ribution, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as grid backup t he tail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it needs to b e understood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistical issue, b ut a determinant issue.
ion is predicable enough to be exploited.
her do I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme value often enough that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.
. This is human nature, a quantity I and everyone else (for the most part) are directly involved in every day with us seeing, experiencing and being part of the extremes all the time. Yeah, I have a feel for it.
h data and wants to jump to a conclusion.
nly the ignoramus would say that human behavior is much predictable in term s of the extremes. Weather follows trends with quantifiable extremes. Hum ans are constantly changing, forgetting the past and reacting in unpredicte d ways. Hence the great recession. Only a fool would deny that.
Actually, only a fool would have claimed that.
A number of people did predict the great recession, and made money out of i t.
A bubble in the US home price market finally burst, and the sub-prime mortg age crisis followed rapidly, and became the global financial crisis.
The problem wasn't so much knowing about the home price bubble. Even Dubbya noticed that. The problem was being willing to do anything about it, which would ahve upset any number of people.
None of this has anything to do with with question of whether the collectiv e behaviour of enough human beings is predictable enough for somebody to ba se a business on it -and since every business that serves a mass market dep ends on this, only a fool would argue against it.
behavior.
out that the control theory is difficult because the human minds making th e choices that have to be controlled are not always operating on rational p rinciple.
inciple" and so can't be statistically analyzed easily. You said it above. It's still in the thread. I didn't pull it out of context.
actors had perfect information (which is another lunatic assumption built i nto classic economic models).
ut mostly the issue is that the behavior of people are chaotic responding i n unpredictable ways to something as small as a tweet.
Happily, if you average over enough people, the complexities average out.
nd the exact level to be available isn't known, the utility grid will not b e designed to depend on it.
their phones, but it gets by by providing enough spare capacity to cover 99 % of situations.
ve for the most part, but not being able to call 911 is rather inconvenient . Even so, I only recall once in my life that I could not make a local cal l because of overloaded circuits. It does happen in emergencies and other extreme events even though the phone network is a lot less expensive to pro vide than electrical capacity.
rid to depend on BEVs for electric supply would doubly expose them in unusu al events. Supply can be diminished and demand increased as everyone stopp ed supplying power and started charging their cars.
ckouts. When coming on gradually load shedding can mitigate the effect.
air-conditioners at random times too - as I did go on to point out. But yo u had to post your half-baked response as soon as it popped into your head.
s!!! Is this KRW???
You do seem to be auditioning for a role as a krw substitute. My capacity t o produce rational responses to irrational nonsense is finite, and run out from time to time.
redict and as a result, unreliable.
ch more predictable. The phone system and the existing utilities do rely on this.
of reverse charging equipment distributed around the utility network.
n their sites?
of car batteries. It wasn't invented separately for the job.
Telsa does do fast chargers, but they wouldn't be necessary in that applica tion. When Telsa seels a car battery they also sell the electronics that re gulate the charging process (for when the car is parked) and discharging (w hen it is moving around).
The Powerwall installation in South Australia will have busbars and big cir cuit breakers at the interface to the grid, but calling that - more or less standard - interface "a lot more" is dubious.
tty simple.
I haven't found any that you will pay any attention to.
ons.
You neglect your own contributions to the process, which have been entirely devoted to telling us what you think, and completely devoid of links to ex ternal information, which is entirely typical of the worst posts that foul up s.e.d. from time to time.
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 12:05:02 AM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote :
te:
stribution, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as grid backup the tail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it needs to be understood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistical issue, but a determinant issue.
ution is predicable enough to be exploited.
ither do I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme value oft en enough that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.
ns. This is human nature, a quantity I and everyone else (for the most par t) are directly involved in every day with us seeing, experiencing and bein g part of the extremes all the time. Yeah, I have a feel for it.
ugh data and wants to jump to a conclusion.
Only the ignoramus would say that human behavior is much predictable in te rms of the extremes. Weather follows trends with quantifiable extremes. H umans are constantly changing, forgetting the past and reacting in unpredic ted ways. Hence the great recession. Only a fool would deny that.
it.
tgage crisis followed rapidly, and became the global financial crisis.
ya noticed that. The problem was being willing to do anything about it, whi ch would ahve upset any number of people.
There you go. Even when the danger was known, no one could do anything abo ut it. The same sort of problem would be part of borrowing privately owned BEVs for use of smoothing power grid peaks.
The bottom line is it would not be a dependable source.
an behavior.
ng out that the control theory is difficult because the human minds making the choices that have to be controlled are not always operating on rational principle.
principle" and so can't be statistically analyzed easily. You said it abov e. It's still in the thread. I didn't pull it out of context.
l actors had perfect information (which is another lunatic assumption built into classic economic models).
but mostly the issue is that the behavior of people are chaotic responding in unpredictable ways to something as small as a tweet.
But it isn't a matter of averages when many people are motivated by the sam e stimulus to do the same things. You just keep denying that this can and will happen. There won't be the same availability on holiday weekends as e very day and any manner of special event will skew the availability. Why a re you in denial of this simple fact?
and the exact level to be available isn't known, the utility grid will not be designed to depend on it.
e their phones, but it gets by by providing enough spare capacity to cover
99% of situations.
live for the most part, but not being able to call 911 is rather inconvenie nt. Even so, I only recall once in my life that I could not make a local c all because of overloaded circuits. It does happen in emergencies and othe r extreme events even though the phone network is a lot less expensive to p rovide than electrical capacity.
grid to depend on BEVs for electric supply would doubly expose them in unu sual events. Supply can be diminished and demand increased as everyone sto pped supplying power and started charging their cars.
lackouts. When coming on gradually load shedding can mitigate the effect.
nd air-conditioners at random times too - as I did go on to point out. But you had to post your half-baked response as soon as it popped into your hea d.
mes!!! Is this KRW???
to produce rational responses to irrational nonsense is finite, and run ou t from time to time.
Your responses are not rational, especially when you have to resort to name calling. You keep claiming the problem will be "averaged out" when the re ality is there will be many extreme fluctuations from common stimuli affect ing a large portion of the population.
Something as simple as a car in a home garage catching fire from powering t he grid can cause a huge portion of the population to stop participating. Even if it was only for a week the grid would be severely impacted. If it weren't there would be no need to utilize BEV batteries.
predict and as a result, unreliable.
much more predictable. The phone system and the existing utilities do rely on this.
t of reverse charging equipment distributed around the utility network.
on their sites?
e of car batteries. It wasn't invented separately for the job.
cation. When Telsa seels a car battery they also sell the electronics that regulate the charging process (for when the car is parked) and discharging (when it is moving around).
Of course they would be needed. When the charging has to happen in just a handful of hours, then the discharging has to happen in even fewer hours, t his will require something functionally equivalent to a supercharger in eac h home. But the 200 amp typical service won't provide that level of charge or discharge will it? Even a 90 amp wall connector would only provides ha lf that level of charge/discharge.
The standard car has NO provision for supplying power back to the grid, so that's another cost. Multiply that times the millions of cars involved and the cost becomes enormous compared to centrally located utility battery st ations which would be much less expensive.
ircuit breakers at the interface to the grid, but calling that - more or le ss standard - interface "a lot more" is dubious.
retty simple.
I read them all and find them all to be fallacies based on over simplificat ions of the problem followed by overly complex justifications using claims of "averaging out" or "statistics" without substance.
tions.
ly devoted to telling us what you think, and completely devoid of links to external information, which is entirely typical of the worst posts that fou l up s.e.d. from time to time.
None of the info you have provided was useful. The problem is not hard to grasp if you aren't in denial of the facts. The real issue even if you ign ore the unreliability of BEV grid supply is the excessive cost. Grid manag ed central batteries will do the job better, more dependably and at a lower cost without the complexity and risk of trying to coax car owners to parti cipate continually.
distribution, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as grid back up the tail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it needs to be understood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistical issu e, but a determinant issue.
ibution is predicable enough to be exploited.
neither do I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme value o ften enough that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.
rons. This is human nature, a quantity I and everyone else (for the most p art) are directly involved in every day with us seeing, experiencing and be ing part of the extremes all the time. Yeah, I have a feel for it.
nough data and wants to jump to a conclusion.
. Only the ignoramus would say that human behavior is much predictable in terms of the extremes. Weather follows trends with quantifiable extremes. Humans are constantly changing, forgetting the past and reacting in unpred icted ways. Hence the great recession. Only a fool would deny that.
of it.
ortgage crisis followed rapidly, and became the global financial crisis.
bbya noticed that. The problem was being willing to do anything about it, w hich would ahve upset any number of people.
bout it.
They probably could have done something about it - though the banks had lar gely been let off the leash some years earlier. The obvious fact is that th ey didn't.
for use of smoothing power grid peaks.
That's a bizarre comparison. The electric cars would have been bought and p aid for by their private owners. The utilities would nearly be renting the use of the battery when the car was parked. Not a lot of speculative invest ment there, or room for the banking business to repackage anything and sell it on.
For some definitions of "dependable". Employees aren't a dependable resourc e either - they get sick and drop dead - but large business have enough emp loyees that they can rely on having enough around at any given time to be a ble to keep on running.
uman behavior.
ting out that the control theory is difficult because the human minds makin g the choices that have to be controlled are not always operating on ration al principle.
l principle" and so can't be statistically analyzed easily. You said it ab ove. It's still in the thread. I didn't pull it out of context.
nal actors had perfect information (which is another lunatic assumption bui lt into classic economic models).
ex but mostly the issue is that the behavior of people are chaotic respondi ng in unpredictable ways to something as small as a tweet.
t.
ame stimulus to do the same things.
As in every body taking a day off work to watch the Superbowl - in the US - or the Melbourne Cup in Australia?
When this does happen - and it doesn't happen - often it;s predictable enou gh to be managed.
Since it doesn't seem to happen to any crippling extent in real life, this does seem to be a realistic attitude. Your is more that I should take serio usly every last one of your unsubstantiated fantasies, and you cal me irrat ional when I don't.
d any manner of special event will skew the availability. Why are you in d enial of this simple fact?
I'm not denying that availability will vary. What you have failed to establ ish is that it will vary enough to matter. When we have mostly gone over to electric cars, there will be a lot more short term battery capacity being charge in parked cars than the utilities are likely to need - four time the generating capacity of the grid is my estimate, and you haven't produced a ny evidence (as opposed to a sceptical gut-feel) that would encourage me to reduce that estimate.
lations.
rely devoted to telling us what you think, and completely devoid of links t o external information, which is entirely typical of the worst posts that f oul up s.e.d. from time to time.
Not to you. You seem to reflect Disraeli's observation about using statisti cs more for support than illumination.
You haven't produce any facts - you have merely been sceptical about the fa cts I've managed to dig up.
s the excessive cost.
You've claimed that the cost would be "excessive" but your reasoning was es sentially hand-waving. Battery packs don't scale up like big power generato rs and the big power sources that drive them - they are much more like sola r farms, with an endless repetition of small units.
at a lower cost without the complexity and risk of trying to coax car owne rs to participate continually.
God only knows why you think that a grid managed central battery farm would do the job any differently, let alone more cheaply, than a a remote array of car batteries. It's essentially the same batteries doing the same job, a nd the grid has already paid for the wires that would link that car batteri es into the grid, because the same wires carry current to the customers fro m the grid.
The owners won't be coaxed into participating continually. They'll probably get signed up when they buy their car, and will lose money whenever they t ake it off the grid briefly for whatever reason.
Your claim that grid managed central batteries would be cheaper might be tr ue, but hiring a car battery is going to tie up less capital than buying on e to add to some central battery farm.
In reality, the last thing the grid would want would be a central battery f arm.
At present big coal-fired generators force the utilities to invest in enoug h poles and wires to carry that current out to their highly distributed cus tomer base.
Distributing battery storage (and solar and wind farms) would mean that the current would be generated much closer to the places where it was consumed , saving a lot of poles and wires (paying for which constitutes about half of my electricity bill).
"Who Received Stimulus Checks? How Much Was Spent?"
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
That's zero federal taxes. That includes SSI and Medicare, but not state income tax and sales tax. My guess(tm) is a fairly large precentage of the 76.4 million non-paying tax payers are illegal aliens, homeless, and welfare recipients. I'm not so sure about the very wealthy, which usually have private bills and loopholes to help avoid paying taxes.
We do have spending limits, for what little good those seem to be doing. Never mind cutting spending or raising taxes. How about limiting government debt and cut off congress critters salaries to zero until they understand the problem (negative feedback at its best)?
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
On Friday, November 2, 2018 at 10:08:49 PM UTC-7, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com w rote:
y is the excessive cost. Grid managed central batteries will do the job be tter, more dependably and at a lower cost without the complexity and risk o f trying to coax car owners to participate continually.
That's not 'the real issue' at all. It is economic benefit that determine s what is 'excessive' cost, and 'grid managed' batteries can be as widely distributed as car char ge stations nowadays. Mumbling about 'at a lower cost' is meaningless untill the spreadsheet is f ully populated with the applicable terms.
A national road system, rather than only long distance rail system, is 'exc essive' too; but, it is a success.
Actually, it's perfectly sound Keynesian economics, which was much too comp licated for Economics 101 at Tulane, so John Larkin never got to hear about it.
James Arthur got taught about it - as an abominable heresy - in his Economi cs 101 course, which preached some version of monetarism
formatting link
Monetarism is a beautiful and self-consistent theory, but it doesn't predic t anything useful in the real world, as Thatcher demonstrated in the U.K. w hile I was living there. Will Hutton published Keynesian critiques of the m onetarist Treasury actions and predictions every few months, and I-told-you
-so pieces a few moths later.
James Arthur's connection with the real world is tenuous - he became a paid Tea Party activist in recent years, which firmly incorporates him in the lunatic fringe - but John Larkin seems to take his silly ideas seriously (a long with a lot of others, like climate change denial).
e distribution, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as grid ba ckup the tail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it need s to be understood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistical is sue, but a determinant issue.
tribution is predicable enough to be exploited.
d neither do I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme value often enough that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.
ctrons. This is human nature, a quantity I and everyone else (for the most part) are directly involved in every day with us seeing, experiencing and being part of the extremes all the time. Yeah, I have a feel for it.
enough data and wants to jump to a conclusion.
ly. Only the ignoramus would say that human behavior is much predictable i n terms of the extremes. Weather follows trends with quantifiable extremes . Humans are constantly changing, forgetting the past and reacting in unpr edicted ways. Hence the great recession. Only a fool would deny that.
t of it.
mortgage crisis followed rapidly, and became the global financial crisis.
Dubbya noticed that. The problem was being willing to do anything about it, which would ahve upset any number of people.
about it.
argely been let off the leash some years earlier. The obvious fact is that they didn't.
s for use of smoothing power grid peaks.
paid for by their private owners. The utilities would nearly be renting th e use of the battery when the car was parked. Not a lot of speculative inve stment there, or room for the banking business to repackage anything and se ll it on.
Not bizarre at all. The problem is the lack of predictability of supply. The contract can't assure that any cars will be plugged in at any given tim e. Relying on averages means when there is some issue that affects a large percentage of the people providing their car batteries, the "average" avai lability means nothing. But you are in denial about this. You can't addre ss it so you start attacking me.
Ok, I get it. This is beyond you ability to discuss.
rce either - they get sick and drop dead - but large business have enough e mployees that they can rely on having enough around at any given time to be able to keep on running.
Until there is some event that affects many at once, such as a snowstorm th at keeps many of them at home, or a sick-out where they are not happy with the employer and many just plain decide to call in sick or something as sim ple as a really nice day and many decide to go to the beach. I hear that i s a very common event in Australia. Then the factory or office shuts down and the company loses a bunch of money.
I think we all know that companies MUCH prefer machines to people for EXACT LY these reasons. In the same vein utilities will prefer to use batteries they control rather than batteries they can't predict availability of.
BTW, your comparison is much better than the ones I've been coming up with. Thanks!
human behavior.
inting out that the control theory is difficult because the human minds mak ing the choices that have to be controlled are not always operating on rati onal principle.
nal principle" and so can't be statistically analyzed easily. You said it above. It's still in the thread. I didn't pull it out of context.
?
ional actors had perfect information (which is another lunatic assumption b uilt into classic economic models).
plex but mostly the issue is that the behavior of people are chaotic respon ding in unpredictable ways to something as small as a tweet.
out.
same stimulus to do the same things.
- or the Melbourne Cup in Australia?
ough to be managed.
Why do you say that? Even if it can be managed, it greatly diminishes the utility of the resource. If you can use say 100 units 99% of the time and can only use 50 units that 1% of the time, with this being reserve capacity for peak time, there is very little benefit to anything above the 100 unit s.
Then there some lower number of units available 0.1% of the time meaning yo u still have to plan for the lower number. As you say, there is a tail to this curve. But this tail is *not* predictable because human nature is res ponsive to things like the evening news. If a car bursts into flames while being used to supply power to the grid they may lose 99% of this reserve t he next day and the grid collapses at peak usage time.
THAT is the nature of relying on people instead of machines.
s does seem to be a realistic attitude. Your is more that I should take ser iously every last one of your unsubstantiated fantasies, and you cal me irr ational when I don't.
Really? The power grid is rather delicate. In 1965 a relay failed and 30 million people lost power. In 2003 trees snagging a power line brought dow n the NE US power grid. Clearly if they couldn't strengthen the grid over a 40 year period, this is a real problem to be concerned about. The first time a major blackout was caused by the lack of people being willing to plu g in their cars for grid storage would be the end of the program.
and any manner of special event will skew the availability. Why are you in denial of this simple fact?
blish is that it will vary enough to matter. When we have mostly gone over to electric cars, there will be a lot more short term battery capacity bein g charge in parked cars than the utilities are likely to need - four time t he generating capacity of the grid is my estimate, and you haven't produced any evidence (as opposed to a sceptical gut-feel) that would encourage me to reduce that estimate.
Your estimated number is made up, so no better than my "gut-feel". It also makes assumptions of discharge rate to be able to compare it to the grid. This is units of watts and you keep arguing we won't need fast charge/disc harge units. So your estimate goes against your own claims.
tulations.
tirely devoted to telling us what you think, and completely devoid of links to external information, which is entirely typical of the worst posts that foul up s.e.d. from time to time.
tics more for support than illumination.
facts I've managed to dig up.
What facts are you interested in? You have no basis for any of your claims other than the special 95% number which is actually irrelevant.
is the excessive cost.
essentially hand-waving. Battery packs don't scale up like big power genera tors and the big power sources that drive them - they are much more like so lar farms, with an endless repetition of small units.
No hand waving. Simply accounting and economics. There is no portion of t he cost of using dedicated grid batteries that isn't present in the use of consumer owned car batteries. Then using consumer owned batteries requires a *LOT* of discharge capability to be installed in even more places than t here are cars since each car will need to be connected to the grid in many places to be usefully deployed. Grid dedicated batteries require *much* fe wer large installations costing *much* less to install with no wasted capac ity and more efficient. Finally there is the issue of having to pay profit above all the actual costs of consuming auto batteries.
So the math is simple, grid dedicated batteries will cost X and renting BEV batteries will cost X + Y.
nd at a lower cost without the complexity and risk of trying to coax car ow ners to participate continually.
ld do the job any differently, let alone more cheaply, than a a remote arra y of car batteries. It's essentially the same batteries doing the same job, and the grid has already paid for the wires that would link that car batte ries into the grid, because the same wires carry current to the customers f rom the grid.
As I've stated many times, the batteries won't be any more expensive and ma y be less expensive in grid dedicated installations. But the other equipme nt will clearly be more expensive in a distributed system. That's why they build very large power plants, they can be much less expensive than a lot more small power plants and the worst case is many, many tiny power plants which is what you are talking about.
One thing you continually ignore is the profit that will need to be paid to the owner. Individuals put up excess capacity solar panels because they c an generate power from sunlight and the utility will pay them a profit. Wi thout profit there is zero reason to participate. You keep talking about p eople "using" their batteries to make money, but they aren't making money i f they aren't paid a profit. Otherwise they are only being paid compensati on for the consumption of their batteries.
ly get signed up when they buy their car, and will lose money whenever they take it off the grid briefly for whatever reason.
How can they lose money? Are you saying they would be penalized? That wil l greatly reduce participation.
true, but hiring a car battery is going to tie up less capital than buying one to add to some central battery farm.
I've already explained to you that the power company doesn't need to tie up capital if they don't build the grid dedicated batteries themselves. But I expect they would because they are capital intensive companies and in the US their profits are determined by their investments, not their revenue. More capital, more profit.
Actually, this wouldn't be the local companies though. This would be a for m of generation. In essence a company would build batteries, buy electric cheap and sell dear. I expect they would build batteries to establish a ba se level of peak generation. Then they might have a program to utilize ren ted BEVs to provide peak generation for excess capacity. This would only b e used in the more extreme cases since investing capital that is not used o n a regular basis would not be cost effective. So I suppose the BEV batter ies would be useful for a small fraction of the peak capacity.
However for the routine, daily peak capacity I can't see anyone wanting to depend on an unreliable, more expensive resource.
farm.
ugh poles and wires to carry that current out to their highly distributed c ustomer base.
he current would be generated much closer to the places where it was consum ed, saving a lot of poles and wires (paying for which constitutes about hal f of my electricity bill).
That is an assumption. If the peak usage has to be provided to factories a nd businesses when the cars have already traveled home or to homes when the cars are still at work doesn't save anything. Besides, there is already e nough transmission capacity for peak usage and then some... at least in the US. I keep hearing about major power transmission and distribution probl ems in the UK.
e utility of the resource. If you can use say 100 units 99% of the time an d can only use 50 units that 1% of the time, with this being reserve capaci ty for peak time, there is very little benefit to anything above the 100 un its.
Oops, that should have been, "there is very little benefit to anything abov e the 50 units."
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 1:32:36 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com w rote:
e:
nn
the distribution, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as grid backup the tail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it ne eds to be understood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistical issue, but a determinant issue.
istribution is predicable enough to be exploited.
and neither do I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme val ue often enough that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.
lectrons. This is human nature, a quantity I and everyone else (for the mo st part) are directly involved in every day with us seeing, experiencing an d being part of the extremes all the time. Yeah, I have a feel for it.
ot enough data and wants to jump to a conclusion.
ntly. Only the ignoramus would say that human behavior is much predictable in terms of the extremes. Weather follows trends with quantifiable extrem es. Humans are constantly changing, forgetting the past and reacting in un predicted ways. Hence the great recession. Only a fool would deny that.
out of it.
me mortgage crisis followed rapidly, and became the global financial crisis .
n Dubbya noticed that. The problem was being willing to do anything about i t, which would have upset any number of people.
ng about it.
largely been let off the leash some years earlier. The obvious fact is tha t they didn't.
EVs for use of smoothing power grid peaks.
nd paid for by their private owners. The utilities would nearly be renting the use of the battery when the car was parked. Not a lot of speculative in vestment there, or room for the banking business to repackage anything and sell it on.
The contract can't assure that any cars will be plugged in at any given t ime.
But statistical evidence suggests - rather strongly that there would be ple nty, and a whole lot more than the utility companies would need.
ercentage of the people providing their car batteries, the "average" availa bility means nothing.
Actually, it means quite a lot, even if you can't get your head around it.
"Denial" is an irrational response.
acking me.
Look in the mirror.
You seem to have the more obvious problem here.
ource either - they get sick and drop dead - but large business have enough employees that they can rely on having enough around at any given time to be able to keep on running.
that keeps many of them at home, or a sick-out where they are not happy wit h the employer and many just plain decide to call in sick or something as s imple as a really nice day and many decide to go to the beach. I hear that is a very common event in Australia. Then the factory or office shuts dow n and the company loses a bunch of money.
Not in my experience. It strikes me as unlikely enough to make the newspape rs if it happened, and it doesn't.
In fact it sounds like a particular kind of paternalist anti-trade union pr opaganda which paints the work force as an irresponsible crowd of half-wits who can be encouraged to behave like idiots by some Machiavellian trade un ion organiser. My own - very limited - experience as the lowest possible le vel trade union organiser suggested that that is total nonsense.
CTLY these reasons. In the same vein utilities will prefer to use batterie s they control rather than batteries they can't predict availability of.
Companies don't prefer machines to people. They prefer the cheapest way of getting product out the door - which is why American manfacturers don't ins tall production machinery but rather off-shore production to place where h uman labour is cheaper.
h. Thanks!
of human behavior.
pointing out that the control theory is difficult because the human minds m aking the choices that have to be controlled are not always operating on ra tional principle.
ional principle" and so can't be statistically analyzed easily. You said i t above. It's still in the thread. I didn't pull it out of context.
er?
ational actors had perfect information (which is another lunatic assumption built into classic economic models).
omplex but mostly the issue is that the behavior of people are chaotic resp onding in unpredictable ways to something as small as a tweet.
e out.
he same stimulus to do the same things.
US - or the Melbourne Cup in Australia?
enough to be managed.
e utility of the resource. If you can use say 100 units 99% of the time an d can only use 50 units that 1% of the time, with this being reserve capaci ty for peak time, there is very little benefit to anything above the 100 un its.
The point about electric cars in a society that was mainly reliant on elect ric cars was that there would be a lot more of them around than the utiliti es would need. If parked cars could - on average - supply four time as much power as the grid could generate with 95% of them parked, with 50% of them parked you'd still have twice the short term power generating capacity of the grid to play with, which is still a lot more than it would need.
you still have to plan for the lower number.
You invent these implausible numbers then draw conclusions from your bizarr e fantasies
table because human nature is responsive to things like the evening news.
My contention is that any "tail" that would take enough cars off the grid t o create a problem is spectacularly improbable - of the order of a meteorit e taking out a generating station. You can imagine all kinds of improbable events, but you can't point to any real life examples that have actually ha ppened.
they may lose 99% of this reserve the next day and the grid collapses at p eak usage time.
Only if some idiot reporter implied that it had burst into flames because i t was supplying power to the grid.
The Tesla Powerwall in South Australia hasn't had an batteries burst into f lames yet, and electric cars are less likely to burn out than cars with gas oline tanks - I can't recall any reports of such a fire.
The fact that you can imagine a disaster isn't convincing evidence that one will happen, and the fact that you can imagine a popular reaction to that disaster is piling Pelion on Ossa.
But we do rely on people - en masse - to behave in predictable ways.
Mass transit services predict how many people will get on their trains and buses, and get it pretty right (which doesn't guarantee that they have the capital to buy enough trains and buses to cope).
I don't deny that it could happen, merely that it is likely to happen often enough to be worth doing anything about. Earthquakes and tidal waves happe n too, but your kind of disaster seems to be in the "a meteorite disabled m y power station category".
his does seem to be a realistic attitude. Your is more that I should take s eriously every last one of your unsubstantiated fantasies, and you call me irrational when I don't.
0 million people lost power. In 2003 trees snagging a power line brought d own the NE US power grid. Clearly if they couldn't strengthen the grid ove r a 40 year period, this is a real problem to be concerned about.
The Dutch ocean flood defenses are now designed to cope with once in ten th ousand year events. Shortly after we moved to Nijmegen in the Netherlands, the Rhine got higher than it had for the past fifty years, and a couple of river dykes looked as if they might collapse, so there was a "river Delta p lan" to push the defenses up to a once 1250 year level.
formatting link
If part of the US grid failed in 1965, and didn't fail again until 2003 - a nd interval of 38 years - it seems they strengthened the grid about as much as you'd expect. This isn't an argument that suggests the grid is peculiar ly vulnerable - it's just fallible like al the works of man.
illing to plug in their cars for grid storage would be the end of the progr am.
y and any manner of special event will skew the availability. Why are you in denial of this simple fact?
tablish is that it will vary enough to matter. When we have mostly gone ove r to electric cars, there will be a lot more short term battery capacity be ing charge in parked cars than the utilities are likely to need - four time the generating capacity of the grid is my estimate, and you haven't produc ed any evidence (as opposed to a sceptical gut-feel) that would encourage m e to reduce that estimate.
It was made up from a number of well-known facts, none of which you bothere d to argue about. I did show my working, and you didn't argue with any of i t.
he grid. This is units of watts and you keep arguing we won't need fast ch arge/discharge units. So your estimate goes against your own claims.
Rubbish. You aren't trying to take the whole of the grid from one car.
The 5% of the electric cars on the road at any one time would be delivering about 30% of the current grid capacity to the wheels of the cars. The 95% of parked cars could then deliver 5.7 times the current grid capacity, or a bout 4.4 times the grid capacity augmented to charge those electric cars wh en they were parked.
The available discharge rate is obviously sufficient, Whether domestic wiri ng and the regular electric infrastructure could handle that much current i s an open question, but they could clearly cope with as much current as the y normally distribute if it were flowing in the opposite direction, which i s the absurd maximum it would need to carry.
You've produced an utterly fatuous claim. I really don't have to pay any mo re attention to your mindless wittering.
On Saturday, November 3, 2018 at 11:34:08 PM UTC-4, snipped-for-privacy@ieee.org wrote :
ote:
mann
n
f the distribution, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as gri d backup the tail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, it needs to be understood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statistica l issue, but a determinant issue.
distribution is predicable enough to be exploited.
- and neither do I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme v alue often enough that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.
electrons. This is human nature, a quantity I and everyone else (for the most part) are directly involved in every day with us seeing, experiencing and being part of the extremes all the time. Yeah, I have a feel for it.
got enough data and wants to jump to a conclusion.
uently. Only the ignoramus would say that human behavior is much predictab le in terms of the extremes. Weather follows trends with quantifiable extr emes. Humans are constantly changing, forgetting the past and reacting in unpredicted ways. Hence the great recession. Only a fool would deny that.
y out of it.
rime mortgage crisis followed rapidly, and became the global financial cris is.
ven Dubbya noticed that. The problem was being willing to do anything about it, which would have upset any number of people.
hing about it.
ad largely been let off the leash some years earlier. The obvious fact is t hat they didn't.
BEVs for use of smoothing power grid peaks.
and paid for by their private owners. The utilities would nearly be rentin g the use of the battery when the car was parked. Not a lot of speculative investment there, or room for the banking business to repackage anything an d sell it on.
y. The contract can't assure that any cars will be plugged in at any given time.
lenty, and a whole lot more than the utility companies would need.
That is exactly what statistics *doesn't* suggest. It only describes proba bilities of some level of availability. It never assures anything.
percentage of the people providing their car batteries, the "average" avai lability means nothing.
.
No denial, just an understanding of the issues which you surprisingly seem to be lacking. I don't think you actually don't understand statistics and averages. I believe you are in denial because you have taken a stand and a re now refusing to back down in the face of the evidence. So you misrepres ent the utility and in fact, the very meaning of averages and statistics.
ttacking me.
Just the facts...
I retract that statement. You clearly understand the issues, you are choos ing to represent things realistically.
esource either - they get sick and drop dead - but large business have enou gh employees that they can rely on having enough around at any given time t o be able to keep on running.
m that keeps many of them at home, or a sick-out where they are not happy w ith the employer and many just plain decide to call in sick or something as simple as a really nice day and many decide to go to the beach. I hear th at is a very common event in Australia. Then the factory or office shuts d own and the company loses a bunch of money.
pers if it happened, and it doesn't.
??? We have these things all the time. The problem is that these things o nly impact the ability of an office to do their duties on a given day. But tie the utilization of autos to the stability of the power grid with the p ower grid being the second priority and it will be a big problem.
propaganda which paints the work force as an irresponsible crowd of half-wi ts who can be encouraged to behave like idiots by some Machiavellian trade union organiser. My own - very limited - experience as the lowest possible level trade union organiser suggested that that is total nonsense.
Lol! I've been an employee in companies associated with European companies who were amazed that we were at work on a day when we had four or six inch es of snow and pretty much everyone came to work. They are used to employe es using that as an excuse to take a holiday and deserting the company.
Your protestations seem to be getting a bit bizarre and totally irrelevant.
XACTLY these reasons. In the same vein utilities will prefer to use batter ies they control rather than batteries they can't predict availability of.
f getting product out the door - which is why American manfacturers don't i nstall production machinery but rather off-shore production to place where human labour is cheaper.
You aren't really making a useful point. Even the offshore movement is to automated factories in many cases and previous to that movement automation replaced many workers in many industries. While the labor rates may be low er they still use automation as much as possible. Part of being cheaper is that machines are much more dependable yielding consistent results.
Your analogy of workers is excellent. As you say, workers are not dependab le so they go with much more dependable machines. But then you actually kn ow this. You are just trying to win an argument regardless of the facts.
ith. Thanks!
e of human behavior.
r pointing out that the control theory is difficult because the human minds making the choices that have to be controlled are not always operating on rational principle.
ational principle" and so can't be statistically analyzed easily. You said it above. It's still in the thread. I didn't pull it out of context.
sier?
rational actors had perfect information (which is another lunatic assumpti on built into classic economic models).
complex but mostly the issue is that the behavior of people are chaotic re sponding in unpredictable ways to something as small as a tweet.
age out.
the same stimulus to do the same things.
e US - or the Melbourne Cup in Australia?
e enough to be managed.
the utility of the resource. If you can use say 100 units 99% of the time and can only use 50 units that 1% of the time, with this being reserve capa city for peak time, there is very little benefit to anything above the 100 units.
ctric cars was that there would be a lot more of them around than the utili ties would need. If parked cars could - on average - supply four time as mu ch power as the grid could generate with 95% of them parked, with 50% of th em parked you'd still have twice the short term power generating capacity o f the grid to play with, which is still a lot more than it would need.
Again with the *averages*. No one cares if the river is 4 foot deep on the average if you can't swim and find an 8 foot deep part.
You also seem to be assuming that all the autos participate on the program. A voluntary program just won't be workable unless there is adequate profi t for the auto owners which makes it more expensive than just having dedica ted batteries.
g you still have to plan for the lower number.
rre fantasies
No implausible numbers. You are misinterpreting what I am saying. At some infrequent rate there will be a lower percentage of batteries available. You have previously acknowledged this already. The issue is in the details of how often will it be ok to have too little capacity to support the grid . Simple logic and math. So what frequency of brownouts or failures will be acceptable? I will say that when it happens in any significant way the politics will result in an end to the program if it ever existed since it r eally isn't economically viable.
ictable because human nature is responsive to things like the evening news.
to create a problem is spectacularly improbable - of the order of a meteor ite taking out a generating station. You can imagine all kinds of improbabl e events, but you can't point to any real life examples that have actually happened.
Yes, it would be infrequent. But I don't agree with your numbers... oh, yo u didn't offer any numbers. I don't agree with your "spectacularly infrequ ent" judgement because humans will respond to events and those events are n ot so "spectacularly infrequent", especially when they relate directly to p ublic perception of the system.
id they may lose 99% of this reserve the next day and the grid collapses at peak usage time.
it was supplying power to the grid.
Or if it *did* burst into flames because it was supplying power to the grid . It's not like this can't happen or even *won't* happen. It is almost as sured to happen sooner or later.
There is a reason why it costs more to insure a home with an attached garag e than a detached garage.
flames yet, and electric cars are less likely to burn out than cars with g asoline tanks - I can't recall any reports of such a fire.
*YET*... BEVs HAVE burst into flames from simple operation. It may be the result of damage to the battery at some other time, but the point is it ha ppens just as gas cars burst into flames. But no one is tying gas cars to powering the grid. If they were and there was any indication at all that t his connection might have caused the fire it is virtually certain the numbe r of cars tied to the grid would greatly reduce overnight.
ne will happen, and the fact that you can imagine a popular reaction to tha t disaster is piling Pelion on Ossa.
Lol! Good thing you never worked in the nuclear industry.
Yes, *most* of the time. Then there are times we can't predict their behav ior... Elections are a prime example. That's the point. It only takes a very occasional failure to predict the participation level for a program li ke this to have catastrophic consequences.
d buses, and get it pretty right (which doesn't guarantee that they have th e capital to buy enough trains and buses to cope).
And they are often wrong. I can't tell you how many times they have mucked up estimating demand on the Washington DC metro. I think my friend was on the train for over two hours for an inauguration when it is normally a 30 minute ride. Packed in like sardines too. No joy.
Cherry blossoms blooming in DC present a difficult to predict ridership cha nge. It all depends on the vagaries of weather and timing of the blossoms opening. Some years there is little change to the daily ridership and othe r years the system is swamped! Over cherry blossoms!!!
en enough to be worth doing anything about. Earthquakes and tidal waves hap pen too, but your kind of disaster seems to be in the "a meteorite disabled my power station category".
All of which is virtually impossible to prevent. That's the whole point wh ich you keep trying to slice and dice to argue each small piece in isolatio n. There is no practical advantage to trying to manage the grid peak usage with car batteries and there is huge potential down sides. While the rate of problems may be small, the cost of using dedicated batteries is not at all large in comparison unlike making power production earthquake and meteo r "proof".
this does seem to be a realistic attitude. Your is more that I should take seriously every last one of your unsubstantiated fantasies, and you call m e irrational when I don't.
30 million people lost power. In 2003 trees snagging a power line brought down the NE US power grid. Clearly if they couldn't strengthen the grid o ver a 40 year period, this is a real problem to be concerned about.
thousand year events. Shortly after we moved to Nijmegen in the Netherlands , the Rhine got higher than it had for the past fifty years, and a couple o f river dykes looked as if they might collapse, so there was a "river Delta plan" to push the defenses up to a once 1250 year level.
and interval of 38 years - it seems they strengthened the grid about as mu ch as you'd expect. This isn't an argument that suggests the grid is peculi arly vulnerable - it's just fallible like al the works of man.
That's not what happened. Those were just two events I picked. I don't kn ow why you are doing an analysis of failure rates based on those two events . But you are right. All works of man are fallible. Using car batteries has little upside other than potentially for the peak of the peak where ded icated batteries would often be idle and so more expensive.
willing to plug in their cars for grid storage would be the end of the pro gram.
day and any manner of special event will skew the availability. Why are yo u in denial of this simple fact?
establish is that it will vary enough to matter. When we have mostly gone o ver to electric cars, there will be a lot more short term battery capacity being charge in parked cars than the utilities are likely to need - four ti me the generating capacity of the grid is my estimate, and you haven't prod uced any evidence (as opposed to a sceptical gut-feel) that would encourage me to reduce that estimate.
red to argue about. I did show my working, and you didn't argue with any of it.
I don't recall seeing that. But from what you have been writing I am prett y sure you've used inaccurate assumptions.
the grid. This is units of watts and you keep arguing we won't need fast charge/discharge units. So your estimate goes against your own claims.
That makes no sense.
ng about 30% of the current grid capacity to the wheels of the cars. The 95 % of parked cars could then deliver 5.7 times the current grid capacity, or about 4.4 times the grid capacity augmented to charge those electric cars when they were parked.
Again, with the 95/5% numbers. Ok, here is a source saying the number of c ars on the road varies by more than a factor of 8 over the course of a day.
formatting link
Now show me how this is turned into 4x the grid capacity at the times it is needed. The peak usage times of cars is exactly the times of peak power d emand.
ring and the regular electric infrastructure could handle that much current is an open question, but they could clearly cope with as much current as t hey normally distribute if it were flowing in the opposite direction, which is the absurd maximum it would need to carry.
I'm talking about the equipment that would need to be installed to turn the BEV DC power into AC to flow back into the grid.
more attention to your mindless wittering.
Not at all fatuous. You just are ignoring it or can't understand it. Lik e most of this problem you have simplified the difficult parts to the point of ignoring them.
On Sunday, November 4, 2018 at 4:05:34 PM UTC+11, snipped-for-privacy@gmail.com w rote:
te:
1, John Lark> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 31 Oct 2018 21:01:51 -0700, Jeff Lieb
ermann
k> > > > > > > >
of the distribution, but that in order for car batteries to be useful as g rid backup the tail of the distribution not only needs to be *very* tiny, i t needs to be understood... in other words, it needs to *NOT* be a statisti cal issue, but a determinant issue.
al distribution is predicable enough to be exploited.
n - and neither do I - but he wants to argue that it can adopt some extreme value often enough that the utilities won't be able to exploit it.
of electrons. This is human nature, a quantity I and everyone else (for th e most part) are directly involved in every day with us seeing, experiencin g and being part of the extremes all the time. Yeah, I have a feel for it.
't got enough data and wants to jump to a conclusion.
equently. Only the ignoramus would say that human behavior is much predict able in terms of the extremes. Weather follows trends with quantifiable ex tremes. Humans are constantly changing, forgetting the past and reacting i n unpredicted ways. Hence the great recession. Only a fool would deny tha t.
ney out of it.
-prime mortgage crisis followed rapidly, and became the global financial cr isis.
Even Dubbya noticed that. The problem was being willing to do anything abo ut it, which would have upset any number of people.
ything about it.
had largely been let off the leash some years earlier. The obvious fact is that they didn't.
ed BEVs for use of smoothing power grid peaks.
ht and paid for by their private owners. The utilities would nearly be rent ing the use of the battery when the car was parked. Not a lot of speculativ e investment there, or room for the banking business to repackage anything and sell it on.
ply. The contract can't assure that any cars will be plugged in at any giv en time.
plenty, and a whole lot more than the utility companies would need.
babilities of some level of availability. It never assures anything.
Obviously. But real life is about probabilities rather than crystal clear c ertainies, and the events you seem to want to imagine seem to me to be down there with earthquakes, tidal waves and meteor strikes, to which the sensi ble response is that we'll deal with them if and when they happen, but we'l l probably have died before then.
ge percentage of the people providing their car batteries, the "average" av ailability means nothing.
it.
m to be lacking.
Your "understanding" of the issues seems to be entirely based on imagining things that might go wrong, without having any kind of rational way of hang ing probabilities onto them.
It may keep you happy, but it is a total waste of time.
You might think that, but it doesn't happen to be true.
George Snedecor's "Statistical Methods" is a very old book - published in 1
940 - and I actually got it from my father who needed a statistical referen ce for his work - but it is still sitting on my bookshelf.
Electron microscopy is all about counting the rather limited number of seco ndary electrons you get back from the objects you are looking at - even mor e limited when you are doing stroboscopic imaging of working integrated cir cuits.
I found myself acting as the local expert on statistics, which was somethin g of a surprise. My cousin the statistician ended up as a professor of the subject for a bit, but went back to running the CSIRO statistical consultin g service. I went after him for help once, but it would have cost my employ ers some $A15,000 to do the job, so I ended up finding my own solution.
efusing to back down in the face of the evidence.
You've utterly failed to adduce any evidence at all. What you've posted her e are entirely the fruits of your poorly disciplined imagination.
If you think that that constitutes evidence, you need to report to the near est institution for the totally deranged before your silly ideas damage oth er people.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.