for those of you who think going all electric will be Just Fine...

hot_rod

HomerJSmith said:

Government is anti-progress with all its rules and regulations. The only progress government succeed at is expanding its own powers and rewarding its crony friends.

I should have added War. Governments are really good a War. Really GOOD.

hot_rod, I did expect a big blowback on my delusional ramblings. Thank you for being so kind.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Good to form your own based on research. Many folks these days just "parrot" the talking heads feeds.

HomerJSmith said:

We are electrical beings living in an electrical universe. A well placed EMP would put a real dent in your day. Since we didn't harden our electric grid, I don't expect we will harden our Teslas. "See the USA in a Chevrolet", Motoring may just turn into a nostalgic memory of the 'good ole days". We will see Teslas, on the front lawn, up on concrete blocks in Rio Linda.

Sal Santamaura

HomerJSmith said:

...A well placed EMP would put a real dent in your day. Since we didn't harden our electric grid, I don't expect we will harden our Teslas. "See the USA in a Chevrolet", Motoring may just turn into a nostalgic memory of the 'good ole days". We will see Teslas, on the front lawn, up on concrete blocks...

An EMP would render all modern internal combustion engine-powered vehicles, including Chevrolets, totally useless. With the extent of electronics incorporated in them, they're no less susceptible than are EVs.

hot_rod

Probably the biggest threat to grids and utilities is cyberattacks

SlamDunk

EMP? Maybe we should have stuck with vacuum tubes. Maybe the grid survives because new tech consume less power.

PC7060

hot_rod said:

Probably the biggest threat to grids and utilities is cyberattacks

@hot_rod - I agree, they (and everyone else) need to start taking cybersecurity seriously. While we are not in the utility sector, our small technology firm’s single biggest overhead cost (including facilities) is cyber security. It isn’t cheap to maintain compliance to NIST Cyber Security standard but getting hacked would be much much worse.

I can’t imagine what it takes to keep up with all of software and hardware updates at a large utility company given many of the systems came online well before cyber risks were a consideration. 

ChrisJ

Sal Santamaura said:

...A well placed EMP would put a real dent in your day. Since we didn't harden our electric grid, I don't expect we will harden our Teslas. "See the USA in a Chevrolet", Motoring may just turn into a nostalgic memory of the 'good ole days". We will see Teslas, on the front lawn, up on concrete blocks...

An EMP would render all modern internal combustion engine-powered vehicles, including Chevrolets, totally useless. With the extent of electronics incorporated in them, they're no less susceptible than are EVs.

I'm thinking an EMP would even take out 1975 and up GM's including Chevrolets.
I'm not sure how an HEI setup would tolerate such a thing.

It would certainly do bad damage to anything 1980s and newer.


The EMP argument vs EV's is a first on me.
But a common one is how EV's catch on fire a lot.

We all know we've never seen a gasoline or diesel vehicle catch on fire..........Diesels never run away or anything either.  They're perfect.

JakeCK

The EMP vs car argument is a non starter. If we got hit with an EMP that was large enough for that to be of concern getting your car or truck to start will be the least of your concerns.

Also cars are far less susceptible than most people think. A government study back in the mid 2000's found that most vehicles were unaffected by anything short of what you would expect from a massive solar flare or a nuke being detonated right on top of you. And even then most of them only needed to be power cycled. I think a few did have a few computer module failures including an instrument cluster but continued to run just fine. 

ChrisJ

JakeCK said:

The EMP vs car argument is a non starter. If we got hit with an EMP that was large enough for that to be of concern getting your car or truck to start will be the least of your concerns.

Also cars are far less susceptible than most people think. A government study back in the mid 2000's found that most vehicles were unaffected by anything short of what you would expect from a massive solar flare or a nuke being detonated right on top of you. And even then most of them only needed to be power cycled. I think a few did have a few computer module failures including an instrument cluster but continued to run just fine. 

Before someone says it you need electric to run gas and diesel pumps at fuel station as well.
So if you're not able to charge an EV you're not able to fill up a car or truck either.

HomerJSmith

jakeCK, au contraire. Read about the solar flare that occurred in the 1850's that set telegraph wires on fire and electrified railroad tracks. There's been a lot of above ground nuclear test to determine the effects of EMP. What the real effects will be is yet to be seen, I guess.

EROI is the rule. Energy Returned On Energy Invested or (ERoEI).

JakeCK

HomerJSmith said:

jakeCK, au contraire. Read about the solar flare that occurred in the 1850's that set telegraph wires on fire and electrified railroad tracks. There's been a lot of above ground nuclear test to determine the effects of EMP. What the real effects will be is yet to be seen, I guess. EROI is the rule. Energy Returned On Energy Invested or (ERoEI).

There is a difference between unshielded wires and bare metal extending hundreds to thousands of miles and a car built to with stand the rigors of thousands of miles with all of its electronics shielded inside the metal body of the car, which does act as a faraday cage of sorts. 

JakeCK

And I'm familiar with the Carrington event.

Read up on the EMP commission. 

I'm not claiming EMP isn't a threat. It most certainly is. It could set the western world back hundreds of years in the blink of an eye. I'm just arguing your car starting is not a concern. There is a high likelihood it will start no problem but it is a mute point. Not only will you be unable to refuel it, as has already been pointed out, but it will be the very last concern you have.

No grocery stores, no refrigeration, no heat, no ac, no radio, TV, internet, cell phones, worse yet once the water towers run dry you won't even have running water. No drinking water, no showers, won't even be able to flush the toilet. Sure you could collect rain water to flush them but how long until the sewers are backed up because the pumping stations aren't working? The black plague spread so easily because of poor sanitation, imagine when billions of people start $***ing in a bucket. 

The list goes on.

Hot_water_fan

EROI is the rule. Energy Returned On Energy Invested or (ERoEI).

I don’t think EROI has much value at all. Best case, you can compare within the same energy source (ie an offshore oil field with 2x the oil will be better all else equal). But without costs included, what’s the utility? A solar panel might have lower EROI but then destroys oil on levelized cost of energy, which reality endorses because solar is widely used for electricity and oil? Hardly at all. It seems a very limited metric. 

ChrisJ

For those who are curious here's the 1859 event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrington_Event

PC7060

man, this thread has taken a decidedly dark (but non-political) turn. I'm off to eat the last of the ice cream and steaks in the fridge as a risk reduction / mood enhancing activity.

JakeCK

PC7060 said:

man, this thread has taken a decidedly dark (but non-political) turn. I'm off to eat the last of the ice cream and steaks in the fridge as a risk reduction / mood enhancing activity.

I wouldn't really call it a dark turn. More of an acknowledgement that our modern society has been optimized and built to run on a JIT system. The better optimized a system is, the closer to the precipice it sits. Our society has been optimized to such an extent that any small perturbation can destabilize our entire society. 

Example, this pandemic. It is almost to an endemic stage but the socioeconomic consequences are still reverberating through our society.

SlamDunk

We have been in this position before. Look what else we learned from the pandemic: an awful lot of us can work remotely, saving fuel, and creating an easier commute for those of us who can't which saves more fuel. Also, better pay for those on the low pay end of the spectrum. A lot of people got better jobs. Socio economic consequences are localized in communities with lousy economies.

I agree with the JIT philosophy. No fat or excess anywhere.

jumper

>>Before someone says it you need electric to run gas and diesel pumps at fuel station as well.
So if you're not able to charge an EV you're not able to fill up a car or truck either.<<

I can power the gas pump with my Honda generator but you'll look awful funny running IC engine to charge your EV.

JakeCK

SlamDunk said:

We have been in this position before. Look what else we learned from the pandemic: an awful lot of us can work remotely, saving fuel, and creating an easier commute for those of us who can't which saves more fuel. Also, better pay for those on the low pay end of the spectrum. A lot of people got better jobs. Socio economic consequences are localized in communities with lousy economies. I agree with the JIT philosophy. No fat or excess anywhere.

A JIT system is fine, in the right situation. But like anything the right tool for the right job. When a new idea becomes accepted in a field of study everyone seems to get all turned on to it and tries ro show horn it in everywhere. My employer use a jit system for deliveries with in the company. Works great for the most part, could work even better ran on a tighter schedule. But we still have our centralized warehouse across town. Worst case scenario we miss our daily delivery or it comes late because of congestion, weather, or break down. But that is the worst case and normally we can get something here with in hours. But running a global economy on jit where goods can take weeks to move across the globe? Nah bad idea.

PC7060

I’m a fan of JIT but like everything else you need to adjust for prevailing conditions. We’ve had recent situation for subassemblies built buy a supplier that had specific parts driving the lead time out to 60+ weeks.

We worked to find alternative sources for the part holding up delivery only to find other material now have even longer lead time because our supplier hadn’t ordered the remaining items on the bill of materials due to their internal JIT based model.

We now put in our contracts that all materials will be ordered on day one of contract award. No just in time production phasing.

ChrisJ

jumper said:

>>Before someone says it you need electric to run gas and diesel pumps at fuel station as well. So if you're not able to charge an EV you're not able to fill up a car or truck either.<< I can power the gas pump with my Honda generator but you'll look awful funny running IC engine to charge your EV.

I can charge an EV with my natural gas powered generator and I won't look funny at all as it's hooked to my house.


Before someone says "but what if" it can also run on LPG.

Now just in case we go full blown disaster I'm not prepared for zombies.

JakeCK

Oh the irony.

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/texas-turns-renewables-electricity-demand-190000634.html

Solid_Fuel_Man

If fuel weren't $5+ a gallon how seriously would we be having this conversation?

JakeCK

Well the op started this to vent about his power getting shut off in a rolling black out caused by the heat so I'd say pretty good odds it would have happened in some form regardless.

ethicalpaul

jumper said:

QuebecHydro convinced homeowners to trash oil burners. Then one winter night a freak ice storm downed miles of transmission towers delivering electricity to Montreal.

Because oil burners don't need electricity?

ChrisJ

ethicalpaul said:

jumper said:

QuebecHydro convinced homeowners to trash oil burners. Then one winter night a freak ice storm downed miles of transmission towers delivering electricity to Montreal.

Because oil burners don't need electricity?

I guess someone could argue an oil burner can easily run on a small portable generator but I'm betting most of the people in the area do not have that option either.

jumper

ChrisJ said:

ethicalpaul said:

jumper said:

QuebecHydro convinced homeowners to trash oil burners. Then one winter night a freak ice storm downed miles of transmission towers delivering electricity to Montreal.

Because oil burners don't need electricity?

I guess someone could argue an oil burner can easily run on a small portable generator but I'm betting most of the people in the area do not have that option either.

Question of time. Import heating fuel & generators. Or rebuild dozens of towers and stretch wires.
Montreal is often very cold. What would it hurt to leave furnaces functioning? Well homeowners may decide to avoid provincial monopoly. A couple of too little snow in north-east North America and Quebeckers will depend on nukes in Michigan.

Skyline

It's unlikely that local electricity grids can go all renewable electricity generation on their own. Texas is a good example of that with their deep freeze couple of years ego. For that matter, it is unlikely that even a country like US will be able to do that on its own. In my view global energy grid seems like a better option and there are plans and some constructions are already ongoing to do just that.

https://www.newsmax.com/paulfdelespinasse/electric-grid-solar/2022/05/03/id/1068282/

This will take time, but ultimately that's what should be developed for renewable energy sources...

Hot_water_fan

Texas is a good example of that with their deep freeze couple of years ego.

@Skyline ERCOT's problem wasn't renewable energy. Among other reasons, natural gas really crapped out.

JakeCK

Hot_water_fan said:

Texas is a good example of that with their deep freeze couple of years ego.

@Skyline ERCOT's problem wasn't renewable energy. Among other reasons, natural gas really crapped out.

It amazes me how many people believe that load of BS. The renewables actually continued to function just fine for the most part. I did hear there were some wind turbines that froze up but really that's the beauty of these systems. Ok a single turbine shuts down out of a field of a hundred... Not a big deal. Like wise with solar. I had a panel fail a couple months ago. It was only producing about a 1/3 of what it was rated for. I hardly noticed the drop in production across the whole system. Vs a large coal, NG or nuke. If one of those goes down you got issues. 

Skyline

Hot_water_fan said:

Texas is a good example of that with their deep freeze couple of years ego.

@Skyline ERCOT's problem wasn't renewable energy. Among other reasons, natural gas really crapped out.

That's somewhat arguable...

At the time of installing the wind turbine, the option to protect them from freezing had not been selected/installed. During the deep freeze, they froze up and did not produce electricity. The NG supply, including the wells, do need electricity to function. While they should have backup generation for the critical NG supply, the gas companies did not opt for it either. AFAIK, most of them still had not been winterized as of yet. It's a double whammy that bound to take place again, if not addressed...

ChrisJ

Skyline said:

Hot_water_fan said:

Texas is a good example of that with their deep freeze couple of years ego.

@Skyline ERCOT's problem wasn't renewable energy. Among other reasons, natural gas really crapped out.

That's somewhat arguable...

At the time of installing the wind turbine, the option to protect them from freezing had not been selected/installed. During the deep freeze, they froze up and did not produce electricity. The NG supply, including the wells, do need electricity to function. While they should have backup generation for the critical NG supply, the gas companies did not opt for it either. AFAIK, most of them still had not been winterized as of yet. It's a double whammy that bound to take place again, if not addressed...

Yeah..
What happened in Texas was avoidable and most likely shouldn't have happened.

I say most likely because I guess you could argue whether or not such options are worth it in the long term in that area.

Jamie Hall

There were a number of problems that beset Texas. To point the finger at this one or that one and say if only this or that is not helpful, although it is attractive. For whatever reason, the proximate cause was that portions of the grid overloaded and automatic trips on major base load power plants tripped to keep phase and frequency problems from destroying the generators.

Now one can say that more solar would have helped. The cascade started at night; not a whole lot of solar. More wind might have helped. It was relatively calm. Batteries on a utility scale probably would have helped, but they don't exist yet.

One minor thing to remember about most "renewables" and the associated batteries -- they must have a stable frequency source to function on a grid scale. This is an area of power electrical engineering -- a rather specialized field -- which has not found a solution other than "base load" generating capacity at least to date. As I noted above, some thought has been given to using GPS or similar satellites for this purpose, The idea is somewhat attractive, until one realises that someone with a hundred dollars in parts and a devious mind can jam the signals and there goes the ballgame.

Another path which has been explored (and has some limited applications) is EHV (Extreme High Voltage) DC -- not AC -- interconnects. This gets around phase/frequency problems over wide areas or between different grids. Multigigawatt 460,000 volt sine wave inverters are a bit tricky to design, and are expensive. There are also some interesting problems relating to high intensity magnetic fields along the cable routes; they seem to form very effective barriers to migrating birds, for instance.

As I have said before, as an old codger it makes me very very sad that 70 years ago we -- and the rest of the world -- didn't embrace and advance and improve the technology we had. We could have a nearly completely carbon free energy source and at least as much power as we have now. Instead some people panicked and we have a large scale group of "activists" who are making a fortune off of opposing any form of progress or advocating for pipe dreams which simply can't meet the scale required.

Phooey.

Skyline

ChrisJ said:

Skyline said:

Hot_water_fan said:

Texas is a good example of that with their deep freeze couple of years ego.

@Skyline ERCOT's problem wasn't renewable energy. Among other reasons, natural gas really crapped out.

That's somewhat arguable...

At the time of installing the wind turbine, the option to protect them from freezing had not been selected/installed. During the deep freeze, they froze up and did not produce electricity. The NG supply, including the wells, do need electricity to function. While they should have backup generation for the critical NG supply, the gas companies did not opt for it either. AFAIK, most of them still had not been winterized as of yet. It's a double whammy that bound to take place again, if not addressed...

Yeah..
What happened in Texas was avoidable and most likely shouldn't have happened.

I say most likely because I guess you could argue whether or not such options are worth it in the long term in that area.

I don't disagree, ROI was certainly a factor at the design phase for the wind turbines. It's probably one of the reason why most of these issues had not been addressed as of yet. Who's going to pay for the retrofit?

JakeCK

Jamie Hall said:

As I have said before, as an old codger it makes me very very sad that 70 years ago we -- and the rest of the world -- didn't embrace and advance and improve the technology we had. We could have a nearly completely carbon free energy source and at least as much power as we have now. Instead some people panicked and we have a large scale group of "activists" who are making a fortune off of opposing any form of progress or advocating for pipe dreams which simply can't meet the scale required. Phooey.

What technology could we have embraced 70 years ago?

Jamie Hall

JakeCK said:

Jamie Hall said:

As I have said before, as an old codger it makes me very very sad that 70 years ago we -- and the rest of the world -- didn't embrace and advance and improve the technology we had. We could have a nearly completely carbon free energy source and at least as much power as we have now. Instead some people panicked and we have a large scale group of "activists" who are making a fortune off of opposing any form of progress or advocating for pipe dreams which simply can't meet the scale required.

Phooey.

What technology could we have embraced 70 years ago?

Nuclear. That was when the Navy was beginning to play with reactors (they have a pretty good safety record) and not long after was when Northern States Power brought the first power reactor on line in Minnesota. Until a certain movie actress and movie came along, there were many plans to build and operate power reactors, each with better and safer and more sophisticated designs. There was also a good deal of very promising research being done on the safe management of nuclear wastes.

That all came crashing to a halt, and now 90 plus percent of the cost of a reactor for commercial power is spent battling every pressure group and their lawyers and their baby brothers for decades, so it isn't worth it. And the list of perfectly good reactors on perfectly good sites with good safety records which have been shut down is long and lengthening.

Consider Germany, if you don't want to face the US situation. They shut down all of their reactors a few years back. Now guess what. They are burning more and more soft coal just to keep the lights on. This is progress?

109A_5

The way I see it is the problem with Nuclear is events like Chernobyl and how they came to be. Peter Principle, The Dunning-Kruger Effect maybe ?

Steamhead

109A_5 said:

The way I see it is the problem with Nuclear is events like Chernobyl and how they came to be. Peter Principle maybe ?

Don't forget Windscale, Hanford and of course Three Mile Island.

ChrisJ

109A_5 said:

The way I see it is the problem with Nuclear is events like Chernobyl and how they came to be. Peter Principle maybe ?

I think it's a mixture of a lot of things.
I watched Chernobyl on HBO and the Three Mile Island documentary on Netflix and unfortunately my opinion is they're not entirely.......honest.

I could be completely wrong, but one seemed to be biased to make the USSR look bad, and the other seemed to be aimed at making the nuclear industry look bad.

For anyone interested, the Legasov tapes are available and available translated. A lot of it does not agree with the HBO series. We'll start with Legasov wasn't a single man living in a dumpy apartment and he never hid the tapes in an alley. Also, best I can tell Anatoly Dyatlov wasn't an evil man.

https://legasovtapetranslation.blogspot.com/

hot_rod

Steamhead said:

109A_5 said:

The way I see it is the problem with Nuclear is events like Chernobyl and how they came to be. Peter Principle maybe ?

Don't forget Windscale, Hanford and of course Three Mile Island.

And the 1952 meltdown of the Chalk River plant in Ottawa. Canada called on the US for help, the U.S Navy sent a team into the reactor, each of the 3 teams spent time in the reactor repairing the "plumbing" The Navy team was assembled and lead into the reactor by a 28 year old lieutenant, Jimmy Carter.

After 6 decades the plant is decommissioned and cleanup predicted to be done by 2100. The site will then be under institutional control" for an additional 300 years.

While safer reactors are being built, still no long term solution for the waste, just keep moving and re-casing it. I suspect that is the hard sell to the public, where and how to store the waste.

Hot_water_fan

That all came crashing to a halt, and now 90 plus percent of the cost of a reactor for commercial power is spent battling every pressure group and their lawyers and their baby brothers for decades, so it isn't worth it.

Ha @Jamie Hall . If 90% of the cost is litigation, that doesn't leave much for profit!