5 ms·

To me this whole thread reads like an ad for solar + local storage. There should be tremendous resilience advantages compared to grid power. I’m surprised secur

by Torkel 6y ago

To me this whole thread reads like an ad for solar + local storage. There should be tremendous resilience advantages compared to grid power. I’m surprised security/defence authorities aren’t pushing for that?

pyuser583 6y ago
Substations would still be necessary. Substations are responsible, among other things, for controlling voltage level. Integrating power grids usually involves more substations, not fewer.
- neckardt 6y ago
  Wouldn't having more substations make the grid more resilient? I would imagine that allows for more flexibility routing power.
  - creato 6y ago
    It really seems like it would depend on the topology and capacity of the various routes. Just having more of them isn't necessarily the same as having more flexibility in routing.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Galanwe 6y ago
I don't understand your point. If it's the "instant delivery" you propose to replace by local storage, what is the link with solar? You could as well store energy received from the grid. Solar is particularly inefficient, both because of the volume it requires per unit of energy produced, and because storing energy incurs a huge loss (also, since this post discusses security risks, I guess storing large amounts of energy at home is definitely not the safest of options)
- Torkel 6y ago
  The risk here is that a terror attack on grid infra knocks out so much of society. No electricity => so much trouble. My point is that with solar+storage you get a more resilient system that can continue to provide power even if central grid infra i knocked out. You can have wind instead of solar, but you need some way of generating. Storage alone gets you through a night, not more. What risk do you see with commercial battery storage? You do know there is gasoline in cars and many houses are heated using natural gas, right? Compare and evaluate risks between those please. You say that solar is ”particularly inefficient. I do not agree
  - Galanwe 6y ago
    > The risk here is that a terror attack on grid infra knocks out so much of society. No electricity => so much trouble. Seriously, your argument is a 5 sigma event? Sure, everything can be justified with overly extreme and improbable settings. I won't enter the debate on whether it actually make sense to protect yourself from that, I have the feeling it cannot end up being a constructive discussion. > you do know there is gasoline in cars and many houses are heated using natural gas, right? Sure, escalate the condescending tone, that will surely improve the quality of the debate. > What risk do you see with commercial battery storage? I don't think the consumers should be trusted to store and maintain meaningful quantities of energy. Long time ago, where I lived in Europe, people used to be heated by either fuel or gas. Nobody had electrical heaters. That meant you would frequently find these gigantic gas tanks (sometimes burried, sometimes not) in people gardens. Now it is forbidden to have them, or they have to be totally underground. Why? Because there were simply too many accidents, too many tanks left unattended for years, or forgotten. You cannot trust people to reliably store and pay for maintenance of their installations forever. And keep in mind, I'm talking about gas tanks here, which have a lifespan of dozens of years, and are pretty sturdy. Batteries? A few years at most, and that is if you have all the proper circuitry to cycle them periodically, regularly rebalance them, change them, etc. I would be curious to compare the number of defects from consumer grade lithium ion batteries, versus a gas tank. My guess is that there is a higher rate of defect in batteries. Then factor in the number of batteries required to store a few days of your household energy, I guess the law of large numbers would quickly kick in. > You say that solar is ”particularly inefficient. I do not agree Alright, let this be my last answer is this thread because I have the feeling arguing more will just lead to feed the troll. 1) if you are trying to generate energy for storing, and your end result is charge, then you're doing it wrong. There is not much you can do to efficienty store charge, you can transfer it to a battery, but this is not energy efficient, not to mention a battery is inherently short lived. Efficient energy generating systems generate some kind of mechanical force: steam, heat, are good examples. It is much easier and efficient to store than charge. Classically, pumping water up a hill is a popular mean of storing energy. That is what most solar plants are doing. Batteries are used when consumers require very little energy storage, and they are small/easy to distribute. 2) solar is inherently inefficient because it requires storage. Storage is always a loss because it requires to convert energy to something else. And conversion is never lossless. Nuclear (and water dam up to a point) deliver real time energy at any time, thus eliminating the need of conversion that you have with solar. But of course you need a grid system for that. And apparently your sole argument is based on a hypothetical shutdown of the grid. 3) The volume of panels per energy output ratio is ridiculous, making solar a totally impractical and environment unfriendly choice. From the top of my head, the volume/output ratio between nuclear and solar is >50. Not only does this mean 50x more space, but but also 50 times more unrecyclable equipment. --- Ton conclude, I just don't find any sense in trying to find alternatives to the grid system. Concentrating the means of energy production and distribution seems to be the most effective and climate friendly way. In the case of parent post mention that he goes camping with solar panels to charge his laptops, that seems nonsensical to me. From a quick paper computation, I would need 15 hours of a portable solar charger to fully chargey laptop battery. Based on an average of 5 hour/day (that's what most solar plant can achieve) that means 3 days for a 100% laptop charge. You're better up just taking a spare fully charged battery with you when hiking. It will be lighter than the solar panels, and most probably charged at home with nuclear energy, it will end up being more environmenta friendly. As for storing energy in case the grid goes down: environmental problems worries me way more than a terrorist attack on the energy grid. I would rather not spend time trying to purposefully inefficiently store energy "just in case", and use that time to try to convince people that clean energy with the current grid system is more important.
zajio1am 6y ago
> There should be tremendous resilience advantages compared to grid power Perhaps in California, but in northern latitudes (e.g. central Europe) solar does not generate sufficient power during winters. It would be necessary to have either massive south-north power lines (so less resilience), or some storage. Such storage would need to be massive (orders of magnitude bigger than just for day-night ballancing) and unlikely to be battery-based. Chemical storage is a possibility - plants converting excess electricity to hydrogen/methane and storing it in underground reservoirs (like ones currently used for strategic reservers of natural gas). But such facilities would be subjects to economy of scale, and therefore likely big and centralized, like current grid facilities.

by Torkel 6y ago

pyuser583 6y ago

Substations would still be necessary. Substations are responsible, among other things, for controlling voltage level. Integrating power grids usually involves more substations, not fewer.

neckardt 6y ago
Wouldn't having more substations make the grid more resilient? I would imagine that allows for more flexibility routing power.
- creato 6y ago
  It really seems like it would depend on the topology and capacity of the various routes. Just having more of them isn't necessarily the same as having more flexibility in routing.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Galanwe 6y ago

I don't understand your point. If it's the "instant delivery" you propose to replace by local storage, what is the link with solar? You could as well store energy received from the grid. Solar is particularly inefficient, both because of the volume it requires per unit of energy produced, and because storing energy incurs a huge loss (also, since this post discusses security risks, I guess storing large amounts of energy at home is definitely not the safest of options)

Torkel 6y ago
The risk here is that a terror attack on grid infra knocks out so much of society. No electricity => so much trouble. My point is that with solar+storage you get a more resilient system that can continue to provide power even if central grid infra i knocked out. You can have wind instead of solar, but you need some way of generating. Storage alone gets you through a night, not more. What risk do you see with commercial battery storage? You do know there is gasoline in cars and many houses are heated using natural gas, right? Compare and evaluate risks between those please. You say that solar is ”particularly inefficient. I do not agree
- Galanwe 6y ago
  > The risk here is that a terror attack on grid infra knocks out so much of society. No electricity => so much trouble. Seriously, your argument is a 5 sigma event? Sure, everything can be justified with overly extreme and improbable settings. I won't enter the debate on whether it actually make sense to protect yourself from that, I have the feeling it cannot end up being a constructive discussion. > you do know there is gasoline in cars and many houses are heated using natural gas, right? Sure, escalate the condescending tone, that will surely improve the quality of the debate. > What risk do you see with commercial battery storage? I don't think the consumers should be trusted to store and maintain meaningful quantities of energy. Long time ago, where I lived in Europe, people used to be heated by either fuel or gas. Nobody had electrical heaters. That meant you would frequently find these gigantic gas tanks (sometimes burried, sometimes not) in people gardens. Now it is forbidden to have them, or they have to be totally underground. Why? Because there were simply too many accidents, too many tanks left unattended for years, or forgotten. You cannot trust people to reliably store and pay for maintenance of their installations forever. And keep in mind, I'm talking about gas tanks here, which have a lifespan of dozens of years, and are pretty sturdy. Batteries? A few years at most, and that is if you have all the proper circuitry to cycle them periodically, regularly rebalance them, change them, etc. I would be curious to compare the number of defects from consumer grade lithium ion batteries, versus a gas tank. My guess is that there is a higher rate of defect in batteries. Then factor in the number of batteries required to store a few days of your household energy, I guess the law of large numbers would quickly kick in. > You say that solar is ”particularly inefficient. I do not agree Alright, let this be my last answer is this thread because I have the feeling arguing more will just lead to feed the troll. 1) if you are trying to generate energy for storing, and your end result is charge, then you're doing it wrong. There is not much you can do to efficienty store charge, you can transfer it to a battery, but this is not energy efficient, not to mention a battery is inherently short lived. Efficient energy generating systems generate some kind of mechanical force: steam, heat, are good examples. It is much easier and efficient to store than charge. Classically, pumping water up a hill is a popular mean of storing energy. That is what most solar plants are doing. Batteries are used when consumers require very little energy storage, and they are small/easy to distribute. 2) solar is inherently inefficient because it requires storage. Storage is always a loss because it requires to convert energy to something else. And conversion is never lossless. Nuclear (and water dam up to a point) deliver real time energy at any time, thus eliminating the need of conversion that you have with solar. But of course you need a grid system for that. And apparently your sole argument is based on a hypothetical shutdown of the grid. 3) The volume of panels per energy output ratio is ridiculous, making solar a totally impractical and environment unfriendly choice. From the top of my head, the volume/output ratio between nuclear and solar is >50. Not only does this mean 50x more space, but but also 50 times more unrecyclable equipment. --- Ton conclude, I just don't find any sense in trying to find alternatives to the grid system. Concentrating the means of energy production and distribution seems to be the most effective and climate friendly way. In the case of parent post mention that he goes camping with solar panels to charge his laptops, that seems nonsensical to me. From a quick paper computation, I would need 15 hours of a portable solar charger to fully chargey laptop battery. Based on an average of 5 hour/day (that's what most solar plant can achieve) that means 3 days for a 100% laptop charge. You're better up just taking a spare fully charged battery with you when hiking. It will be lighter than the solar panels, and most probably charged at home with nuclear energy, it will end up being more environmenta friendly. As for storing energy in case the grid goes down: environmental problems worries me way more than a terrorist attack on the energy grid. I would rather not spend time trying to purposefully inefficiently store energy "just in case", and use that time to try to convince people that clean energy with the current grid system is more important.

zajio1am 6y ago

> There should be tremendous resilience advantages compared to grid power Perhaps in California, but in northern latitudes (e.g. central Europe) solar does not generate sufficient power during winters. It would be necessary to have either massive south-north power lines (so less resilience), or some storage. Such storage would need to be massive (orders of magnitude bigger than just for day-night ballancing) and unlikely to be battery-based. Chemical storage is a possibility - plants converting excess electricity to hydrogen/methane and storing it in underground reservoirs (like ones currently used for strategic reservers of natural gas). But such facilities would be subjects to economy of scale, and therefore likely big and centralized, like current grid facilities.