• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Vars

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
It is very difficult to explain and even harder to understand. It is easier if you are familiar with electricity.

In Alternating current, you have peaks and valleys. The juice spikes and never quite disappears but rather drops. You have to have the drop for motors to run. An electric motor is essentially a rotating magnet. Motors can be single phase (110) volts or two phase (220) volts. 220 is essentially 2 of the 110 phases.

If you spin an inductive motor backwards, you have a generator.

If you are running a generator and placing it on the power grid, that is powered by other generators, they all have to be placing their peaks, and their valleys on the grid in the same frequency (hertz/cycles etc). If they are not, you have serious problems. Generators can be destroyed or even ripped out of their foundation.

When you place a generator on line (on the grid), it has to be synchronized with all other generation. If not, most power plants will trip off line and you wind up with the scenario such as what we had in the northeastern U.S. and Canada several years back where all the grid is tripped off line. This trip feature essentially protects the power generators at each plant. Otherwise they would be ripped out of the slab and we may go years before all are replaced and everyone gets power again.

So you can understand that all peaks have to occur at the same time and so do the valleys.

VAR stands for Voltage Ampere Reactive Power. People joke and call it "voodoo". If one plant is slightly ahead, or one plant is slightly behind, you have a VAR problem. They refer to the plants as "leading" or "lagging".

It is difficult to control VARS on wind generators or other variable sources of generation. What happens is the grid controllers call the major power generating companies such as nuke plants and requests them to cut back on voltage generation and increase the VARS. This causes the the grid to stabalize.

The main generation occurs from coal, natural gas and nuke plants. The more wind generation you place on the grid, the more variance potential you have which puts everyone at risk of losing power - just like what happened in the northeast a few years back.

This is my best attempt at simple explanation of the issue with wind generation and VARS. Wind is a good source of green power, but it also puts more risk to the grid.

For people like me who have bonuses tied to the amount of generation a plant puts out in a given year, we do not want to trip off line. We also don't like having to cut back on power generation, to stabalize the grid. Our input is the same. Our output is not. The lack of stabalization caused by wind is not our fault but we have to compensate for it.

For the stock holders who own stock in a power company, wind generation is almost like you filling up your gas tank and someone syphoning out a few gallons each and every time you do it. Yes it puts more out there, but it costs you.

If we add thousands of more wind generators, we also need to add more conventional generation just for grid stablization.

Does any of this make a bit of sense? If something goes amiss, we could either destroy billions of dollars of generators that will years to replace. There are no longer foundaries in the U.S. These generators have to be sized for the particular plant and they have to be forged, shipped, and trucked to the U.S. It took us nearly a month to move one 300 miles across the state of Texas. They are extremely heavy. Smaller plants have lighter generators.

Bush was headlining an effort to streamline the licensing process for nuke plants and many were therefore being proposed all across the U.S. Esentially you had to pick an option of about 3 and you had to adhere to all the requirements for building the one you picked. Once you had a construction permit, you also had a licensing permit to put it online. The Obama administration is nixing that. They are also anti-coal and anti-natural gas. They (especially Biden) do not understand the VAR issue.

Most everyone is hoping they have come to reality. We need better controls on wind power. We need wind power. We don't need idiots deciding when they can put them on the grid and not put them in precise synchronization. This can be good. Heck it can be great. But when an perturbance starts, that perturbance needs to be isolated out. We need adequate controls to do just that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Back hoe thanks for the detailed explanation. The reason was the statement you made about Vars. In 1994 I was laid of from my job in Greenville Texas. I had an oppurtunity to work at the airport in Waco Texas. We were in a portable building behind the Hanger that had window units for cooling. This was in the summer and a time with some very hot weather. In the late afternoon there was not enough power coming into the plant to keep the window units functions. Also the rest of the plant also suffered. The reason for the shortage was there were not enough input lines to the airport.
There are in my mind some other problems with wind generation. All geographial locations are not always near the final use of the power, therefore there will have to be a lot transmission lines construscted. I would hate to have one across my ranch propeerty. Also I have read about France having some small Nuc plants and they are located in residential areas. Is this a fact. Also does Japan generate the largest ampount of their electrial power from nucs. Another question and you may be able to answer. Does the USA have enough uranuim deposits to support the amount of nuculer plants that would be required without depending on imports from some other country in the world. I am for nuculear and not against. It looks to me as if it might be a viable long lasting power. Coal may have got a bad rap. I know that at Mt pleasant Texas there are several power plants. My wife worked for Hess oil company. About ten or so years ago and may be longer Hess and proable the coal plants did an engineering study about capturing the CO2 and piping it to the East Texas oil field and injecting it to enhance the recover of oil in the East Texas field. Never knew what was decided and what the engineering report may have had in it. But it never happened.
 

per

Well-known member
Excellent explanation Backhoe. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The answer to wind would be to store the power for when the wind doesn't blow.
 

burnt

Well-known member
BHB, that was most enlightening. Thank you.

per, I think storage of excess generated power is too expensive to be practical in my understanding. Nuclear is cheap and versatile. Except that we have this little problem of spent fuel rods.

As much as I like the idea of alternate source energy, like wind, I am plagued with doubts about its practicality.

One thing is for sure, as technology continues to improve, I'm sure it will find solutions to the accompanying problems.

That's why it's called progress.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Also I have read about France having some small Nuc plants and they are located in residential areas. Is this a fact.

According to Hyperion, each unit can generate 27 MW of electricity when connected to a steam turbine. They tout the benefits of the HPG as being clean (no greenhouse gas emissions), safe (the most regulated type of power on the planet), affordable, and reliable.

“Out of Sight and Safe from Nefarious Threats”
They further describe the HPG:

Small enough to be transported on a ship, truck or train, Hyperion power modules are about the size of a "hot tub" — approximately 1.5 meters wide. Out of sight and safe from nefarious threats, Hyperion power modules are buried far underground and guarded by a security detail. Like a power battery, Hyperion modules have no moving parts to wear down, and are delivered factory sealed. They are never opened on site. Even if one were compromised, the material inside would not be appropriate for proliferation purposes. Further, due to the unique, yet proven science upon which this new technology is based, it is impossible for the module to go supercritical, “melt down” or create any type of emergency situation. If opened, the very small amount of fuel that is enclosed would immediately cool. The waste produced after five years of operation is approximately the size of a softball and is a good candidate for fuel recycling.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Thanks Steve the USA should have been in the forefront on this. 3-mile island kindly set us back. If I understand correctly the USA is still using the same type reacter that was on the navy ships.
Also what about Germany and the amount of Solar engry they produce. I( saw on one of the TV shows where Germany has a bank of collecters along side of a highway. Also Back Hoe does the same hold true on solar power as far as the vars statemnet you posted in regards to my reply.
Also in you opinion whast is the future engry power source in your opinion.
I think it wuill be a combition of all in some form or the other.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
You folks need to bear in mind I am not an electrical engineer. I deal with instrumentation and controls mostly. Sopecializing in instrument application for such things as flow measurement in piping etc. Yes I am also certified as a Mech Eng by INPO. With controls I deal with realys and protective devices. That is why I have some familiarity.

An electrical engineer would be much more suited to answer these questions in detail and they will have much more expertise.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
per said:
Excellent explanation Backhoe. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. The answer to wind would be to store the power for when the wind doesn't blow.

Thank you.

We need better battery technology - for this and for solar etc. That will be a huge break through if it ever happens.

I apologize for all the typo's in my posts today. I am up to my neck in alligators and typing in a hurry.
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
hurleyjd said:
Thanks Steve the USA should have been in the forefront on this. 3-mile island kindly set us back. If I understand correctly the USA is still using the same type reacter that was on the navy ships.
Also what about Germany and the amount of Solar engry they produce. I( saw on one of the TV shows where Germany has a bank of collecters along side of a highway. Also Back Hoe does the same hold true on solar power as far as the vars statemnet you posted in regards to my reply.
Also in you opinion whast is the future engry power source in your opinion.
I think it wuill be a combition of all in some form or the other.

In the 105 nuke plants in the U.S. you basically have two types. One is a boiling water reactor, and the other is a pressurized water reactor. I am familiar with pressurized water reactors (PWRs) Three Mile Island was a PWR. We are a PWR. I can bore you to death with details and safeguards to ensure what happened at TMI doesn't happen elsewhere in PWRs.

The things that are allowed in other countries cannot be done in the U.S. because of regulations. Some of it is great and some of it is not so great.

On the energy of the future. I agree with you. There is a place for everything. We need a combination. Hydro is ideal but we do not have the river sources and down hill force in most of the U.S. to provide enough generation. Coal is okay if you can scrub the effluents out to ensure there is no polution. It is difficult and expensive to do that. Natural gas is great but cost fluctuates. A hurricane can come in to the gulf and triple prices of gas. Solar is great but it only happens during daylight hours. Daylight hours also fluctuate between winter and summer. Wind cannot be predicted but it is okay when available. There has been some experiments with tidal currents and I find it interesting.

For all sources, we need better controls on the grid system.

Hydro is my number 1 choice for green energy. Nuclear is my number 1 choice for conventional power.

Nuclear plants run more stable when they constantly produce 100 percent power. If we were all nukes across the U.S., we couldn't cover variances in demand. They wouldn't serve well to put small units on line during peak demand times. They take a few days to come up to full speed etc.

Natural Gas (modern combined cycle units) are the absolute best to put on and off line during peak demand.

Solar technology needs improvement but it is coming on its own. It doesn't do us much good at night. Bear in mind you can also use solar for hot water heating independantly and for other sources in your home economically. Solar needs to be used more and not only for electricity. But it is only available when the sun is shining. Solar battery chargers keep my batteries hot on the hoe, the tractor, the cat etc. Solar is great and it can be used in more ways than what we currently practice.

Wind is good too but unpredictable. If the wind is blowing - use it. We simply need to resolve the VAR issues and we are not there yet. We need to use it more on the consumer level just as we use solar for hot water. As of right now, much of the wind generating equipment for consumer use is expensive and cost prohibitive. Plus if the wind doesn't blow, something has to be used to provide electricity consumers will demand. There is where you have to put conventional power on. If those plants are on stand by waiting, personnel and equipment costs are incurred and the cost will pass goes to the consumer. Biden does not address that. Nor does he address VARS.

Electric motors have improved efficiency these days. A/C and heating have improved their efficiency as well. Most of you know lightbulbs are better and available. We need to keep improving on the use end with improved technologies such as this.

The whole issue is global and there is simply no one answer to solve everything. Bits and pieces of improvements have accumulated and they will continue to accumulate. EVen batteries have improved but they are still vastly lacking.
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
This has been very interesting. I don;t understand it like i wish i did but i do know our local coal fired power plant was having trouble this spring regulating power because of the wind turbines. I understand the need for conservation but i think we are going to need to have more Nuc's brought on line.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
It has been an interesting discussion.

Backhoe mentioned Hydro, and that's one thing I have wondered about for a bit.

It's not high on the priority list. Is that because of environmental concerns?
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
It has been an interesting discussion.

Backhoe mentioned Hydro, and that's one thing I have wondered about for a bit.

It's not high on the priority list. Is that because of environmental concerns?

When my daughter worked in Manitoba they Man. Hydro people never wanted to talk about wind because their hydro power was so cheap.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
and I would think when you "blend" it in to the mix it keeps the average price down.

If you are only looking at expanded capacity with higher costing sources, you will bring the average price up.

I would think that wind is fairly inefficient, so it should be balanced with a more efficient energy source, like Hydro, to average out the price.

Just a couple quick thoughts.

here's a website I sometimes take a look, when it comes to new energy tech. and investment strategies. Some good articles on about whatever yu are looking for about energy. (scroll down the left side)

http://www.energyinvestmentstrategies.com/
 

backhoeboogie

Well-known member
Hypo I am going to read that thoroughly went I have my cheaters to read that fine print. :D

In addition to the grid risks associated with wind there are other issues. Plants on stand by waiting for the wind to stop blowing cost money. That is high dollar equipment sitting idle. There is staff/manpower salaries too. When the wind stops, they generate to make up the difference. You pay that cost in your power bills. You also pay the costs associated with getting feeder lines to all the little generation points, transformers, switch yards, inverters, protection devices. Some locations are easy to add to the existing grid. Some are not. Wind simply waves the costs of paying fuel. That is not really a lot of savings in the scheme of things. But it is better for the environment.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Wind simply waves the costs of paying fuel. That is not really a lot of savings in the scheme of things. But it is better for the environment.

I was thinking about that the other day when Aplus mentioned the Chevy Volt.

I think it takes about 8kwh for 40 mi with the volt, so definitely cheaper, but how many vehicles would need to be sold to put a restriction on electrical capacity?
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
Wind simply waves the costs of paying fuel. That is not really a lot of savings in the scheme of things. But it is better for the environment.

I was thinking about that the other day when Aplus mentioned the Chevy Volt.

I think it takes about 8kwh for 40 mi with the volt, so definitely cheaper, but how many vehicles would need to be sold to put a restriction on electrical capacity?

Personally I think it would be a trade off if enough Volts got on the road, even though they would use electricity to charge it would primarily be at night during off peak hours. And then there would be savings on electricity also! It takes electricity to produce gasoline and they would shorten the demand for that, it also takes electricity to pump gasoline into the car there would be a savings there, lots of areas would be saved to help make up for the new electricity needed to charge it.

If I had a volt I would get a solar charger to charge it from when I could, might as well save in all the areas you can.

One day if needed it would not take much to make a battery car that has solar charger on roof and or charges by movement of the car itself. And like the Volt it could have a gasoline motor to be used only when the batteries did go down.

I honestly believe battery power is the future, all this messing with ethanol etc......is just politics and pay offs!
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
I think batteries is the way to go also, but not there yet. Aplus check out

http://www.eestorbatteries.com/

and minority owner Zenn motors http://www.zenncars.com/ (Canadian company)
 

aplusmnt

Well-known member
hypocritexposer said:
I think batteries is the way to go also, but not there yet. Aplus check out

http://www.eestorbatteries.com/

and minority owner Zenn motors http://www.zenncars.com/ (Canadian company)

Wife has a 1965 Mustang that I would like to have converted over to battery power. It is only a weekend cruiser and I thought it may be a cool thing to do.

But then I would be afraid people would think I was a tree hugger or something so might have to put it off. :lol:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
aplusmnt said:
hypocritexposer said:
I think batteries is the way to go also, but not there yet. Aplus check out

http://www.eestorbatteries.com/

and minority owner Zenn motors http://www.zenncars.com/ (Canadian company)

Wife has a 1965 Mustang that I would like to have converted over to battery power. It is only a weekend cruiser and I thought it may be a cool thing to do.

But then I would be afraid people would think I was a tree hugger or something so might have to put it off. :lol:

nothing wrong with being a tree hugger, just don't be caught with the ugly ones.
 
Top