[cerveza_fiesta]

 Cold Iron, on 11 March 2010 - 10:10 PM, said:

Fuck that's pure unadulterated brilliance!

Meanwhile, I'm talking to people in the transmission and distribution business that are very unhappy about having current flowing back from household devices like these or PV panels - the power quality coming out of cheap inverters is pretty poor. I for one think man up and upgrade your grid, but it definitely means a lot of investment to do this. Lots of profit to be made by the big boys in more traditional products like var compensators and capacitor banks.

Also, 2000kWh should be more like half your annual household usage, not 15% as stated.

I'm looking to buy a house in about 2-5 years so it's a perfect time to kit it out with all this cool shit. We (finally) get a premium rate for renewable generation in my state, 60c/kWh, about 4 times what we pay, so electricity for me will be a revenue not an expense. Think of the profits when you go on holidays!!

I'm not super stoked on feeding power back into the grid. Round here the money you save/make is pretty paltry and my dad's buddy (who designs and manufactures microhydroelectric units) was telling me that until there's a good, cheap, efficient inverter...it's more worthwhile to put your efforts into storage.

He has a huge battery shed because at the time he got started, batteries were the best possible storage medium...and that works for him, but the charge/discharge efficiency of cheapish lead-acid batteries is pretty piss-poor. If you want to spend all kinds of money on lithium ion batteries then great...but they're hella expensive.

My idea was to do it with a pond and a large cistern. Nothing new I know...storing energy with water and all that...but it would be relatively easy to hook up. Get a nice efficient motor and a small centrifugal pump. Divert all unused energy from your wind turbine/PV panel/whatever into running that pump and filling up the cistern from the surface water. You'd get a solid 8 hour work day out of it 5 days a week that would go into filling that large cistern. Hook the cistern to a turbine and drain it down during non-windy or non sunny times.

And to bring recycling into it, make your cistern out of old hot water tanks or something. AND have rainwater collection to top it off.

I like this idea more and more as I think about it. If you lived on a hill you could have the cistern uphill a ways to guarantee some hydrostatic head on your turbine, or if you're on a flat, build a small water tower type affair.

Efficiency-wise it would be comparable to lead-acid batteries, but with zero bad chemicals and all that.

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 16 March 2010 - 11:57 AM

[Cold Iron]

That's a lot of equipment that will take a very long time to pay itself off, both in monetary terms and carbon footprint. If you're in a grid connected area, you may as well use the infrastructure that's there already. Especially considering so much of your grid power is hydro anyway.

[cerveza_fiesta]

 Cold Iron, on 16 March 2010 - 09:59 PM, said:

That's a lot of equipment that will take a very long time to pay itself off, both in monetary terms and carbon footprint. If you're in a grid connected area, you may as well use the infrastructure that's there already. Especially considering so much of your grid power is hydro anyway.

I'm not exactly convinced it would take all that long to pay off. Pumps and small turbines are relatively cheap, piping doesn't need to be extensive or large diameter...regular PVC sewer pipe would work fine. If the tanks were made out of recycled materials (like old HW tanks, oil tanks, whatever...) then the cost would be low on them too. At least the storage would have little-to-no C footprint unlike large scale hydro dams.

I realize it wouldn't be a lot of power, but it would be a greenish means of storing energy and generating some DC power from it when the sun/wind dies down....without needing lead-acid or hugely expensive lithium batteries. It depends on a water source of course, so a stream, pond or lake would be a must.

A lot of the nation's grid is hydro for sure...but we don't operate a national grid. Provincial grids are varied. Ours is coal/nuclear/small amount of hydro while the neighboring province of quebec is almost 80% hydro. We buy power from them sometimes, but in general, the electricity running my lights comes from provincial sources.

[Cold Iron]

Fun project regardless - plus you're also getting extra power every time it rains. I see a problem though. Do you freeze in winter there?

[cerveza_fiesta]

yeah. Freezing is definitely a problem, but full freeze-up is *really* only about 4 months of the year. I'd have to turn it off for late november thru mid-march or so...depending on the year.

The other great alternative, though you need significantly more capital for startup, is compressed air. Charge/discharge efficiency of a compressor-tank-turbine combo is damn near 100%. You still lose on the motor driving the compressor and the generator hooked to the turbine...but that's a given for either compressed air or water tank scenario.

I should do a calculation on that to see if it's feasible...would be neat to look at the numbers and try and tweak it for max. efficiency.

[Cold Iron]

Alternatively you dig your tanks down a meter or so you should reach a stable temperature zone. It depends on how much extra power you think you're going to be able to produce, the bigger the tanks the more costly it becomes to dig. But digging is something you can do yourself.

I'd like to see what kind of flow rate you'd need for your turbine to work efficiently and how long you'd like to be able to run off the turbine alone. If you have no other backup you'd probably want at least a week, even 2 weeks of storage.

[cerveza_fiesta]

THREAD RESURRECTION.

I was wondering if anybody had any new stuff to throw in this thread. It hasn't resurfaced since this time last year (more or less) and there are sure to be some cool new advances.

For one thing, my country is apparently banning incandescent bulbs and allowing only the sale of compact fluorescents. It was introduced in 2007 and is supposed to take effect this year, with a complete phase out of incandescents (except for purpose-built appliance bulbs) by the start of 2012.

To be true, I haven't researched it heavily, but I'm unconvinced that banning incandescents actually achieves its stated goals of protecting the environment. I mean, you already aren't supposed to put the things in the trash, rather send them to special waste recycling facilities where they can be treated to remove dangerous environmental toxins like mercury. Problem is, much like alkaline batteries, who actually does that? I am conscientious and knowledgeable enough to know I should not put batteries and CF bulbs in the wastebin, but I bet the vast majority is not.

I dunno, for lack of better information, I'm against banning incandescent bulbs. I use them in my house exclusively. I find the CFs just don't produce the same light at all. They may be 1/3 the energy use, but it's all focused in a narrow band of colour rather than a broad spectrum like incandescents. Colour of everything looks off and despite the lumen ratings, they are absolutely not as bright as a 60 watt bulb. LED lights are even worse in terms of brightness and narrowness of light wavelength.

So in my mind, to switch to an alternative, I'm paying 5x the cost for a CF or 10x the cost for an LED lamp that produces shitty unpleasing light that doesn't seem as bright, even in the highest wattage available. And if you buy "surge-proof" long life incandescents, they last almost as long as the CF's anyway. Plus you're buying something that required a lot more manufacturing, re-tooling of an entire industry and includes environmentally harmful chemicals as a rule. I just don't see the advantage to the ban in that light.

Sure it reduces the energy consumption by a token amount, but there are so many other, bigger, better things the government could be regulating to reduce GHGs instead. 2/3 of residential lighting energy usage is a tiny drip in the pot compared to fossil fuels used in transportation, gas escapement from landfills and methane production from factory farms. I just wish they'd get off these stupid "easy to tackle" problems and get to work on something that will actually make a big difference. I think the ban is simply a token nod to environmental lobby groups from the government and a way for Phillips & Sylvania Canada to make more money off an essential product.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Totally on board with you on the incandescent front, CF. Hehe, CF v. CFs.

My brother's currently doing his thesis on better (read: cheaper, AND more efficient) lithium-ion battery gels, and while he's just one man, he's begun to demonstrate that they can be cheaper and more efficient, with some decent research funding.

It's a materials problem, ultimately.

[worry]

Is that really why we're going to Mars? Materials?

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Obviously not. We're going to Mars because we can.

We need better engineered materials. Cleverer uses for the materials we have. Better recycling, etc.

[cerveza_fiesta]

I chatted with a guy at a unmanned systems conference that I happened to randomly sit beside. He runs a company that does orbital dynamics calculations for space missions...like where you account for gravity of every planet, major asteroid, the sun, nearby astronomical bodies, etc... and feed it all into a massive computer model that tells you exactly how many microseconds of thrust you need to change a space probe's trajectory by a few meters for aerial braking maneuvers.

Being a guy who supplies that kind of calculating and simulation power, he talks with space exploration folk, including potential space miners. He was telling me that within a few decades some rare metal supplies on earth will be so depleted that there actually will be a solid case for robotic space mining and mineral exploration. He was an older fellow (maybe 60) and said probably not in his lifetime, but definitely in mine. Sounded pretty damn sweet.

I'm glad at least one other person hates CF bulbs as much as me. I tried to have that conversation with a bunch of hippies the other day and got nowhere. Am I totally out to lunch on my point of view?

This post has been edited by cerveza_fiesta: 24 February 2011 - 12:11 PM

[rhulad]

I hate CF bulbs as well but my wife went out last year and replaced pretty much every incandescent bulb in our house, so now I'm stuck with them and their shitty light.

Space mining sounds good, count me in.

[Shinrei]

Here's an interesting wrinkle in the climate change issue:

http://www.theregist.../06/14/ice_age/

Quote

Earth may be headed into a mini Ice Age within a decade
Physicists say sunspot cycle is 'going into hibernation'

By Lewis Page
Posted in Science, 14th June 2011 17:00 GMT

What may be the science story of the century is breaking this evening, as heavyweight US solar physicists announce that the Sun appears to be headed into a lengthy spell of low activity, which could mean that the Earth – far from facing a global warming problem – is actually headed into a mini Ice Age.


Ice skating on the Thames by 2025?

The announcement made on 14 June (18:00 UK time) comes from scientists at the US National Solar Observatory (NSO) and US Air Force Research Laboratory. Three different analyses of the Sun's recent behaviour all indicate that a period of unusually low solar activity may be about to begin.

The Sun normally follows an 11-year cycle of activity. The current cycle, Cycle 24, is now supposed to be ramping up towards maximum strength. Increased numbers of sunspots and other indications ought to be happening: but in fact results so far are most disappointing. Scientists at the NSO now suspect, based on data showing decades-long trends leading to this point, that Cycle 25 may not happen at all.

This could have major implications for the Earth's climate. According to a statement issued by the NSO, announcing the research:

An immediate question is whether this slowdown presages a second Maunder Minimum, a 70-year period with virtually no sunspots [which occurred] during 1645-1715.
As NASA notes:

Early records of sunspots indicate that the Sun went through a period of inactivity in the late 17th century. Very few sunspots were seen on the Sun from about 1645 to 1715. Although the observations were not as extensive as in later years, the Sun was in fact well observed during this time and this lack of sunspots is well documented. This period of solar inactivity also corresponds to a climatic period called the "Little Ice Age" when rivers that are normally ice-free froze and snow fields remained year-round at lower altitudes. There is evidence that the Sun has had similar periods of inactivity in the more distant past.
During the Maunder Minimum and for periods either side of it, many European rivers which are ice-free today – including the Thames – routinely froze over, allowing ice skating and even for armies to march across them in some cases.

"This is highly unusual and unexpected," says Dr Frank Hill of the NSO. "But the fact that three completely different views of the Sun point in the same direction is a powerful indicator that the sunspot cycle may be going into hibernation."

[Silencer]

Basically, "OH LOOK, ANOTHER FACTOR WE HAVE NOT ADEQUATELY CONSIDERED UNTIL NOW IN THE CHANGE IN CLIMATE OF THIS PLANET", in other words. And apparently the Thames used to freeze over anyway (we're talking at least 150 years, though, iirc), so that wouldn't be such a huge change. >.>

Going back to the lightbulb issue for a moment - I completely agree about the difference in light of CF's - but here's a conundrum (this partially relates to the thread, but I appreciate that it is a bit of a tangent, my apologies) that has been plaguing my father, and by extension myself, in recent years: as an electrician, my father is constantly being called to 'fix' light bulbs. This is basically another way of saying 'replace the bulb', of course, but hey, some people don't think they can do it. However, now people seem to be complaining more often about bulbs failing, particularly of the incandescent variety, but also of the new 'eco' CF kind, to the point where we (and I don't use that term lightly, I get it in the neck as much as my dad does, by proxy) are being inundated with calls about the issue. Here's the kicker: people seem unable to accept that the light bulbs themselves are crap.

"It's the wiring" is a common argument - something my dad says is electrically impossible (seeing as shorts/surges should trip the circuit breaker, and/or kill the whole circuit in question, and variations in the feed would also affect all bulbs on a circuit and/or result in obvious flickering - plus, something I've recently pointed out, if it was the wiring in the house, wouldn't ALL appliances be affected eventually too? They're not on the same circuit, sure, but most houses are of a uniform age of wiring, surely?) and my own knowledge of physics, though by no means vast, tends to agree with him on this point.

We also get "it's the fittings then" when, after half an hour of explanation involving copious repetition of certain phrases and sequences (my personal favourite being "What's causing it then?" -> "You're the expert, you tell me!" -> "It's the bulbs." -> "It can't be the bulbs!" -> FACEPALM) which is, again, somewhat unlikely, as loose contacts would cause the aforementioned flickering and/or cause the bulb to turn off - but only until contact was re-established, and my dad does check for this if the bulb is not blown - but would not cause bulbs to blow, seeing as the fitting is essentially just a pair of conductors, electrically speaking.

Now, we've had clients complain that it HAS to be something other than the bulbs, by virtue of them replacing a bulb and having it too fail immediately - though obviously the theory should then be that ALL lamps in that fitting should fail immediately, which is not the case - and/or one fitting that seems to repeatedly suffer failures at more frequent intervals than the others. Again, though, due to the nature of lighting circuits, this shouldn't be possible if it was the wiring or the fitting, so therefore it is just 'bad luck', so to speak.




So, my question to the thread at large is: does anyone know how this could be happening, if not the fault of poor manufacturing of bulbs? Or can anyone back up and/or validate the claim that it is not the wiring or the fittings(or disprove it)?




One thing that has occurred to me more recently, is that houses now have far more lights in them than they used to. Whereas one room used to warrant probably only a single fitting, now we have three, four, or even more to light the same space. More bulbs = more lamps failing due to sheer proportional increase in quantity used. Plus the fact that lifetime ratings on bulbs are an average, and the curve is not uniform, so therefore a sizable portion of bulbs should fail before the expected life.

Anyway, to bring this more on track: it is entirely conceivable, to me at least, that manufacturers are not keeping their quality control up to what it used to be, as well. This increases their profits by increasing bulb turnover, of course, and also drives people towards buying the more expensive CF bulbs, which can only be good for business - plus helps alleviate pressure from the government regarding the changeover type ideas that are also floating about in this country. You know, "make people think incandescents are bad, so they buy CFs" kind of thing.


I only ask the above question, by the way, because it is really getting to be a stuck record fixture in this house, and REALLY gets under my father's bonnet something chronic - it's technically good for business, after all (and being asked to rewire a bunch of properties for no gain to the owner's is good for us, but even so, my dad keeps telling people that it's pointless because he's cool like that). So I really, really want an answer to this question, and I know some of you guys on here are quite bright (pun intended) when it comes to electrical stuff, but this doesn't warrant its own thread and is tangentially related to the topic at hand. Thanks guys!

[Coco with marshmallows]

To be fair Silencer,

one of the main reasons for the Thames freezing over back in the day was a lack of significant current in parts - the water was almost a set of stagnant pools in many places - which makes it noticeably easier to freeze over than a free-flowing river. This problem was solved by some major dredging/alterations of the flow of some of the feeder streams/etc.

For the Thames to freeze over now would require considerably lower temperatures than it did in the 1800's

[Silencer]

 Cocoreturns, on 15 June 2011 - 11:33 AM, said:

To be fair Silencer,

one of the main reasons for the Thames freezing over back in the day was a lack of significant current in parts - the water was almost a set of stagnant pools in many places - which makes it noticeably easier to freeze over than a free-flowing river. This problem was solved by some major dredging/alterations of the flow of some of the feeder streams/etc.

For the Thames to freeze over now would require considerably lower temperatures than it did in the 1800's

Granted. I was being moderately flippant.