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.
Serious question: can backup power be brought online/offline fast enough to compensate for sudden fluctuations in solar power from passing clouds? See the figure below:
I'm generally a pro-solar kind of guy, but I sure wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for running the grid with a big solar plant attached to it (see figure above )
Maybe it's less of a problem for rooftop solar, since one small cloud shadow can't hit every rooftop in Your City at once, so fluctuations (from small passing clouds) would likely be smoother. Still, I'd hate to be the grid manager.
When there are a large number of arrays on a utility system they tend to average each other out. When one is shaded, most of the rest are not so the output of the group is more stable than the output of a given array. In addition normal utility dispatch has as much capacity on line and unloaded ready for instantaneous response as the largest plant on the system. That will normally be about 2000 MW, so individual solar plants are easily accommodated.
Serious question: can backup power be brought online/offline fast enough to compensate for sudden fluctuations in solar power from passing clouds? See the figure below:
I'm generally a pro-solar kind of guy, but I sure wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for running the grid with a big solar plant attached to it (see figure above )
Maybe it's less of a problem for rooftop solar, since one small cloud shadow can't hit every rooftop in Your City at once, so fluctuations (from small passing clouds) would likely be smoother. Still, I'd hate to be the grid manager.
That's not how rooftop solar works. The panels are hooked up to a battery that gets charged, and the household appliances are run off the batteries. Passing clouds are a non-issue. Even a cloudy day isn't an issue, because solar energy and light still get through.
That's not how rooftop solar works. The panels are hooked up to a battery that gets charged, and the household appliances are run off the batteries. Passing clouds are a non-issue. Even a cloudy day isn't an issue, because solar energy and light still get through.
Most rooftop solar is grid connected and doesn't have batteries. When the pv isn't producing the house draws from the grid. In most applications, when the pv is producing at max, it is supplying energy to the grid and the homeowner gets credit for that. Clouds do make a significant difference in the output of a pv cell.
Serious question: can backup power be brought online/offline fast enough to compensate for sudden fluctuations in solar power from passing clouds? See the figure below:
I'm generally a pro-solar kind of guy, but I sure wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for running the grid with a big solar plant attached to it (see figure above )
Maybe it's less of a problem for rooftop solar, since one small cloud shadow can't hit every rooftop in Your City at once, so fluctuations (from small passing clouds) would likely be smoother. Still, I'd hate to be the grid manager.
Great Britain & Germany have shifted their power production to wind & PV in the name of "saving the environment." After several years of experience under their belts now, they're trying to figure a way to revert back and still save face politically. It's costing them a fortune, ruining the power grid of other connected but less demanding countries and not saving the environment at all. (AGW is a scam in the first place and they still have to keep a large number of coal-fire plants running on stand-by as back-up for the unreliable wind & PV operations.)
Readers of this thread should be aware that earlier posts contain a tremendous amount of misinformation (mistakes, errors & lies) concerning the physics & chemistry of the question at hand.
BTW- most of the excessive expense of building new coal & nuclear plants is due to unnecessary govt regulation, while the recent explosion of wind mill installations across the country is only made economically possible by govt subsidies. When those subsidies are gone, watch for those mills to go idle and rust away quickly.
And for you TreeHugggers hoping for that great break-thru in battery technology that will make "alternatives" viable: they've been looking for it for well over a century and still haven't found it. It won't come in the foreseeable future, either. Those heavy & rare-earth metals are worse for the environment than burning coal. Burn wood. It's renewable.
Often the high cost behind these "alternative' or "renewable" energy sources is due to parts of their production that may not be so sustainable.
For example, a while back, I had read that the energy it takes to create solar panels (heating the silicon to melt it, etc), is greater than that solar panel can produce in its lifetime. I recently had the chance to ask a professor in renewables about this, and it seems that perhaps the materials have gotten better, or the manufacturing more efficient, but I am not sure whether we are very far beyond the tipping point on this one.
The same goes for the rare metals needed to make high performance motors or generators (such as those in wind turbines and electric cars), and in batteries.
To me, the real question becomes, is this constant push in the direction of more technology a good thing? One poster commented that energy cannot be renewable, as it is neither created or destroyed. To them, I'd invoke the second law of thermodynamics, which relates to the consequences of converting energy from one form to another. Namely, every time we convert or move energy, waste must be created in the form of heat.
In light of this, think of a few examples: one of the biggest energy users in the home is an electric drier. Someone with a solar setup may have to oversize their system to accommodate the load, but if that's the case, why not just use the direct energy of the sun, and put the clothes on a line to dry, instead of converting it twice, once into electricity, and then into heat.
Another case: in an apartment, I had neighbours whose AC would run on warm days of spring (understandable) but also its cool nights. Air conditioning is another huge energy draw in our households. It was their power bill, so I wasn't going to complain, but I certainly kept my windows open instead to enjoy the fresh air.
Our ancestors did just fine on renewable sources: wood for the stove, tallow for candles, and wind to pump the well, but many of them found that the sources were not as renewable as they thought: population increased and forests were cut down. I'm not advocating a return to pioneer lifestyle, but I am pointing out that it is as important to question the use of the energy, as much as the sources.
In the examples above, there are assumptions made: many city buildings have windows which cannot be opened. Some HOAs (and certainly, small apartments) make line-drying clothes difficult. We create cities and communities with so many invisible and required draws of energy. Worse still, we have thoroughly nitpicked over our somewhat decent energy sources so as to make them unpalatable: upset that nuclear energy involves radiation, well bad news: coal has radioactive elements too, and coal ash waste is even less regulated and controlled than nuclear. Natural gas is not much better, if the recent stories regarding fracking are anything to go on.
Fun fact: the energy consumed by the collective infrastructure of the internet, each time this post is read, is about what it takes to go a block in a car..
You bring up excellent points, Cesium. Rather than chase fantasies learned at The Bambi School of Environmental Studies, TreeHuggers should be concentrating on conservation-- for conservation's sake. Waste not, want not.
To keep things in perspective: solar cells are only about 10% efficient at converting sunlight into usable energy. Green plants convert about 97%.
All engineering solutions involve trade offs and compromises among the conflicting factors. Solar & wind are "clean" but require potentially toxic batteries. And those batteries store a dangerous amount of energy: they can explode, catch fire, etc. It's like storing gas in cans--usually, but not always safe. Cf- recent experiences with those motorized skate-board-things.
The whole AGW movement is based on politics, not science. The value of any scientific theory is found in it's ability to explain known data and to predict future outcomes. Every single thing predicted by the AGW movement from rise in world temps, to increased storm activity, to melting of glaciers and to rise in sea level has failed to materialize in the 30 yrs since the movement began. At what point do we declare the theory wrong?
I was worried about our ability to continue to grow enough food for the world's growing population as we depleted oil reserves. But the advent of fuel production via fracking has expanded our fossil fuel supply to cover the next six centuries. By the time that runs out, they'll certainly have figured out cold fusion.
You bring up excellent points, Cesium. Rather than chase fantasies learned at The Bambi School of Environmental Studies, TreeHuggers should be concentrating on conservation-- for conservation's sake. Waste not, want not.
To keep things in perspective: solar cells are only about 10% efficient at converting sunlight into usable energy. Green plants convert about 97%.
All engineering solutions involve trade offs and compromises among the conflicting factors. Solar & wind are "clean" but require potentially toxic batteries. And those batteries store a dangerous amount of energy: they can explode, catch fire, etc. It's like storing gas in cans--usually, but not always safe. Cf- recent experiences with those motorized skate-board-things.
The whole AGW movement is based on politics, not science. The value of any scientific theory is found in it's ability to explain known data and to predict future outcomes. Every single thing predicted by the AGW movement from rise in world temps, to increased storm activity, to melting of glaciers and to rise in sea level has failed to materialize in the 30 yrs since the movement began. At what point do we declare the theory wrong?
I was worried about our ability to continue to grow enough food for the world's growing population as we depleted oil reserves. But the advent of fuel production via fracking has expanded our fossil fuel supply to cover the next six centuries. By the time that runs out, they'll certainly have figured out cold fusion.
Yeah, AGW a scam. Al Gore is up there in the Arctic melting all of that sea ice with his hair dryer, just to fool us.
That's not how rooftop solar works. The panels are hooked up to a battery that gets charged, and the household appliances are run off the batteries. Passing clouds are a non-issue. Even a cloudy day isn't an issue, because solar energy and light still get through.
Our house is powered by our solar panels when the sun is shining. When the sun is not shining then we are powered by our batteries.
Our house is powered by our solar panels when the sun is shining. When the sun is not shining then we are powered by our batteries.
I see you are in Maine. Do you get enough sunlight in the winter months for all of your electricity needs?
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.
)
