Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your are reading to many environmental publications. Yes, there are issues with some dams. I would love to see the dams on the Skagit River and the city of San Francisco's dams in Yosemite National Park removed for environmental reasons.
But the PUD dams on the Columbia are a green as it gets. What is the environmental downside?? Very little land was flooded, since they are run of the river. The salmon migration issue is solved. What is the downside?? BTW each dam generates as much as a nuclear power plant or a four typical coal plants.
I have no problems with the Federal Government. I worked for them for 30 years. But this mindset that ONLY the Federal Government can solve problems really bothers me.
Douglas County had 7500 residents, not adults, but residents when they got tired of the Seattle area utility refusing to extend powerlines to rural parts of the county. So they build their OWN dam without help from the Federal Government. More than 50 years later the benefits of that decision still flow to the valley.
It wasn't cheap to build the dams. Those were 40 year bond issues. They were built because the people wanted control of their own lives instead of some far-off corporation in Seattle.
My observation working in natural resources for over 40 years is that green communities tend to come from areas where respect for the land comes from a close connection to it.
Then there are the charlatans in the bunch like the cities of San Francisco which flooded a National Park, city of Portland that closed federal land to protect their water supply, but continued to dump raw sewage into the Willamitte River for over 50 years AND asked for Federal extensions under the Clean Water Act to continue doing it!!!
It was the federal government that brought electricity to Douglas County. The dam is cheap. All generation is capital intensive. Douglas County was no more courageous than a couple thousand other small utilities that started in the 30s. As I said before Douglas backed into green. They certainly did not build the dam due to green concerns.
BTW I don't just "read environmental publications." I'm a professional engineer with over 35 years in the utility industry and have consulted to Washington PUDs in addition to many small utilities throughout the country.
If you evaluate technology on both a cost and performance basis. Off grid installations require more physical plant such as batteries and backup generation. Small home sized ICE generators pollute more per unit of generation and battery disposal is an environmental consideration. People who are off grid because they are too far from central station power to get service have no choice. People who have the option and are off grid anyway are making a political statement, which is not as environmentally friendly as grid connection.
Why the fixation with ICE? That is about a century out of date . . . .
And why batteries? It is 2015 . . . the 1970's were over a while ago.
They called from their land line and want their mindset back.
=======
But as a real question . . . if one were to grid, what are your thoughts regarding Community or Micro-Grid, as it were?
BTW I don't just "read environmental publications." I'm a professional engineer with over 35 years in the utility industry and have consulted to Washington PUDs in addition to many small utilities throughout the country.
It is conventional for backup (grid backup ONLY) -- but nothing really to do with "Green" systems. I would picture Fuel Cells more likely in that approach.
Quote:
It's what 99% of off grid pv systems use.
PV as a Sole Source is rather limited. But the PV source is what drive the battery use. Diversify from the PV and the "need" for battery severely reduces.
Quote:
There really aren't micro-grid options out there. If you want renewable energy, you want as large a grid as you can find.
That is the conventional thinking.
I was wondering if you had done any modeling or reviews towards the less conventional.
It is conventional for backup (grid backup ONLY) -- but nothing really to do with "Green" systems. I would picture Fuel Cells more likely in that approach.
Commercially available?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T
PV as a Sole Source is rather limited. But the PV source is what drive the battery use. Diversify from the PV and the "need" for battery severely reduces.
Oh please, look at what is installed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip T
That is the conventional thinking.
I was wondering if you had done any modeling or reviews towards the less conventional.
I have, we want a high voltage DC super-grid that spans the country. That enables the most renewable resources and is a low cost solution. Micro-grids limit the reach of renewables
If anything people who live off the grid don't waste anything they use all the resources they have.
Living off grid is inherently more energy intensive than a comparable lifestyle on grid. In addition the conversion technologies available are usually more polluting.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
