Why NOT to invest in back-up power

waynefromnscanada · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Well said Icarus, a well balanced message that I totally agree with. Thanks for posting.

Organic Farmer · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Icarus -
Good post. [not quoted so as to reduce argument on that topic]

"... perhaps we should move it to its own thread."

Good idea

BB. · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

But I also understand the concern from the other side of the argument.

We have pretty reasonable priced natural gas here and high electric rates, but I have a neighbor with an electric store because of his concerns. Even talked with a solar company. But his home is 1 story with significant trees in back yard... Solar company was hot to sell him until I told the neighbor to ask about shading and guaranteed output--He never heard back.

Between gas leaks (+gas main failures) and failed valves in gas water heaters (and somebody who takes out/blocks safety valves), those gas/water heater explosions are scary. And add that we need to elevate gas water heaters and, now, even gas clothes driers in garages (so that they don't ignite gasoline fumes from cars in the garage)--I think it is adding to the worries about gaseous fuels.

The one that really worries me (don't hear much about the issues here) is propane. It is heavier than air and can settle in basements/low areas... Seems to be "more scary" for earth berm homes and basements.

I know that Tony (Icarus) knows a lot more about gas codes that I--I read with interest one of his posts about setting up PVC (?) piping to run the gas/propane pipes through to keep everything well vented.

When every thing is done "right" -- Most forms of energy provide much greater benefits than risks. It can become the equivalent of somebody afraid to fly but will drive a car and do a 1/2 dozen things that are more dangerous than flying and not bat an eye.

I think a lot of this are issues about "control"... Riding a plane, not in control. Driving a car, in control.

I think it is similar with fuels/electricity... With eduction and knowledge, comes more control and less concerns.

-Bill

inetdog · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

BB. wrote: »

I think a lot of this are issues about "control"... Flying a plane, not in control. Driving a car, in control.
I think it is similar with fuels/electricity... With education and knowledge, comes more control and less concerns.

Or, to look at it in a different way, familiarity breeds contempt. To a great extent we accept the risks we understand and fear the ones we do not.
Worldwide, more people are killed each year by wild pigs than by sharks, yet we fear sharks more.

BTW, I hope you meant "riding a plane" and not "flying a plane". :-)

BB. · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Sorry... You are correct Inetdog.

Although, with the modern jets today and "fly by wire"--The pilots are becoming more "along for the ride" too. :roll:

Both pilots falling asleep in the cockpit probably happens more than we are aware of...

Decades ago, pilots (and the navigator) would set an alarm clock to ring when check ins were due on trans Atlantic flights.

I am sure we have more regulations today that "fix" these old problems.

-Bill

NorthGuy · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

inetdog wrote: »

To a great extent we accept the risks we understand and fear the ones we do not.

But that the dread of something ...
... puzzles the will,
And makes us rather bear those ills we have
Than fly to others that we know not of?

icarus · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Just one more note. Because we (society/utility/regulators etc) avoid safety stuff that could be reasonably installed, like siesmic valves, and because we are more than willing to disable safety devices (disabling a overheat shut off on a water heater is sort of like putting a penny in the fuse box!) doesn't mean that the fuel is extraordinarlily dangerous, any more so than if we UN regulated and ignored SOP electrical safety issues. (like fuses, breakers, wiring codes and inspections etc). in the case of electical safety we have moved so far in the area of safety, the is now a backlash of sorts. Things like AF and GFCI breakers, dedicated one appliance circuits etc, that many feel is overkill.

I have seen literally thousands of substandard gas installations, most especially propane, between improper piping to improper venting, meter and regulator location, relative to vent and window locations, all leading to potential danger. One just has to walk down a street and you can see how lax enforcement of standards and practices is. I have also seen lousy electrical installations, improper service drops, once again, more stuff you can see just walking down the street, so both have issues. The reality is that both CAN be made remarkably safe, but we need to be willing to spend the money to do so.

Tony

PS. One other example that would have a real effect on safety: there is no reason you can't equip a house with "whole house gas detection system" coupled with a master shut off. Leave a burner on without it lighting (which can and does happen with regularity, both with pilot and pilotless ignition!) gas detector knows it before you get to explosive %, shuts off the main valve, triggers the alarm, even could phone 911. In the grand scheme, might cost a couple hundred bucks in a new install, but would people be willing to do it? I think not.

T.

ChrisOlson · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

icarus wrote: »

People are electrocuted everyday, electrical fires happen every day. My point is everything ought to be done to make the infrastructure safe and robust for all energy systems.

No need to move it to a different thread, I don't think. Just that there's a higher incidence of things that shouldn't happen, or aren't supposed to happen, with natural gas than with any other energy source. No, it's no fault of the fuel - it's mainly infrastructure to handle it that causes the problems.

I look at the natural gas grid like I look at the electric grid. Mankind has built an unsustainable system and it's going to fail. It's only a matter of time. All it would take is a solar flare like the one that caused problems in Canada in 1989 to knock the whole thing offline. Back in 1859 when the Carrington Event hit the earth it didn't cause any problems except for giving a few telegraph operators some shocks and sparks coming off telegraph lines. With today's technologies, and the way mankind depends on them, a solar superstorm will wreak havoc. That's why I have always believed in distributed generation and standalone systems as opposed to "grid" juggernauts that are vulnerable to a wide variety of things. The problems with the natural gas system indicate it is not a well designed system, despite the apparent benefits it may have over other fossil fuel sources. Those are my personal beliefs on it, formed by research I have done.

The fires are pretty much out and the tanker planes went back to Thunder Bay now. We could use some rain.
--
Chris

techntrek · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

The next Carrington Event is the one "doomsday" scenario that scares the <bleep> out of me. They say the probability is high, too...

Cariboocoot · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

If anyone is interested, the original intent of this thread was to point out in a mildly humorous way that investing huge amounts of money in solar/battery based back up power is not particularly sensible if you live in an area where the utility blackouts are infrequent and short.

How we got on to the relative safety of one energy type over another is a prime example of lateral thinking.

NorthGuy · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

ChrisOlson wrote: »

With today's technologies, and the way mankind depends on them, a solar superstorm will wreak havoc. That's why I have always believed in distributed generation and standalone systems as opposed to "grid" juggernauts that are vulnerable to a wide variety of things.

I'm afraid that a magnetic storm like this may be quite destructive for stand-alone systems too, definitely can kill an inverter.

Anything we can do to protect our systems?

icarus · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Glad to know you cam through the fires OK. Glad our MNR TBay water bombers could help. Ihqve never gotten to fly in one, but I have been right under them during drops (and pick ups) a number of times. Pretty impressive machines! we still have 18" of ice, and the fire danger is quite high here, so we are biting our nails waiting for open water. If we had big fires now, finding open water is still a problem.

As for the gas issue. I agree totally that a decentralized grid structure fri all energy distribution is a godod idea. Build as much safety and redundancy as you can afford.

T

ChrisOlson · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

techntrek wrote: »

The next Carrington Event is the one "doomsday" scenario that scares the <bleep> out of me. They say the probability is high, too...

According to ice core data, there has been a major solar flare event about every 500 years with 5 minor events in between each major one. According to the research I have done on it a major event will probably not affect things like inverters or car electronics like a nuclear weapon EMP would.

It will affect the electric grid because the thousands of miles of wire would become like stator windings in a generator and it will blow transformers all to smithereens. The major electric companies already have plans in place to shut down the grid in the event one of these major solar flares erupts, and they have roughly 15 minutes from the time the flare erupts before it hits. But shutting down the grid only protects the generators at the plant and does not disconnect the thousands and thousands of transformers that will blow. And replacing those transformers will take months, if not years, because spares for that large of a failure are not in stock anywhere.

The transformers are the weak link. How it will affect other things like communications, etc., is pretty much an unknown.

This is not science fiction. It WILL happen, just as it has many times in our planet's past. It's just a matter of when. In the past people looked at the weird lights in the sky and it didn't hurt anything. That has changed with modern civilization. And the fact is, mankind is totally powerless in the face of Mother Nature. We can't even do anything about a puny hurricane that tears up the East Coast much less a nuclear fireball that decides to spit out a little plasma.
--
Chris

techntrek · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Cariboocoot wrote: »

If anyone is interested, the original intent of this thread was to point out in a mildly humorous way that investing huge amounts of money in solar/battery based back up power is not particularly sensible if you live in an area where the utility blackouts are infrequent and short.

How we got on to the relative safety of one energy type over another is a prime example of lateral thinking.

Just the natural flow of the conversation. :cool:

techntrek · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

NorthGuy wrote: »

I'm afraid that a magnetic storm like this may be quite destructive for stand-alone systems too, definitely can kill an inverter.

Anything we can do to protect our systems?

Don't believe the Doomsday Preppers show (and on many other things that are said on it - otherwise I like the show). The Carrington Event caused large current flows in wires that were strung for miles and miles, due to inductance from currents in the earth. You don't need to bury all of your electronics in a Faraday cage to protect them from any solar event (flare or coronal mass ejection). They do induce currents in the ground like the E3 component of an EMP, which is what takes out large transformers at the ends of long transmission lines. Without miles-long wires in your computer or inverter E3 isn't an issue on a device-by-device basis because there is no E1 or E2 component of the EMP.

Now an actual EMP from a nuclear device has all three types of EMP emissions, which affect electronics whether they are on or off. E1 induces high voltages, jumping air gaps and other insulation in devices like being struck by lightning. E2 is a gamma ray burst like the gamma rays produced by lightning. This could cause local damage like E1 but the damage has already been done.

Edit: I just saw ChrisOlson's discussion of this. What scares me is the odds of 12% in any decade of the next Carrington Event, with the resulting damage to the major transformers due to the E3 component. I agree with most of what you said, but the electric companies can disengage the breakers on the ends of the long-distance lines to protect the transformers. There may still be damage to the electric lines themselves but at least that is fairly easy to fix. The problem is that our flare detection system is literally in its infancy. We only recently got satellites up on the far side of the sun to see what flares are headed our way before they actually appear. Even if everyone is on alert because of a potential X1 burst, the power companies will be very wary to manually shut down their system even if NASA sends out an alert that a blast has occurred. Without automatic controls to force them offline they'll sit there staring at their screens worrying about stock prices plunging if they make the wrong call and there is little geo-effect.

How it affects communications, etc is known. Without those big transformers many parts of the grid will just collapse. Islands of electricity may be able to be brought up eventually, especially in areas fed by hydro. But many conventional power plants rely on the grid coming back up to restart - they can't do a "black start". Some can, some have large diesel gensets to act as seeds to get the plants back up (pun intended), but many don't. And nuclear plants require grid presence by design before they will come back online even though they have backup gensets for the controls... but as we've seen in Japan, eventually those backups run out of fuel. So no electric means no communications as fuel runs out everywhere else too, no food since you can't pump gas at gas stations ironically, as we saw after Sandy. So no gas means no deliveries, etc. In 3 days we are savages.

NorthGuy · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Cariboocoot wrote: »

If anyone is interested, the original intent of this thread was to point out in a mildly humorous way that investing huge amounts of money in solar/battery based back up power is not particularly sensible if you live in an area where the utility blackouts are infrequent and short.

How we got on to the relative safety of one energy type over another is a prime example of lateral thinking.

We're getting there. The point is that when the Carrington event strikes and there will be 6 to 8 month grid failure, a small investment in solar/battery based power will not look as bad

waynefromnscanada · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

NorthGuy wrote: »

We're getting there. The point is that when the Carrington event strikes and there will be 6 to 8 month grid failure, a small investment in solar/battery based power will not look as bad

Seriously, right or wrong, for a long time I've been seeing a similar event (long term power outages) in our future and that's partly why I sleep better knowing that if the grid goes down, I won't freeze, or starve, at least not right away. It might be war, it might be natural disaster, it might be terrorism, but i do believe it's only a matter of time. And when it does come, God help those living in cities, and others unable to be self-sufficient. Still, I'm well aware I will not, cannot live forever.

techntrek · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Yes to both of you!

ChrisOlson · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

techntrek wrote: »

I agree with most of what you said, but the electric companies can disengage the breakers on the ends of the long-distance lines to protect the transformers. There may still be damage to the electric lines themselves but at least that is fairly easy to fix.

Yes, I agree that the substation transformers can probably be protected fairly well. What I'm worried about is the thousands of smaller 45 - 250 kVA secondary transformers that will be damaged by a spike to the primary winding. Rural areas will go dark and remain dark for months. Large blocks of secondary feeds in urban areas will have the same problem, even though one secondary transformer may feed several houses or businesses.

Utility transformers are quite heavy duty but they're not designed to handle anything but stable power. All it takes is for a car to hit a pole or the wind to cause the neutral on the top of the lines to slap one of the phases and the secondary transformers will explode. They have little chance of surviving a major solar flare event. And those transformers are the ones that keep gas stations, grocery stores, etc. lit.

So in the end, saving the interstate transmission lines and substation integrity will not make any difference if the secondary systems are all blown. When I worked at Cummins/Onan and the small event happened in Quebec it opened our eyes as to what is required to keep the secondary systems operating on diesel power when something like that happens. And standalone and distributed generation systems is the only answer. The standalone systems can keep individual "blocks" with power while the distributed generation systems can be brought back online as larger power centers are restored.

I agree that in the event a flare occurs, nobody is going to pull the switch even if NASA says to. Large portions of the interstate transmission system will be damaged before they realize this is the Real Thing and then try to save it. They got 15 minutes to get 'er done once a flare erupts. That's not much time for a juggernaut like the electrical grid system.

I worked with standby and prime power systems for years. While people think that the utility grid system is stable and reliable and they don't need backup power, they are wrong. Dead wrong. You have to work with it to reach the full realization of how fragile and vulnerable to things that man has control of, it really is. I like to call it a "house of cards". Those of us in the business preached it for years. Few listen because it's all about finances and the bottom line and wasting money preparing or designed for something that most think will never happen.
--
Chris

Cariboocoot · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

According to He Who Knows the real miracle is that the grid manages to stay working at all.

Next time I speak to him I'm going to try and remember to ask about the possible ramifications of a Carrington Event.

niel · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

funny how this is turning around to reasons to have an off grid battery backed system. i do agree with coot that going overboard isn't a wise idea based on a decades down the road what if. odds are that by the time the what if occurs that the batteries are already needing replaced and the electronics are getting older too and their reliability comes into question.

as far as emps and spikes and what have you goes, if it is connected to the grid even indirectly it will have a good chance of popping. this means that inverter with the ac pass-through as in backups types can pop. even the isolated off grid system that has an ac battery charger temporarily connected to the batteries can pop your system. it has to be isolated from the grid totally to have no influences of the grid in sending damaging spikes to your stuff. do not even think that having it switched off and yet still connected will stop it. some items prone to this stuff are pcs and some landline phones.

i had a pc just pop from lightning on me recently that was on a switched surge protected strip. pc wasn't turned on, but unless the power is physically broken from all angles it can still get to the pc. pcs do still take a tad of power even with them switched off from software or the power button on the pc so an external on/off switch needs to be used to break the hot of the power leg to offer that degree of the protection. this damaging spike can still travel the neutral or ground wire. as it was i did not have the switch off on the power strip when it blew.

now i have to make an observation here as i've had 4 pcs until now, 2 intels and 2 amd. i've had two amd pcs fail due to surges. none of the intels ever failed on me and i am going to get another intel based pc to replace the amd that blew some time down the line. now this is not to say that the intels are blowout proof as they are not, but to me they seem more durable in this area.
so much for my penny's worth on this.

techntrek · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

ChrisOlson wrote: »

Yes, I agree that the substation transformers can probably be protected fairly well. What I'm worried about is the thousands of smaller 45 - 250 kVA secondary transformers that will be damaged by a spike to the primary winding.

No need to worry about the the rest of the system, the only lines long enough to act as "antennas" are the long-distance lines. Once they are disconnected the rest of the system will be fine. I'm sure there will be some secondary damage, some lines will happen to be at a resonant frequency, or at just the right angle, etc. However, if they DON'T disconnect the long-distance lines, I agree that a spike could make it down-stream and do more damage. That didn't happen though in the Canadian event in 1989, it only damaged the big guy.

NorthGuy · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

ChrisOlson wrote: »

While people think that the utility grid system is stable and reliable and they don't need backup power, they are wrong. Dead wrong.

I was thinking why is that my power company charges $200 per month for their service. The simplest answer I can find is that they charge so much because that's what it really costs. There are miles of lines and thousands of posts. These posts need to be regularly replaced. And they do replace them. I look everywhere, and I see fresh green posts where the old bad posts were. But still, there are many bad posts around, and outages are quite common. They need to do more and consequently they need to charge even more.

If somewhere electric services cost much less, that is either because the lines are not maintained properly or because they're severely subsidized. There's no chance electric company can maintain everything for $5 monthly fee. This cannot last forever. Something gotta give. Unmaintained parts of the grid will be failing. Subsidies will dry out when governments are forced with the necessity to pay off their debts. Cheap grid electricity may not be as cheap 10-15 years from now. If you figure out the true cost of the grid electricity, off-grid systems will not look so expensive any more.

Blackcherry04 · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

NorthGuy wrote: »

Cheap grid electricity may not be as cheap 10-15 years from now. If you figure out the true cost of the grid electricity, off-grid systems will not look so expensive any more.

Yeah, but all the equipment you now own will be failing and be outdated and you'll be spending more to replace it. It' s a catch 22, darn if you and darn if you don't.

ChrisOlson · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

niel wrote: »

i've had two amd pcs fail due to surges. none of the intels ever failed on me and i am going to get another intel based pc to replace the amd that blew some time down the line. now this is not to say that the intels are blowout proof as they are not

A lot of transformers are made by ACME. ACME stuff does not have a good reputation for reliability. Ever seen what happens to Wile E. Coyote when he gets ahold of ACME stuff?

--
Chris

NorthGuy · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Blackcherry04 wrote: »

Yeah, but all the equipment you now own will be failing and be outdated and you'll be spending more to replace it. It' s a catch 22, darn if you and darn if you don't.

Panels will outlist me. Electronics can be repaired and last for real long time. If lead prices go up too much, you can sell lead from your old batteries for a really good price.

If you have a system, you can make it work somehow even if prices for parts go way up. Same as with cars.

gww1 · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Getting a solar backup system is like having a lot of money in the pot in poker on a medeoker hand.

You start out thinking you are going to make money and end up being pot committed and unwilling to get out.

gww

NorthGuy · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

gww1 wrote: »

Getting a solar backup system is like having a lot of money in the pot in poker on a medeoker hand.

You start out thinking you are going to make money and end up being pot committed and unwilling to get out.

It is more like you sit with a pair of sevens, pile a lot of money on the table, and see how your partner's hands are trembling as he's getting ready to throw away his three aces.

You simply make the best of the hand that you've got. Losing doesn't scare or even interest you.

gww1 · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

I was going to point out bluffing next.
Cheers
gww

ChrisOlson · May 2013

Re: Why NOT to invest in back-up power

techntrek wrote: »

That didn't happen though in the Canadian event in 1989, it only damaged the big guy.

True. But a big solar flare like the 1859 event blew telegraph machines apart, set paper on fire and caused the telegraph wires to spark thru their insulators. Those lines back in 1859 were way less extensive than the secondary lines today. The solar storm of 1859 is estimated by scientists, based on what it would take to cause the effects on the technology of that time, to have had the equivalent power of around 10 billion thermonuclear weapons detonated in earth orbit, and it lasted for two days. As far south as Hawaii the night sky was so bright that it was described as casting shadows at night and being able to read a newspaper in what should've been darkness. The flare that caused the outage in Quebec in 1989 had less than one tenth of one percent of that amount of energy.

Based on the reading and research I have done on it, there has been several more events that were more powerful than the 1989 event. In 1882 another one put out enough power to light bulbs and set the Chicago telegraph switchboard on fire. In 1903 the EMP from a flare damaged the transatlantic cable and shut down street cars in Europe. 1940 the EMP from a flare set hundreds of miles of telephone wires on fire, blew switchboards all across the country and blew telephones off the hook in homes.

The thinking is that the lattice type grid structure of today, as opposed to the long point to point line that was affected in Canada in 1989, will provide resilience to the EMP. But if you study the effects of the intermediate flare events in 1882, 1903 and 1940 on the lattice type infrastructure that was present at those times, they are wrong.

The flare that caused the Carrington Event in 1859 was a white light flare that works like a particle accelerator and accelerates electrons (actual massive amounts of current) to the speed of light and beams more electricity than mankind has generated since the dawn of his existence millions of miles thru space. Except unlike the particle accelerators that scientist play with, the sun has vastly more unlimited amounts of power. One of the key scientists that has studied it and believes that all the "safeguards" that have been put into place to deal with it are going to prove ineffective is Hugh Hudson at Berkeley’s Space Science Laboratories. The sun has emitted many of them since - just that the earth has not been in the right place in its orbit to receive the full brunt of the blast like it was in 1859. It is not a rare thing. It's just a matter of time.

People, with all our modern technology, think we're immune and it's all a fairy tale. But I believe that the day is going to come when sticking your head in the sand is going to result in getting your butt set on fire.
--
Chris

Why NOT to invest in back-up power

Comments

Categories