BLACKOUT-PROOF POWER

"So, is it your opinion after reading your magazines that oil-burning centralized-distribution electricity represents the final evolution of energy technology? Or is nuclear energy your method of generation of choice? I have been studying this subject since 1978; I would be interested in your researched opinion."

I have been studying this subject since 1971, so there.

My methods of generation of choice include:

(1) Nuclear power;
(2) Methane clathrates (far term);
(3) The vast deposits of coal and shale oil available in this country;
(4) The even vaster deposits of oil in Canada;
(5) ANWR;
(6) More exploration.

We could reduce our need for energy if ignorant gits with unpronouncable nicks decided to emmigrate to the third world, where their 'energy burden' (and lifespan) is much reduced. I'll buy you a ticket.

"Live light on the land," and scratch for grubs outside your mud hut. Forego the benefits of modern technology, such as PCs, automobiles, medical technology, television and radio, air travel, etc.

I will buy you a one-way ticket to the third-world nation of your choice (first class) if you agree to emigrate there and never return. I am completely serious. Name the country, the date, and the airline. Contact me by freepmail and your ticket will be delivered.

--Boris

"Given that the price advantage for micro turbines disappears (if there ever was one), few will want to deal with the hassle of properly maintaining a power plant in the basement for little-to-no savings.

Right now, there is no price advantage, but there IS an efficiency advantage. As mass production price advantages kick in and fuel prices continue to rise, breakeven will be reached and passed (a typical automobile is FAR more complex than a microturbine, yet costs much less--why?? Mass production).

Let's face it, most people are lazy. Most don't even change their own spark plugs in the car, would most maintain a power plant?

Microturbines require very little maintenance (the biggest is changing an air filter). Those that can do their own maintenance will do so, the rest will have someone come in and do a service call--just as is necessary with gas central heating systems today. How many people do you know who maintain their own central heating/AC systems??

These are downsides that I would bet bring the reliability of these little power generators down to the same level as a national grid with central power stations with more personal hassle."

Oh, PLEASE. How much unreliabilty is involved with having a propane truck drop by a few times a year and refill the tank (as they do for me now, to maintain my BACKUP GAS HEAT, since here in the Puget Sound area, GRID-SUPPLIED electricity is quite unreliable in winter due to failure of the electrical utilites to properly maintain their transmission lines by trimming the damned trees or putting the lines underground)?? Pipelines are another question--to absolutely assure reliability, they would need complete backup power (100% reliable) for their pumping stations--which is NOT exactly rocket science.

Pipelines are another question--to absolutely assure reliability, they would need complete backup power (100% reliable) for their pumping stations--which is NOT exactly rocket science.

Major pipelines do blowup, pumping stations do blow up. A pipeline outage with everybody making their own electricity from natural gas would be much more serious than the blackout that just occurred. It could be weeks before full service is restored depending on what failed, if there are spares, or if a new installation is required. The cost of installing more high capacity long haul pipelines would cause the cost of natural gas to rise even more than it already has.

With regard to efficiency, I agree that a micro turbine would be more efficient than a coal plant. But cost to produce and deliver the power is the bottom line. The micro turbine would have the advantage of no delivery cost, but fuel will eat your lunch.

And propane or LNG delivery can be interrupted too. If there is no supply at the tank farm, the truck can't deliver it. I agree it could be rare, but then again, major blackouts are rare too.

To sum it up, I'm not against a microturbine, I'd even like to have one myself. But as the answer to our nation's energy cost and relibility, I think it will end up costing more to operate than what we already have and will not be any more reliable on the whole.

You remind me of those gullible people who sign up to pay more to buy "clean" electricity (generated by wind or hydro).

You're right, giving people a choice is just awful...Tear down those "hydro" dams starting with the Hoover and replace them with pollution belching coal burners...

As if the power could be separated out and routed to your house...only "clean" power for me!

In other words if say 50% of electricity consumers exercised a choice to use "clean" power it would have no impact?...Or maybe we should not allow "clean" power to be developed or marketed..

Has logic always been a problem for you?

microturbines can capture up to 100% of the fuel energy

I think we have a machine that can produce perpetual motion!! This is not possible, we might be able to approach 100%, but we can never get there. As a matter of fact, the closer you get to perfection, the more difficult it gets to get the next 1%. The costs and complexity begin to skyrocket. The cost for the received benefit becomes too much. This applies to all energy efficiencies, not just microturbines.

Depending on where your house is, 50- 75% of the energy generated at the electric plant is wasted in transmission. Distributed generation avoids that waste.

If you include the efficiency of getting the fuel gas from the well head to the pipeline to the microturbine BEFORE you begin making the electricity, Distributed Generation DOES NOT avoid the transmission waste, it merely moves it's location in the chain of events. You really do need to include that in the analysis if you are looking at this as a national energy policy.

As I have said before, it is the cost to the homeowner, business, and economy that counts, NOT the efficiency that matters.Do not believe that natural gas will remain cheap or get cheaper. Pipelines are expensive to install and maintain, and we do not have enough of them. There is also the problem with the dimishing well output going on even though well drilling has increased. We could end up having to import LNG and be held hostage to foreign exporters again. COAL AND NUCLEAR IS THE ANSWER that we have right now, not years down the road. Some of these other exotic fuel sources are also something to be explored, like methane from the ocean floor.

"I think we have a machine that can produce perpetual motion!! This is not possible, we might be able to approach 100%, but we can never get there. As a matter of fact, the closer you get to perfection, the more difficult it gets to get the next 1%. The costs and complexity begin to skyrocket. The cost for the received benefit becomes too much. This applies to all energy efficiencies, not just microturbines."

ARRGHHH!!! You just proved yourself to be an nitwit. What we are talking about is capturing the waste heat AS HEAT--NOT ELECTRICITY, by using it for space heating. That can and does capture 100% of the energy in the fuel for human use (at least during the heating season of the year). Now, admittedly, if you want to use PART of that waste heat IN SUMMER to run an air conditioner (desorption type), THEN there IS some wasteage and added complexity--but you STILL capture far more of the fuel energy than the best combined-cycle central power station can possibly do.

"You're right, giving people a choice is just awful...Tear down those "hydro" dams starting with the Hoover and replace them with pollution belching coal burners..."

Hydro is fine, except that all the useful sources are already fully exploited. And the scam is persuading the logically-challenged that the DW&P can send only "primo" water-derived power right to their house for only 25% more per kW.

"In other words if say 50% of electricity consumers exercised a choice to use "clean" power it would have no impact?...Or maybe we should not allow "clean" power to be developed or marketed.."

Better read up on your Adam Smith. 50% of the consumers are unlikely to be fools...defined as those who make uneconomic and non-optimal decisions regarding commodities--like power--they consume. A small minority--at -3sigma on the bell curve--will line up to pay more for--as I said--nothing at all.

As for logic, I got "A"s in both logic and economics, as well as Engineering. You?

--Boris

I'll avoid the name calling part. But even the waste heat use, either for hot water or air conditioner, is not 100% efficient since there is always a heat loss due to less than perfect insulation, and friction losses in the pipes the fluids are pumped though. The use of a pump to pump the coolant or move the hot water is an efficiency loss by itself. I was only trying to point out that there is nothing that is 100% efficient. I'm not trying to say the process is not efficient.

I once knew an electrician who among his other jobs was working for a small town radio station. I was thinking of buying a small generator for camping and was discussing the general subject with him.

He mentioned that the radio station had just bought a new generator and was willing to sell their old one at a reasonable cost. I think it was a 20,000 watt diesel but could be wrong. Of course this was too big for my use although if I knew I was not going to move back to my home in Florida I might have considered it.

The thing which intrigued me was that although I would have used it only for emergencies, I calculated the cost of producing electricity based on fuel cost alone and it was cheaper than the co-op was charging.

The first thing one must do to make electrical power is turn something; if a ready supply of running water is handy he can stick an impeller in the water stream and connect a generator, if he only has standing water he can boil it and make steam and use that to turn something.

The first thing one must do to boil water is to burn something; if a ready supply of fuel is available he can burn that, boil water and turn something.

If one lives in Arizona, one must kiss the butt of the big boys who have water and fuel.

At the time Edison and Tessla were competing the only engine that was really viable was the steam engine burning either coal or wood. Steam engines require much more maintenance and watching after than internal combustion engines. Even then they have several features making them less safe than internal combustion engines. That was why Sterling invented the external combustion engine, because of the high number of injuries and deaths due to small steam engine explosions. Small engines of the time were rather less efficient than any size engine of almost any type now. Solid fuels like wood or coal are much harder to automate than either gas or liquid fuels, meaning the the fuel supply might have to be looked after several times a day if not more.

A small engine today could be hooked to the NG lines or to a fuel tank and left alone for days or weeks.

A small battery bank with inverter could even be added so that the generator would not have to run 24 hours a day, and allow the generator to be serviced without requiring down time.

Besides, the article was entitled Blackout Proof, not cheapest and safest.

On top of all that, Tesla would have rathered work and dream of his own inventions rather than work for someone else. AC power may be the "invention" of his we are most likely to use each day, but it was far from a majority of his work and accomplishments.

Well, with the level of technology they had, the personal generators were not a safe nor viable option, so the transmission over long distances had to be done. Edison's DC was not viable for this needed transmission. With todays prices, safety and etc, personal generation is still not an economic match with regional power grid delivery, but it is in the same ballpark finally.

AC makes transmission over vast distances possible with simple transformers and high voltage lines. DC can be sent over long distances also if you ramp up the voltage, but there is no simple way to do voltage conversions up and then back down on the far end without much greater complexity and power losses compared to AC transformers.

AC transmission over vast distances where Canadian power is sold several states away from the national border is resulting in greater and greater percentages of the power being wasted. AC is not loss free. It is not magical. We now have the country in 3 or 4 grids and who knows how many hundreds of miles the average watt actually travels anymore. AC made this possible and we are married to it, but that does not mean it is the best solution.

Am I saying that we should scrap it? No. Just that we should think about the options and make sure what we are doing what actually makes sense at this point in history. And what makes sense for one person or industry is not necessarily what will be good for all. Many installations need absolutely reliable power, like hospitals and time critical industries. For these the extra expense is worth the cost and risks of local production. Power for a park fountain is not in the same league.

However, saying I have missed the whole point of AC just because I have asserted that more localized power is now more reasonable than in times past, and the articles main thrust is that the sprawling grid structures we have developed today are more susceptible to widescale blackouts than local or even personal grids would be, is rather missing the point of the article in itself.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.