Go Back   English Forum Switzerland > Off-Topic > Off-Topic > International affairs/politics  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1461  
Old 09.04.2013, 14:56
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Which part?

That this wind farm was killing endangered birds? That was true.
That a lawsuit was filed to force the utility to reduce the number of bird deaths? Also true.
That turbines were removed or relocated to better ensure bird safety? Again, true.
That newer turbines have been placed in this wind farm? Yet again, true...

So, which part?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17694256
Reply With Quote
This user groans at for this post:
  #1462  
Old 09.04.2013, 15:02
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

The news article was about the placement of those wind farms and migratory patterns of birds in California.
Reply With Quote
The following 4 users would like to thank for this useful post:
  #1463  
Old 09.04.2013, 16:23
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

What does that have to do with THIS wind farm? Did you even watch the video?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1464  
Old 09.04.2013, 17:36
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,608
Groaned at 284 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 24,749 Times in 10,460 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
You start applying power to them (hydro, steam) and they switch from consumers to producers, though I can't see them storing huge amounts of energy.

Tom
You don't typically need to store huge amounts. You need to store the right amount.

It's all control theory. Too much reserve can be a bad thing.
Reply With Quote
  #1465  
Old 09.04.2013, 17:40
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,430
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,156 Times in 7,618 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
You don't typically need to store huge amounts. You need to store the right amount.

It's all control theory. Too much reserve can be a bad thing.
Reply With Quote
  #1466  
Old 09.04.2013, 17:42
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,608
Groaned at 284 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 24,749 Times in 10,460 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
no you don't rely on storage, you match generation to demand.

see here:

http://www.nationalgrid.com/uk/Elect...etwork/faq.htm

when NETA was brought in, it caused havoc with various energy producers as they had to ramped up and down the generators which were designed to run at a steady rate. who knows what it does to the lifetime of such equipment.

in the context of the national grid: "electricity cannot be stored" is broadly true.
Maybe you ought to write a letter to the people who built and own the major storage plants and tell them their theory is utterly flawed and all profits they think they have made over the last 50 years were imagined.

BTW, when plants are added or removed from the grid or power is increased or decreased, its not instantaneous. Lead times are typically 15 minutes. You still haven't explained to me where according to you the response comes from that means the lights don't go out in the meantime. Or indeed why it is that you insist in implying that the people I work with every day are living an illusion, and so are the stockholders who own the company.
Reply With Quote
  #1467  
Old 09.04.2013, 17:54
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,430
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,156 Times in 7,618 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Maybe you ought to write a letter to the people who built and own the major storage plants and tell them their theory is utterly flawed and all profits they think they have made over the last 50 years were imagined.

BTW, when plants are added or removed from the grid or power is increased or decreased, its not instantaneous. Lead times are typically 15 minutes. You still haven't explained to me where according to you the response comes from that means the lights don't go out in the meantime. Or indeed why it is that you insist in implying that the people I work with every day are living an illusion, and so are the stockholders who own the company.
maybe we have different views of what storage is. how much storage capacity do you claim there to be in the UK? i.e. if we switched to using only this stored energy, how many seconds would it keep the UK going for?
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #1468  
Old 09.04.2013, 18:42
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,608
Groaned at 284 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 24,749 Times in 10,460 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
maybe we have different views of what storage is. how much storage capacity do you claim there to be in the UK? i.e. if we switched to using only this stored energy, how many seconds would it keep the UK going for?
I'm not familiar with the details of the UK grid.

But look at the graph below. This one is from the US as you can easily see because of the 60Hz. It shows the grid frequency responding to a major plant (probably circa 0.5 GW) being disconnected unexpectedly, presumably due to a fault. the initial reaction of the grid is that the other rotating masses in the other power plants across the whole of the region, which is about one third of the US, slow down by about 0.1 Hz, and that provides sufficient energy to keep the grid ticking. After that the frequency picks up again as first level governors kick in on the plants that have them, forcing them to increase their power. Manual connection of standy plants is going to take minutes, and is thus far beyond the timescale of this graph. The frequency will not fully recover until these can be connected (or users can be disconnected).

So to run some simple maths over what we are seeing here, assuming this was a 0.5GW plant that went down, and assuming demand didn't change at the same time, we are seeing the rotating masses in the grid outputting circa 0.5GW within 6 seconds of the initial event. The governors don't kick in until after that, so that triangular area (from the initial event down to C) represents energy drawn from rotating masses and that is 0.5GW * 6s = 3GWs of energy that can be recovered just by slowing down rotating masses by 0.1 of a Hertz during 6 seconds. Of course if you're prepared to allow the rotating masses to slow down even more than that you can recover even more stored energy. Of course there are limits as you don't want the frequency to deviate too far. But those are criteria imposed by design choices, not by rigid impossibility. And in future the acceptable band of tolerance may have to be raised as more and more unpredictable generation comes online.

Now what about solar panels you may ask, they don't have rotating masses, so if we have too many of them, will they dimish the resilience of the grid? Well, that depends on design, as you don't need rotating masses to do this. DC link capacitors in the DC-AC converters can provide the same ride-through if properly designed.
Attached Thumbnails
global-warming-what-s-behind-frequency_response.gif  

Last edited by amogles; 09.04.2013 at 19:05.
Reply With Quote
  #1469  
Old 09.04.2013, 21:00
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I'm not familiar with the details of the UK grid.

But look at the graph below. This one is from the US as you can easily see because of the 60Hz. It shows the grid frequency responding to a major plant (probably circa 0.5 GW) being disconnected unexpectedly, presumably due to a fault. the initial reaction of the grid is that the other rotating masses in the other power plants across the whole of the region, which is about one third of the US, slow down by about 0.1 Hz, and that provides sufficient energy to keep the grid ticking. After that the frequency picks up again as first level governors kick in on the plants that have them, forcing them to increase their power. Manual connection of standy plants is going to take minutes, and is thus far beyond the timescale of this graph. The frequency will not fully recover until these can be connected (or users can be disconnected).

So to run some simple maths over what we are seeing here, assuming this was a 0.5GW plant that went down, and assuming demand didn't change at the same time, we are seeing the rotating masses in the grid outputting circa 0.5GW within 6 seconds of the initial event. The governors don't kick in until after that, so that triangular area (from the initial event down to C) represents energy drawn from rotating masses and that is 0.5GW * 6s = 3GWs of energy that can be recovered just by slowing down rotating masses by 0.1 of a Hertz during 6 seconds. Of course if you're prepared to allow the rotating masses to slow down even more than that you can recover even more stored energy. Of course there are limits as you don't want the frequency to deviate too far. But those are criteria imposed by design choices, not by rigid impossibility. And in future the acceptable band of tolerance may have to be raised as more and more unpredictable generation comes online.

Now what about solar panels you may ask, they don't have rotating masses, so if we have too many of them, will they dimish the resilience of the grid? Well, that depends on design, as you don't need rotating masses to do this. DC link capacitors in the DC-AC converters can provide the same ride-through if properly designed.
If the frequency of a generator decreases, then the power is increased. (The drop in line frequency is an indication that the increased load is causing the generators to slow down.)

What does any this have to do with kinetic energy stored in the generators?
The generators are being driven (by wind, steam, water or whatever) not spinning freely.
In fact kinetic energy hampers the process because the changes in speed are minor due to inertia of the total rotating mass of all generators and motors running in the net
Reply With Quote
  #1470  
Old 09.04.2013, 21:32
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,608
Groaned at 284 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 24,749 Times in 10,460 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
If the frequency of a generator decreases, then the power is increased. (The drop in line frequency is an indication that the increased load is causing the generators to slow down.)

What does any this have to do with kinetic energy stored in the generators?
The generators are being driven (by wind, steam, water or whatever) not spinning freely.
In fact kinetic energy hampers the process because the changes in speed are minor due to inertia of the total rotating mass of all generators and motors running in the net
A steam generator is fed by a stream of steam. There is nothing about the steam or its pressure or temperature saying it is 50Hz steam, and there is nothing about the wind in a wind turbine that makes it 50Hz wind. And neither can the steam flow adapt in a space of seconds. And if the steam is the same and the wind is the same, the electrical output power cannot rise on their account (to suggest otherwise would be too imply that it wast running at optimal efficiency in the first place) so if the output power of the generator is rising but the input is the same then that extra energy is coming out of a storage buffer and that buffer is the kinetic energy of the rotating mass.

It's best maybe to think only of steam turbines in this situation as wind turbines have other effects as they don't necessarily have fixed speeds but normally have solid state converters and thus capacitative storage (which can BTW, depending on the type, be used even when the turbine isn't working). This doesn't change much on the macro level but means the mechanism is slightly different on a local level.
Reply With Quote
  #1471  
Old 10.04.2013, 02:19
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,430
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,156 Times in 7,618 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #1472  
Old 10.04.2013, 08:30
Jack of all trades.'s Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 812
Groaned at 21 Times in 14 Posts
Thanked 665 Times in 323 Posts
Jack of all trades. has a reputation beyond reputeJack of all trades. has a reputation beyond reputeJack of all trades. has a reputation beyond reputeJack of all trades. has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Wanting the next new thing has caused it.

This drives industry to produce it.

And that's about all there is to it.

Reply With Quote
  #1473  
Old 10.04.2013, 11:14
marton's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Kt. Zürich
Posts: 10,568
Groaned at 472 Times in 405 Posts
Thanked 19,378 Times in 10,229 Posts
marton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond reputemarton has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I'm not familiar with the details of the UK grid.

But look at the graph below. This one is from the US as you can easily see because of the 60Hz. It shows the grid frequency responding to a major plant (probably circa 0.5 GW) being disconnected unexpectedly, presumably due to a fault. the initial reaction of the grid is that the other rotating masses in the other power plants across the whole of the region, which is about one third of the US, slow down by about 0.1 Hz, and that provides sufficient energy to keep the grid ticking. After that the frequency picks up again as first level governors kick in on the plants that have them, forcing them to increase their power. Manual connection of standy plants is going to take minutes, and is thus far beyond the timescale of this graph. The frequency will not fully recover until these can be connected (or users can be disconnected).

So to run some simple maths over what we are seeing here, assuming this was a 0.5GW plant that went down, and assuming demand didn't change at the same time, we are seeing the rotating masses in the grid outputting circa 0.5GW within 6 seconds of the initial event. The governors don't kick in until after that, so that triangular area (from the initial event down to C) represents energy drawn from rotating masses and that is 0.5GW * 6s = 3GWs of energy that can be recovered just by slowing down rotating masses by 0.1 of a Hertz during 6 seconds. Of course if you're prepared to allow the rotating masses to slow down even more than that you can recover even more stored energy. Of course there are limits as you don't want the frequency to deviate too far. But those are criteria imposed by design choices, not by rigid impossibility. And in future the acceptable band of tolerance may have to be raised as more and more unpredictable generation comes online.

Now what about solar panels you may ask, they don't have rotating masses, so if we have too many of them, will they dimish the resilience of the grid? Well, that depends on design, as you don't need rotating masses to do this. DC link capacitors in the DC-AC converters can provide the same ride-through if properly designed.
Thanks, now I understand what you are saying. Yes, I can believe that there is enough kinetic energy in the generators to keep the frequency constant for around 6 seconds as shown in the US graph plus enough to slow the frequency drop for 6 (or more) seconds.

I just got a bit confused when you wrote " active increases in generation have a response time in the order of magnitude of 15 minutes" & with the implication that somehow there is enough kinetic energy in the generators to balance this delay.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank marton for this useful post:
  #1474  
Old 10.04.2013, 11:23
amogles's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Zurich
Posts: 11,608
Groaned at 284 Times in 232 Posts
Thanked 24,749 Times in 10,460 Posts
amogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond reputeamogles has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
I just got a bit confused when you wrote " active increases in generation have a response time in the order of magnitude of 15 minutes" & with the implication that somehow there is enough kinetic energy in the generators to balance this delay.
But they do. Even on a gas-fired plant, which is the fastest type to control, that's about the time it takes from increasing the gas inflow (assuming the plant was already spinning but at reduced power) until the turbine balances again and can provide that additional output.
Reply With Quote
  #1475  
Old 10.04.2013, 12:37
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: ZH
Posts: 142
Groaned at 4 Times in 4 Posts
Thanked 147 Times in 80 Posts
mustard has earned some respectmustard has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Professor Bob Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.

"I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...722560417.html
Reply With Quote
  #1476  
Old 10.04.2013, 13:19
Phil_MCR's Avatar
Forum Legend
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Basel
Posts: 14,430
Groaned at 281 Times in 187 Posts
Thanked 18,156 Times in 7,618 Posts
Phil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond reputePhil_MCR has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Professor Bob Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.

Professor Carter told the Herald yesterday the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had uncovered no evidence the warming of the planet was caused by human activity. He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research.

"I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environme...722560417.html
cheers. was too long for me to watch at this time so was hoping someone would watch and summarise.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank Phil_MCR for this useful post:
  #1477  
Old 10.04.2013, 15:48
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: ZH
Posts: 142
Groaned at 4 Times in 4 Posts
Thanked 147 Times in 80 Posts
mustard has earned some respectmustard has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
cheers. was too long for me to watch at this time so was hoping someone would watch and summarise.
Carter's presentation is clear with a nice bit of humour, and his arguments are strong.

Carter argues the warming of the planet isn't due to human activity (and CO2) but is part of the natural cycle of climate change. "Climate has always changed, it always will, there is nothing unusual about present day rates of change."

He thinks the climate cycle may now be starting on a cooling phase as seen in the levelling off in recent temperatures, and that the global warming scam is taking our attention away from the real climate change problem; that is, the threat of global cooling.

Solar physicists are predicting a phase of cooling which is not even being discussed because of all the frenzy about imaginary global warming.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank mustard for this useful post:
  #1478  
Old 10.04.2013, 17:52
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Professor Bob Carter, whose background is in marine geology, appears to have little, if any, standing in the Australian climate science community. He is on the research committee at the Institute of Public Affairs, a think tank that has received funding from oil and tobacco companies, and whose directors sit on the boards of companies in the fossil fuel sector.
The IPA is a far-right-wing organisation devoted to extreme free-market and Libertarian positions. Do not expect it to advocate anything that doesn't promote further elevation of the rich, greedy and powerful, and usurping the public good for private benefit.

Quote:
He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed [...]
In other words, he knows his claims will not stand up to peer review.

Last edited by drsmithy; 10.04.2013 at 18:07.
Reply With Quote
This user would like to thank drsmithy for this useful post:
The following 2 users groan at drsmithy for this post:
  #1479  
Old 10.04.2013, 17:55
Jobsrobertsharpii's Avatar
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Z-U-R-I-C-H
Posts: 2,335
Groaned at 173 Times in 124 Posts
Thanked 3,384 Times in 1,536 Posts
Jobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond reputeJobsrobertsharpii has a reputation beyond repute
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
The IPA is a far-right-wing organisation devoted to promoting extreme free-market and Libertarian positions. Do not expect it to advocate anything that doesn't promote further elevation of the rich, greedy and powerful, and usurping the public good for private benefit.
Watermelon apologist, like I said.

Quote:
View Post
In other words, he knows his claims will not stand up to peer review.
When other papers that DID stand up to peer review were presented to you, you called them "denialist rubbish."

I'm sure this is another straw-man argument, or something like that...
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users would like to thank Jobsrobertsharpii for this useful post:
  #1480  
Old 10.04.2013, 18:18
Forum Veteran
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane, QLD, Oz
Posts: 610
Groaned at 155 Times in 110 Posts
Thanked 318 Times in 211 Posts
drsmithy has earned some respectdrsmithy has earned some respect
Re: Global Warming - what's behind it?

Quote:
View Post
Watermelon apologist, like I said.
Indeed. Being in favour of things like publicly-funded healthcare, progressive taxation and basic workers' rights makes me a communist.

Quote:
When other papers that DID stand up to peer review were presented to you, you called them "denialist rubbish."
A quick sampling of the papers you posted showed most to have long been refuted or failed peer review in the first place.
Reply With Quote
The following 2 users groan at drsmithy for this post:
Reply

Tags
climate change, climategate, co2, global warming




Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT +2. The time now is 17:00.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0