No, it's just not possible to respond to everything. You have to pick and choose. I'm choosing to not engage in that particular argument.Well no point discussing anything with you if you ignore my resposnses. Just makes it a conversation where I talk to myself.
So many power companies prioritize rewarding shareholders over actually doing the thing they are paid to do. PG&E got hundreds of millions of dollars for upgrading their power lines and instead of actually upgrading their power lines, increase dividends.The grid has failed not because of renewable power, but because they took profit instead of putting in the work.
Ok...so are you saying that I don't need to, or shouldn't even respond and you'll just go on your merry way? Not sure why we're here then. But anyways....No, it's just not possible to respond to everything. You have to pick and choose. I'm choosing to not engage in that particular argument.
It's very simple that the cost of a grid connect should be based upon possible utilization or peak capacity. But this idea that the grid will be unbalanced is fear mongering. The grid has failed not because of renewable power, but because they took profit instead of putting in the work.
There's only so much time to devote to each conversation.
-Crissa
Yes, and I'm telling you they are lying.I only posted that link to demonstrate what is happening here because of the excessive solar penetration in grids.
I can say you're doing the same, doesn't make it true.Yes, and I'm telling you they are lying.
-Crissa
Simple: The peak use is something they already had to deal with. Solar doesn't change this. It also doesn't change the use of long-distance transmission.Prove that there is no technical problem with high RE penetration, in particular without storage.
It's not just peak demand, in particular here it's peak solar generation that is the problem.Simple: The peak use is something they already had to deal with. Solar doesn't change this. It also doesn't change the use of long-distance transmission.
Yes, storage makes these problems less, but the utilities are basically lying about their current problems.
-Crissa
It's likely that the door latches are spring loaded and open mechanically if the battery becomes disconnected or fails. Like in a crash. So if the power fails, you would be able to get out. Sort of like failsafe air brakes on a truck where you need air pressure to disengage the brake, otherwise the brake remains locked on.Lack of mechanical door handles is deal breaker.
I go off road driving, and if there is a fault, I need to be able to get out without doing some sort of convoluted hidden manual release.
eg if I get a river crossing wrong, something gets wet, fails, and the CT starts filling up with water, I need to be able to get out within seconds.
Rest assured my adventurous friend, Tesla does have engineers. And the manual release isn't even hard to reach!Lack of mechanical door handles is deal breaker.
I go off road driving, and if there is a fault, I need to be able to get out without doing some sort of convoluted hidden manual release.
eg if I get a river crossing wrong, something gets wet, fails, and the CT starts filling up with water, I need to be able to get out within seconds.
I believe if you consider the overall unprecedented safety of the CT weighted against the unlikely event of being trapped due to an accident, your fears statistically may be unwarranted.I will literally cancel my order if there are no external door knobs. No external door knobs combined with bullet proof exterior = extremely unsafe if I get in an accident and go unconscious - no one will be able to get me out!
I think the answer is large scale battery deployments.It's not just peak demand, in particular here it's peak solar generation that is the problem.
OK. Time for a quick analogy to visualize the concept of network balancing. This is the technical reason. (I'm going to ignore the corporations actions because I also don't agree with them)
Imagine the grid is a water supply system, where the pipes are the grid feeders between consumption and supply. Then imagine the grid acts as a water tank ("tank") when it comes to grid voltage, in that high voltage results in a spill that trips protection circuits and causes the grid to turn off, and the same for when the the level is to low and it trips, to protect consumers and systems on the grid. Now add some generators to the mix, where they keep topping up the tank through the pipes. And consumers that are emptying that tank through the pipes.
Now imagine that the "tank" is wafer thin, because like the grid it has no capacity to store water (or electricity in our case). Without storage, it means that demand must always equal supply as to not trip over/under setpoints, otherwise the grid shuts down. That means that if someone turns on a tap, that load of water (electricity) must instantly be available through the system, within milliseconds, so that water flows out of the customers tap (plug). To do this the current generation strategy is to make sure that there are enough generators online at all times to pickup any potential load. They do this by being already running, but at reduced throttle. This is known as "spinning reserve" and is the fundamental mechanism for network balancing.
Specifically they work in fractions of a second to modulate the grid to make sure the voltage stays stable. Think of a ICE generator where you plug in a load via "the grid" and it instantly gives you power, but you can hear the generator surge to meet the load by throttling up.
Now imagine what happens if people start throwing millions of buckets of solar water into the wafer thin grid "tank", and no one is there to use it, forcing other generators to turn off. (this happens when it's sunny but not hot enough to turn on the Aircon)
So until now with RE penetration into the grid, embedded solar generators, like solar on houses, are considered "uncurtailable" generation, meaning specifically that the grid balancing mechanism has no direct control on their output, so they need to balance them by using curtailable generators, like peak generation turbines and ICE etc that can throttle down to about 50%, but not lower, because they will stall and switch off.
So the spinning reserve and curtailable generation can only do what their nameplate capacity says. They just shutdown to protect the equipment from damage. So then if all non-solar is already shutdown on the grid, then how to you reduce solar generation to keep the grid from overflowing our wafer thin tank? By introducing mechanisms to curtail solar generation and wind, including price incentive to get them offline. The alternative is a retrofit system, (which btw is already rolling out on new installs) that allows the grid operator to turn off your solar system export to the grid. But for existing customers this will be expensive, because most inverters can't distinguish between a household load and a grid export.
(Note this is different again to the grid defection problem described earlier)
it's not going to be a hard function to operate - the CT needs to meet safety criteria.Lack of mechanical door handles is deal breaker.
I go off road driving, and if there is a fault, I need to be able to get out without doing some sort of convoluted hidden manual release.
eg if I get a river crossing wrong, something gets wet, fails, and the CT starts filling up with water, I need to be able to get out within seconds.