T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 28/05/19 10:30, Rick C wrote:
J
Jan Panteltje
Guest
On a sunny day (Tue, 28 May 2019 02:45:22 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<0d9aa1be-8341-43a5-9b52-1b08c6edfb19@googlegroups.com>:
A smart grid, would know how much your charger may draw at any time.
Exactly, so Tesla is already doing that.
Sure, here just recently an other 'environment' tax was added on the 'trickety price,
adds about 25 %!!
Once enough people drive electric, they (politics) will target those..
They did that when I was driving a LPG car.
And the other thing is that any failure in the grid will bring everything to a stand still,
including emergency services,
Flooding, storms, and even a big solar storm or a war situation, would instantly kill the economy.
Especially with 'smart' grids, US sponsored sabotage of the electric system in Venezuela an example of that.
ONE motivated hacker could destroy a whole country.
So you still need alternative fuel systems for emergency systems, military etc etc.
I am not against 'trickety motors, those are efficient.
But batteries: No.
Maybe hydrogen fuel cells with supercaps for acceleration is a solution.
All those batteries will over years wind up in landfills and form a much greater problem than the bit of smoke petrol cars create.
hehe
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<0d9aa1be-8341-43a5-9b52-1b08c6edfb19@googlegroups.com>:
A smart grid, would know how much your charger may draw at any time.
Exactly, so Tesla is already doing that.
Sure, here just recently an other 'environment' tax was added on the 'trickety price,
adds about 25 %!!
Once enough people drive electric, they (politics) will target those..
They did that when I was driving a LPG car.
And the other thing is that any failure in the grid will bring everything to a stand still,
including emergency services,
Flooding, storms, and even a big solar storm or a war situation, would instantly kill the economy.
Especially with 'smart' grids, US sponsored sabotage of the electric system in Venezuela an example of that.
ONE motivated hacker could destroy a whole country.
So you still need alternative fuel systems for emergency systems, military etc etc.
I am not against 'trickety motors, those are efficient.
But batteries: No.
Maybe hydrogen fuel cells with supercaps for acceleration is a solution.
All those batteries will over years wind up in landfills and form a much greater problem than the bit of smoke petrol cars create.
hehe
Guest
amdx <nojunk@knology.net> wrote in news:qchnqq$i1p$1@dont-email.me:
such postings and their construction project registration and such
is all worked out so that each site does not need it individually.
Seems like a waste to be in an information age, and yet still
continue using so many paper based mechanisms.
An "inspector" with a high accuracy GPS logger could easily verify
any as built without any postings. Such a waste our gov boys still
spit out, because they are so reluctant and lazy to draft proper new
procedurals.
And we pay them enough to live in mansions and drive expensive
cars.
We truly live in the Twilight Zone.
That is a FL building code thing. Other states do not require
such postings and their construction project registration and such
is all worked out so that each site does not need it individually.
Seems like a waste to be in an information age, and yet still
continue using so many paper based mechanisms.
An "inspector" with a high accuracy GPS logger could easily verify
any as built without any postings. Such a waste our gov boys still
spit out, because they are so reluctant and lazy to draft proper new
procedurals.
And we pay them enough to live in mansions and drive expensive
cars.
We truly live in the Twilight Zone.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 5:22:27 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
You didn't make it very well.
Again, you really aren't clear with what you say. Why didn't you just say what you meant?
Still, your idea is not of much value because the charging rate is set by the car with the charger only imposing it maximum capability. I suppose that can be modified, but instead of turning the whole system on it's head, which still would not address the issue of the EV owner plugging in his car when they get home (still during the evening peak usage for the most part). A much simpler way to address it is to control *when* the cars charge.
The Tesla network already has communications between the car and the billing and other systems. They presently exercise some level of charging controls although the driver can override them. It would be a simple matter to layer a similar capability on home charging with coordination by the utility to minimize overloading capacity.
The part I am worried about is how this will impact the more local distribution of electricity. While the generation capacity is spare a various times during the day, it is not clear to me that the residential distribution network will have the local capacity to support every home adding 6 kW or more to each home. The transformers are often shared and each home can easily add 6 or 12 kW to their nightly load which is already high during cold, winter months with heat pumps switching on resistive heating.
My concern is that local utilities will use the EV issue as a reason to justify upping their rates or tack on special charges for expansion of the local distribution network... more than is really needed if EV charging is coordinated.
More nonsense. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Looks like a joke, but most of what you write looks like you are trying to make jokes. I usually don't get them, so I'm never sure.
--
Rick C.
-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
You didn't make it very well.
Again, you really aren't clear with what you say. Why didn't you just say what you meant?
Still, your idea is not of much value because the charging rate is set by the car with the charger only imposing it maximum capability. I suppose that can be modified, but instead of turning the whole system on it's head, which still would not address the issue of the EV owner plugging in his car when they get home (still during the evening peak usage for the most part). A much simpler way to address it is to control *when* the cars charge.
The Tesla network already has communications between the car and the billing and other systems. They presently exercise some level of charging controls although the driver can override them. It would be a simple matter to layer a similar capability on home charging with coordination by the utility to minimize overloading capacity.
The part I am worried about is how this will impact the more local distribution of electricity. While the generation capacity is spare a various times during the day, it is not clear to me that the residential distribution network will have the local capacity to support every home adding 6 kW or more to each home. The transformers are often shared and each home can easily add 6 or 12 kW to their nightly load which is already high during cold, winter months with heat pumps switching on resistive heating.
My concern is that local utilities will use the EV issue as a reason to justify upping their rates or tack on special charges for expansion of the local distribution network... more than is really needed if EV charging is coordinated.
More nonsense. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Looks like a joke, but most of what you write looks like you are trying to make jokes. I usually don't get them, so I'm never sure.
--
Rick C.
-+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 28/05/19 10:30, Rick C wrote:
That you believe the smart grid concept is my idea is revealing.
I'm afraid it is only easy to implement if you are an armchair
quarterbacker. Ensuring it works is relatively easy; the
difficulties come when ensuring graceful degradation when
technical, corporate, political and human behaviour is
taken into account.
The saga of the comparatively simple smart meters is sufficient
proof of that
Meanwhile, your last paragraph indicates you speedread what
I wrote with insufficient comprehension.
That you believe the smart grid concept is my idea is revealing.
I'm afraid it is only easy to implement if you are an armchair
quarterbacker. Ensuring it works is relatively easy; the
difficulties come when ensuring graceful degradation when
technical, corporate, political and human behaviour is
taken into account.
The saga of the comparatively simple smart meters is sufficient
proof of that
Meanwhile, your last paragraph indicates you speedread what
I wrote with insufficient comprehension.
A
amdx
Guest
On 5/28/2019 4:48 AM, DecadentLinuxUserNumeroUno@decadence.org wrote:
the city had an office and building inspectors, now they have hired a
private company to take care of it.
Mikek
The city is over building permits, however, up until a few years ago
the city had an office and building inspectors, now they have hired a
private company to take care of it.
Mikek
Guest
On Friday, May 24, 2019 at 12:06:58 AM UTC-4, Steve Wilson wrote:
Alone, no, but the FCC does and it did.
It
> might require rulings by Congress to implement.
It's the other way around. Now some in Congress are asking the FCC
to explain why what they, which is to dismiss the objections and move
forward with the leasing is right and justified.
Alone, no, but the FCC does and it did.
It
> might require rulings by Congress to implement.
It's the other way around. Now some in Congress are asking the FCC
to explain why what they, which is to dismiss the objections and move
forward with the leasing is right and justified.
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 28/05/19 17:01, Rick C wrote:
And yet what you outline below matches /some/ visions of
the "smart grid".
It appears you aren't as au fait with some of the current
grid behaviour and future grid proposals as you would
like to believe you are. I, OTOH, have long made passing
observations of the topic.
I was introduced to grid technology when I was ~4, when
my father showed me the fireboxes of a small power station.
I've been reading industry rags on such topics since I
was ~11, as a result of my father working at the Central
Electricity Research Labs.
You've fallen into the trap I mentioned: you've outlined
how something might /work/. Now do a /failure mode/ analysis.
I appreciate failure mode analysis is boring and unpopular,
to the extent that softies barely comprehend the concept.
Nonetheless it is a discipline that distinguishes engineers
from amateur hackers.
And yet what you outline below matches /some/ visions of
the "smart grid".
It appears you aren't as au fait with some of the current
grid behaviour and future grid proposals as you would
like to believe you are. I, OTOH, have long made passing
observations of the topic.
I was introduced to grid technology when I was ~4, when
my father showed me the fireboxes of a small power station.
I've been reading industry rags on such topics since I
was ~11, as a result of my father working at the Central
Electricity Research Labs.
The saga of the comparatively simple smart meters is sufficient proof of
that
Meanwhile, your last paragraph indicates you speedread what I wrote with
insufficient comprehension.
The problem of coordinating charging schedules is pretty simple. It likely
doesn't even require a wide area connection. Nearly everyone has Internet.
The charging interfaces or the cars themselves (such as Teslas) can
communicate with a local "dispatcher" with a charging request. That request
can be put into a queue and scheduled. The scheduling can take into account
the limitations of the local distribution grid as well as the present and
anticipated near future electrical supply. Essentially it can schedule each
car's charging to get the charge needed with the minimum impact on generation
and the grid. Wide ranging coordination is not likely to be needed since
leveling the demand of the many small areas will do a lot to level the demand
of the larger areas.
Do you really see this as an intractable problem?
You've fallen into the trap I mentioned: you've outlined
how something might /work/. Now do a /failure mode/ analysis.
I appreciate failure mode analysis is boring and unpopular,
to the extent that softies barely comprehend the concept.
Nonetheless it is a discipline that distinguishes engineers
from amateur hackers.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 6:08:33 AM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
A smart grid doesn't exist and so can be anything you want it to be, so no point in discussing it.
They are providing some control over their Superchargers. But they are not the primary means of charging Teslas and are not really a factor in the power grid issues.
Some states already do by charging an electric vehicle fee because EVs don't use gas or diesel which is taxed to help build roads... not that the money is actually earmarked for any use in particular.
You have a very active imagination. You also often very poor at knowing what to do with information. If the power grid goes down for a long time, charging your car won't be your only problem or even your biggest problem.
I especially like your use of the term, "any failure in the grid". That is pretty all inclusive.
One power failure that impacted New York resulted in a surge in the birth rate nine months later. That sounds like a real disaster.
If we have a major solar storm my understanding is we will be royally f**ded for months. Again, I'm not so worried about the damn car if I can't get food.
My car will have enough charge to get me out of any relatively localized disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake. After that I don't care so much.
Sure, I expect we will have plentiful supplies of hydrogen just sitting around waiting for disasters.
When you try to knock something, you can really reach for the absurd.
Yes, we should base our entire economy on worrying about a highly unlikely event.
> All those batteries will over years wind up in landfills and form a much greater problem than the bit of smoke petrol cars create.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you keep speculating without actually knowing anything about the matter?
--
Rick C.
+- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
A smart grid doesn't exist and so can be anything you want it to be, so no point in discussing it.
They are providing some control over their Superchargers. But they are not the primary means of charging Teslas and are not really a factor in the power grid issues.
Some states already do by charging an electric vehicle fee because EVs don't use gas or diesel which is taxed to help build roads... not that the money is actually earmarked for any use in particular.
You have a very active imagination. You also often very poor at knowing what to do with information. If the power grid goes down for a long time, charging your car won't be your only problem or even your biggest problem.
I especially like your use of the term, "any failure in the grid". That is pretty all inclusive.
One power failure that impacted New York resulted in a surge in the birth rate nine months later. That sounds like a real disaster.
If we have a major solar storm my understanding is we will be royally f**ded for months. Again, I'm not so worried about the damn car if I can't get food.
My car will have enough charge to get me out of any relatively localized disaster such as a hurricane or earthquake. After that I don't care so much.
Sure, I expect we will have plentiful supplies of hydrogen just sitting around waiting for disasters.
When you try to knock something, you can really reach for the absurd.
Yes, we should base our entire economy on worrying about a highly unlikely event.
> All those batteries will over years wind up in landfills and form a much greater problem than the bit of smoke petrol cars create.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about. Why do you keep speculating without actually knowing anything about the matter?
--
Rick C.
+- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 6:23:02 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
I didn't say anything about the "smart grid". As I said, you brought that into the conversation and it seems to reek pretty heavily, so I'm not touching it. Sounds like you brought it into the conversation so you could have a reeking strawman to attack. Attack away, it is only you who is getting covered in stink.
The problem of coordinating charging schedules is pretty simple. It likely doesn't even require a wide area connection. Nearly everyone has Internet.. The charging interfaces or the cars themselves (such as Teslas) can communicate with a local "dispatcher" with a charging request. That request can be put into a queue and scheduled. The scheduling can take into account the limitations of the local distribution grid as well as the present and anticipated near future electrical supply. Essentially it can schedule each car's charging to get the charge needed with the minimum impact on generation and the grid. Wide ranging coordination is not likely to be needed since leveling the demand of the many small areas will do a lot to level the demand of the larger areas.
Do you really see this as an intractable problem?
--
Rick C.
++ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
I didn't say anything about the "smart grid". As I said, you brought that into the conversation and it seems to reek pretty heavily, so I'm not touching it. Sounds like you brought it into the conversation so you could have a reeking strawman to attack. Attack away, it is only you who is getting covered in stink.
The saga of the comparatively simple smart meters is sufficient
proof of that
Meanwhile, your last paragraph indicates you speedread what
I wrote with insufficient comprehension.
The problem of coordinating charging schedules is pretty simple. It likely doesn't even require a wide area connection. Nearly everyone has Internet.. The charging interfaces or the cars themselves (such as Teslas) can communicate with a local "dispatcher" with a charging request. That request can be put into a queue and scheduled. The scheduling can take into account the limitations of the local distribution grid as well as the present and anticipated near future electrical supply. Essentially it can schedule each car's charging to get the charge needed with the minimum impact on generation and the grid. Wide ranging coordination is not likely to be needed since leveling the demand of the many small areas will do a lot to level the demand of the larger areas.
Do you really see this as an intractable problem?
--
Rick C.
++ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 28/05/19 17:04, Rick C wrote:
So why have you outlined your concept, one that is
remarkably similar to /a/ concept of a smart grid?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
So why have you outlined your concept, one that is
remarkably similar to /a/ concept of a smart grid?
Pot. Kettle. Black.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
Nashville Cats -
Nashville cats, play clean as country water
Nashville cats, play wild as mountain dew
Nashville cats, been playin' since they's babies
Nashville cats, get work before they're two
I'm not building the system. I don't need to do a failure analysis. I outlined it very basically to show how simple it is. I don't for a minute believe there are any unsolvable problems with it. Do you?
What do you see as the solution/problem?
I really don't get your point. You seem to be complaining that the "smart grid" is hard to do, but you are just talking in vague generalities.
When I was charging at home, my car was already on the Internet. No problems so far.
--
Rick C.
++ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Nashville Cats -
Nashville cats, play clean as country water
Nashville cats, play wild as mountain dew
Nashville cats, been playin' since they's babies
Nashville cats, get work before they're two
The saga of the comparatively simple smart meters is sufficient proof of
that
Meanwhile, your last paragraph indicates you speedread what I wrote with
insufficient comprehension.
The problem of coordinating charging schedules is pretty simple. It likely
doesn't even require a wide area connection. Nearly everyone has Internet.
The charging interfaces or the cars themselves (such as Teslas) can
communicate with a local "dispatcher" with a charging request. That request
can be put into a queue and scheduled. The scheduling can take into account
the limitations of the local distribution grid as well as the present and
anticipated near future electrical supply. Essentially it can schedule each
car's charging to get the charge needed with the minimum impact on generation
and the grid. Wide ranging coordination is not likely to be needed since
leveling the demand of the many small areas will do a lot to level the demand
of the larger areas.
Do you really see this as an intractable problem?
You've fallen into the trap I mentioned: you've outlined
how something might /work/. Now do a /failure mode/ analysis.
I appreciate failure mode analysis is boring and unpopular,
to the extent that softies barely comprehend the concept.
Nonetheless it is a discipline that distinguishes engineers
from amateur hackers.
I'm not building the system. I don't need to do a failure analysis. I outlined it very basically to show how simple it is. I don't for a minute believe there are any unsolvable problems with it. Do you?
What do you see as the solution/problem?
I really don't get your point. You seem to be complaining that the "smart grid" is hard to do, but you are just talking in vague generalities.
When I was charging at home, my car was already on the Internet. No problems so far.
--
Rick C.
++ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
J
Jan Panteltje
Guest
On a sunny day (Tue, 28 May 2019 09:04:07 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<26fbb58f-147c-4fe4-a361-bdb2546b3e87@googlegroups.com>:
Clearly more than you
Do not know what your agenda is, other than giving silly links to Tesla that pay for your chewing gum...
I think you are either a bit narrow minded, or it is just a business interest maybe you have shares in that company.
That is not science you do, it is advertizing.
You need a bit broader picture, do basic math.
Not only on this subject.
As to those cars, last week police noticed a Tesla driver here sleeping driving on auto-pilot (for what that is worth)
on a highway.
They chased him, used sirens to wake him up.
So if you hear sirens
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Siren-Greek-mythology
....
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<26fbb58f-147c-4fe4-a361-bdb2546b3e87@googlegroups.com>:
Clearly more than you
Do not know what your agenda is, other than giving silly links to Tesla that pay for your chewing gum...
I think you are either a bit narrow minded, or it is just a business interest maybe you have shares in that company.
That is not science you do, it is advertizing.
You need a bit broader picture, do basic math.
Not only on this subject.
As to those cars, last week police noticed a Tesla driver here sleeping driving on auto-pilot (for what that is worth)
on a highway.
They chased him, used sirens to wake him up.
So if you hear sirens
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Siren-Greek-mythology
....
J
Jan Panteltje
Guest
On a sunny day (Tue, 28 May 2019 10:50:39 -0700 (PDT)) it happened Rick C
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<804cc169-5eea-44f9-b6a6-fb9ca65189be@googlegroups.com>:
Bit arrogant you are
Totally dangerous system, it takes the attention of the driver away from the traffic
and if the police had not stopped him serious accidents could have happened.
possible with an other tes-la-la going up in flames.
he is selling 'auto pilot' and that is just marketing talk,
He took that back a bit every time an accident happened,
it is still a system that gives you false security.
The software is not anywhere near 'safe'.
Neither are the batteries.
Neither is the construction good, bad welding jobs.
Recommending the thing to anybody is a crime.
I am going to leave it at this.
<gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote in
<804cc169-5eea-44f9-b6a6-fb9ca65189be@googlegroups.com>:
Bit arrogant you are
Totally dangerous system, it takes the attention of the driver away from the traffic
and if the police had not stopped him serious accidents could have happened.
possible with an other tes-la-la going up in flames.
he is selling 'auto pilot' and that is just marketing talk,
He took that back a bit every time an accident happened,
it is still a system that gives you false security.
The software is not anywhere near 'safe'.
Neither are the batteries.
Neither is the construction good, bad welding jobs.
Recommending the thing to anybody is a crime.
I am going to leave it at this.
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 1:06:48 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Ok, you can't argue anything about this technically, so you revert to ad hominem attacks?
No agenda other than wanting to correct your nonsense postings about EVs.
> You need a bit broader picture, do basic math.
I've done the math and the generation capacity is more than adequate to power EVs for the foreseeable future. The only part I don't have data for is local residential distribution where I can see a possible problem requiring some build out once EVs become widely popular.
> Not only on this subject.
This is the subject you started discussing. Do you wish to change the topic to something you actually know about?
They don't really need to wake him. It is very easy to pull over a Tesla. Get in front and slow down to a stop. The Tesla autopilot will stop behind you as if you were at a light. Then you can knock on the window to wake him. Neat, huh?
--
Rick C.
--- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Ok, you can't argue anything about this technically, so you revert to ad hominem attacks?
No agenda other than wanting to correct your nonsense postings about EVs.
> You need a bit broader picture, do basic math.
I've done the math and the generation capacity is more than adequate to power EVs for the foreseeable future. The only part I don't have data for is local residential distribution where I can see a possible problem requiring some build out once EVs become widely popular.
> Not only on this subject.
This is the subject you started discussing. Do you wish to change the topic to something you actually know about?
They don't really need to wake him. It is very easy to pull over a Tesla. Get in front and slow down to a stop. The Tesla autopilot will stop behind you as if you were at a light. Then you can knock on the window to wake him. Neat, huh?
--
Rick C.
--- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Guest
On Tue, 28 May 2019 10:06:27 +0100, Tom Gardner
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
There is of course a lot hype around "smart grid", but there are many
steps to be done, before it becomes a reality.
So far, much of the substation system have used hard wired protection
relays and other equipment.
More and more of these devices are slowly being upgraded to IEDs
(Intelligent Electronic Devices), which can be programmed and
controlled from a higher level system in the 100 ms time frame.
Many of these devices can directly communicate with peer devices at
submillisecond level over Ethernet. For instance, a current
transformer might broadcast into the Ethernet segment "To whom it may
concern, the current is now 1234 A". An over current circuit breaker
might receive the broadcast and if the trip current is set to 1000 A,
it will disconnect the line.
This makes it possible all versatile control forms, especially if the
Ethernet segment is extended to nearby substation through EHV OPGW
(Optical Ground Wire).
The problem is how to make such systems fail-safe, which will take
some time.
<spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
There is of course a lot hype around "smart grid", but there are many
steps to be done, before it becomes a reality.
So far, much of the substation system have used hard wired protection
relays and other equipment.
More and more of these devices are slowly being upgraded to IEDs
(Intelligent Electronic Devices), which can be programmed and
controlled from a higher level system in the 100 ms time frame.
Many of these devices can directly communicate with peer devices at
submillisecond level over Ethernet. For instance, a current
transformer might broadcast into the Ethernet segment "To whom it may
concern, the current is now 1234 A". An over current circuit breaker
might receive the broadcast and if the trip current is set to 1000 A,
it will disconnect the line.
This makes it possible all versatile control forms, especially if the
Ethernet segment is extended to nearby substation through EHV OPGW
(Optical Ground Wire).
The problem is how to make such systems fail-safe, which will take
some time.
T
Tom Gardner
Guest
On 28/05/19 18:42, Rick C wrote:
You are advocating a system, and making claims for it.
Your attitude is characteristic of amateur engineers
and armchair quarterbacks.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear,
simple, and wrong" HL Mencken.
So are you, unless you address failure modes.
Oh, please...
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 12:38:55 PM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/05/19 17:01, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 6:23:02 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/05/19 10:30, Rick C wrote:
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 5:06:33 AM UTC-4, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 28/05/19 09:27, Rick C wrote:
The most adaptation that is likely to be needed is to have
coordinated charging on EVs so they don't all start charging at 7
PM when arriving at home. Instead they should be coordinated to
spread the electrical load through the night allowing the
generation equipment to continue to run at high capacity all
night.
Ah yes, the fabled "smart grid" which will solve all problems. The
problem is it doesn't exist, and there are too many incompatible
visions of what it might be.
The "smart grid" is your idea, not mine. This is a very simple
problem to solve. "We can rebuild him. We have the technology. We
can make him better than he was. Better...stronger...faster."
There are too many possible screwup mechanisms w.r.t. getting to
the nirvana of a smart grid. Even the simple concept of smart
meters proved too difficult for the UK industry and regulators.
Again, the "smart grid" is a problem you are bringing to the party.
If you don't like it, please leave it at home next time.
But maybe smart grids will arrive after I'm dead; it is worthy
objective.
Meanwhile, I'll continue to fuel my car at, IIRC, 0.5MW.
Hmmm... until you are dead I guess. I only wish people would put
stuff like this on their tombstones so their descendants could get a
laugh at the things they believed. "from my cold, dead hands"...
That you believe the smart grid concept is my idea is revealing.
I'm afraid it is only easy to implement if you are an armchair
quarterbacker. Ensuring it works is relatively easy; the difficulties
come when ensuring graceful degradation when technical, corporate,
political and human behaviour is taken into account.
I didn't say anything about the "smart grid". As I said, you brought
that into the conversation and it seems to reek pretty heavily, so I'm
not touching it. Sounds like you brought it into the conversation so you
could have a reeking strawman to attack. Attack away, it is only you who
is getting covered in stink.
And yet what you outline below matches /some/ visions of the "smart grid".
It appears you aren't as au fait with some of the current grid behaviour
and future grid proposals as you would like to believe you are. I, OTOH,
have long made passing observations of the topic.
I was introduced to grid technology when I was ~4, when my father showed me
the fireboxes of a small power station.
I've been reading industry rags on such topics since I was ~11, as a result
of my father working at the Central Electricity Research Labs.
Nashville Cats -
Nashville cats, play clean as country water Nashville cats, play wild as
mountain dew Nashville cats, been playin' since they's babies Nashville cats,
get work before they're two
The saga of the comparatively simple smart meters is sufficient proof
of that
Meanwhile, your last paragraph indicates you speedread what I wrote
with insufficient comprehension.
The problem of coordinating charging schedules is pretty simple. It
likely doesn't even require a wide area connection. Nearly everyone has
Internet. The charging interfaces or the cars themselves (such as Teslas)
can communicate with a local "dispatcher" with a charging request. That
request can be put into a queue and scheduled. The scheduling can take
into account the limitations of the local distribution grid as well as
the present and anticipated near future electrical supply. Essentially
it can schedule each car's charging to get the charge needed with the
minimum impact on generation and the grid. Wide ranging coordination is
not likely to be needed since leveling the demand of the many small areas
will do a lot to level the demand of the larger areas.
Do you really see this as an intractable problem?
You've fallen into the trap I mentioned: you've outlined how something
might /work/. Now do a /failure mode/ analysis.
I appreciate failure mode analysis is boring and unpopular, to the extent
that softies barely comprehend the concept. Nonetheless it is a discipline
that distinguishes engineers from amateur hackers.
I'm not building the system. I don't need to do a failure analysis.
You are advocating a system, and making claims for it.
Your attitude is characteristic of amateur engineers
and armchair quarterbacks.
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear,
simple, and wrong" HL Mencken.
So are you, unless you address failure modes.
Oh, please...
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 2:09:58 PM UTC-4, Jan Panteltje wrote:
Lol, I like that. I respond to an ad hominem attack and you call *me* arrogant.
Lol! Yes, I have to admit you are right in that falling asleep means you are not focused on the driving. You write about this as if no one ever fell asleep at the wheel. How about the fact that instead of running off the road and killing himself or others he simply got pulled over? That sounds like a big plus to me.
I expect you will blame the autopilot for the guy falling asleep though... totally without evidence. That seems to be the way you think. You knee jerk and then rationalize your position. I guess you are a Musk hater like JL.
By the same token you talk about Teslas burning as if there aren't 150,000 gasoline files in autos every year. So far the rate of Teslas burning is still lower per mile driven than gasoline cars. It's not a big difference, but trying to say Teslas aren't safe because of fires just ignores the facts... which seems to be your standard operating procedure.
You mean you are going to drop your lie bombs and walk away. Ok, bye!
--
Rick C.
--+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Lol, I like that. I respond to an ad hominem attack and you call *me* arrogant.
Lol! Yes, I have to admit you are right in that falling asleep means you are not focused on the driving. You write about this as if no one ever fell asleep at the wheel. How about the fact that instead of running off the road and killing himself or others he simply got pulled over? That sounds like a big plus to me.
I expect you will blame the autopilot for the guy falling asleep though... totally without evidence. That seems to be the way you think. You knee jerk and then rationalize your position. I guess you are a Musk hater like JL.
By the same token you talk about Teslas burning as if there aren't 150,000 gasoline files in autos every year. So far the rate of Teslas burning is still lower per mile driven than gasoline cars. It's not a big difference, but trying to say Teslas aren't safe because of fires just ignores the facts... which seems to be your standard operating procedure.
He took that back a bit every time an accident happened,
it is still a system that gives you false security.
The software is not anywhere near 'safe'.
Neither are the batteries.
Neither is the construction good, bad welding jobs.
Recommending the thing to anybody is a crime.
I am going to leave it at this.
You mean you are going to drop your lie bombs and walk away. Ok, bye!
--
Rick C.
--+ Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
R
Rick C
Guest
On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 2:56:36 PM UTC-4, upsid...@downunder.com wrote:
Hmmm... that may be a problem, but it totally unrelated to charging EVs during the slack times because it is not needed to do this job. We already have networks the span the globe. While the utility company may want a system that is as close as possible to 100% reliable, coordinating car charging can be done with networking that is much less complex and nearly as secure.
--
Rick C.
-+- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209
Hmmm... that may be a problem, but it totally unrelated to charging EVs during the slack times because it is not needed to do this job. We already have networks the span the globe. While the utility company may want a system that is as close as possible to 100% reliable, coordinating car charging can be done with networking that is much less complex and nearly as secure.
--
Rick C.
-+- Get 5,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209