Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

PamW

(1,825 posts)
10. BALONEY!!! 100% WRONG AGAIN!!
Sun Jul 28, 2013, 05:28 PM
Jul 2013

kristopher states:
The present grid isn't "designed" to pay attention to generating sources smaller than the 1MW level.

Kristopher has ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of what I'm talking about.

I am talking about the generator speed controller that EVERY dispatchable power plant that has a rotating generator synched to the grid has.

Those speed controllers are VERY PRECISE, and in addition, the extremely high degree of power matching is guaranteed by the fact that the controller is in a feedback loop.

I see that once again, I have to spoon-feed the scientific truth to kristopher in small bites.

Suppose the system is starts in equilibrium; that is power of the generators equals the instantaneous demand including line losses.

Now suppose a large factory starts up and starts drawing current. The fact that the factory starts drawing current means that there is an increase in the current of the generator's armature coils. Because of Lenz's Law, a basic Law of Physics / Electrodynamics; the increased current flow in the armature coils creates an increase in the torque required to keep the generator spinning at its current speed. The turbine is not putting out this new higher torque; it's putting out the previous torque when the grid didn't have the factory drawing energy.

That mismatch in torque would cause the generator to slow down; because the system is drawing kinetic energy from the generator in order to supply the energy the factory is drawing. Energy has to be conserved at all times. However, if this were to persist, the generator would get out of sync with the grid. Therefore, a very precise frequency measuring circuit detects the very slight slowing of the generator, and further opens the throttle valve on the turbine driving the generator. In the case of a hydro plant, that is all that is required. If the plant is coal or gas-fired, or nuclear; the feedback circuit also increases fuel flow in the coal or gas plant, and inherent temperature feedback due to the moderator / coolant reactivity temperature coefficient, serves to increase reactor power in a nuclear plant.

With both the prime mover and the turbine throttled up; the system is again in equilibrium, and if not - it adjusts until it IS in equilibrium.

What kristopher speaks about ignoring levels below 1 Mw is the software used by the load dispatchers. The load dispatchers only have to do a COARSE tuning of the grid, hence they can safely ignore small generator sources.

However, once the load dispatchers have done a COARSE tune of the grid; the speed controllers and their feedback circuits do the NECESSARY fine tuning automatically.

Admit it kristopher; until you read the above, you had ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of the existence of the speed controllers, their feedback circuits, and how that functions to PRECISELY match generator supply and demand.

Where is it, again, that you studied electric power engineering, Kristopher?

I thought NOT!

PamW

Beneby makes an excellent point about 'discreet' customers cprise Jul 2013 #1
I assume he meant "discrete". BlueStreak Jul 2013 #15
jpak doesn't understand the issue PamW Jul 2013 #2
jpak understands the issue well kristopher Jul 2013 #4
Litany of scientific ERRORS by kristopher PamW Jul 2013 #9
Wow. caraher Jul 2013 #33
Yes, isn't it though? kristopher Jul 2013 #42
Well said. wercal Jul 2013 #26
WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! jpak Jul 2013 #43
Right, variable renewables are not a significant technical hurdle kristopher Jul 2013 #3
100% WRONG as ALWAYS PamW Jul 2013 #5
More ravings? kristopher Jul 2013 #6
BALONEY!!! 100% WRONG AGAIN!! PamW Jul 2013 #10
You spend 8 paragraphs BSing then 3 paragraphs admitting I'm right kristopher Jul 2013 #11
More BALONEY!!! PamW Jul 2013 #12
Only you talk of an all wind/all solar/or all solar wind grid. kristopher Jul 2013 #13
100% WRONG as ALWAYS PamW Jul 2013 #14
Wow, you really got me. kristopher Jul 2013 #18
OH BROTHER!!! - now LAME excuses... PamW Jul 2013 #20
Greg/Pam - Apparently you can't read kristopher Jul 2013 #21
I can READ!! PamW Jul 2013 #23
An litany of evolving mistakes, misunderstandings ... kristopher Jul 2013 #24
Again, .... oldhippie Jul 2013 #25
Sp Greg/Pam had to call in the peanut gallery again, huh? kristopher Jul 2013 #31
Why are you arguing about a theoretical problem that could only possibly occur BlueStreak Jul 2013 #16
Because he's dedicated himself to harassing me. kristopher Jul 2013 #19
This stuff is about politics, not about technology or science BlueStreak Jul 2013 #22
"no compelling reason ever to build (or extend) any nuclear or coal plant -- ever" kristopher Jul 2013 #44
It really is remarkable, yet completely missed (or ignored) by so many BlueStreak Jul 2013 #46
You mention V2G wercal Jul 2013 #28
It is an economic benefit to the EV owner kristopher Jul 2013 #30
I don't like the numbers wercal Jul 2013 #32
No, not time of day pricing kristopher Jul 2013 #34
You need more data and less wishful thinking wercal Jul 2013 #35
I'll take the first one FBaggins Jul 2013 #36
Well that's an entirely different concept that has been brought up here before wercal Jul 2013 #38
Uh-oh, kris is not going to like ..... oldhippie Jul 2013 #37
Ready for blast-off wercal Jul 2013 #39
You say "V2G is really a turn off for me" kristopher Jul 2013 #40
I'm going to borrow a phrase from my prior post: wercal Jul 2013 #45
That will make manufacturer warranties very "interesting" BlueStreak Jul 2013 #47
Interesting question kristopher Jul 2013 #48
The whole V2G thing makes absolutely no sense to me BlueStreak Jul 2013 #49
What do you think they use the batteries for? kristopher Jul 2013 #50
You really have to start backing up what you say wercal Jul 2013 #51
Right, the numbers are vast BlueStreak Jul 2013 #55
I believe elevating water is being used in Portugal right now wercal Jul 2013 #62
Hydrogen efficiency BlueStreak Jul 2013 #63
I believe the efficiency is currently 40%... wercal Jul 2013 #64
The economics of storage systems get better as we shift to intermittent sources BlueStreak Jul 2013 #65
They aren't going to pay me enough for that to make any sense BlueStreak Jul 2013 #53
Ah, I see you are actually a twin kristopher Jul 2013 #54
What?? BlueStreak Jul 2013 #56
Bluestreak and I most certainly are not the same wercal Jul 2013 #57
Be careful who you counsel ..... oldhippie Jul 2013 #58
Well I've tried to be polite... wercal Jul 2013 #59
Yes you have oldhippie Jul 2013 #60
Ah...I see wercal Jul 2013 #61
We have a winner wercal Jul 2013 #52
the issue is price quadrature Jul 2013 #7
That's true. It has been modeled in detail. kristopher Jul 2013 #8
And you don't have to stop at 100% BlueStreak Jul 2013 #17
In fact you can't FBaggins Jul 2013 #27
That 300% is a nonsense number, for a case that will never exist in the real world BlueStreak Jul 2013 #29
I agree wholeheartedly with all but the last sentence of your post kristopher Jul 2013 #41
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Intermittency Of Renewabl...»Reply #10