look we got extra budget because of the precise green energy calculations, lets buy a handful of stainless steel park benches and traffic cameras'. Not worth spending free time doing calculations to facilitate this lolthe only safe bet is over production, people always find a use for energy, new industrial process or a gift to a nearby poor countryI bet you they will buy some stainless steel shit you don't need or use if you save em money right now.

author: Spar59
author_rank: Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2024, 04:40:03 pm
content: Electric heating based on thermal storage was becoming popular in the UK in the 1970s.There were a number of methods:Individual floor-standing block storage heaters, similar in size to a central heating radiator but a bit deeper, one or more fitted in each room that needed heating, heat being stored in refractory bricks which were surrounded by thermal insulation and had dampers to control air convection currents through them to heat the room.A version similar to the above but usiing a single centrally positioned heat storage core, about the size of a wardrobe heat was distributed from it by blowing air through channels in the core that then went via ducts to grills in the rooms as required.Using the concrete floor slab as a heat store - saved space but not as controllable as you could not easily prevent heat escaping from it if little or no heat was required.These schemes were expanding in the era where the propaganda claimed that nuclear energy would be so cheap it would hardly be worth charging for it, they all fell out of popularity as the price of electricity rose and became uncompetitive against gas.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2024, 04:44:01 pm
content: Quote from: Spar59 on January 15, 2024, 04:40:03 pmOnly a couple of idiots, who had never looked at the massive cost of maintaining a grid, ever made the claim that nuclear electricity costs would be extremely low. They were dismissed at the time by people who quoted figures for the distribution grid.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2024, 01:01:22 am
content: Quote from: coppice on January 15, 2024, 04:44:01 pmAnd yet here we are expanding the grid to support everything going electric...Currently roughly 30% of my electricity bill consists of distribution costs. The company maintaining the grid is looking to spend about 30 billion euro on extending the grid in the next decade or so in the NL alone. And note I write: extending the grid. They don't do generation at all. Maybe the distribution part of the bill rises to 60%? 75%? these could be realistic numbers.

author: coppice
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 16, 2024, 01:05:16 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on January 16, 2024, 01:01:22 amI think they will be spending a lot more than that. 30 billion probably deals with the backbone of the grid, but the tributaries along residential streets were sized for much less consumption that they are likely to see in the future. The last mile replacement costs are going to be staggering.