DC-AC Conversion; What a Waste

[ggunn]

I'm not proposing anything..... Believe me, if I had the answer I'd be rich and you all would be paying me to install my designs. :blink:

Some good points being made. Certainly the multiple different DC voltages are an issue, so maybe standardization is the first step. Forget IEEE, maybe a new organization called FTFAM - Forward Thinkers For Advancement of Mankind

I agree, many of the "crack-pots" were just forward thinkers, the man is always going to try and keep you down by labeling those that are different as weirdo's.

Ideas expressed today may be obsolete by the time the are uttered, but does that mean we keep quiet and march in line lockstep (Read George Orwell 1984) or do those brave enough question why, and push for change.

Seems as a society we are always thinking of ways to "improve" what we already have. When do you say, this just ain't working anymore, throw it out, and start fresh. OK maybe PV isn't the answer, maybe wind isn't the answer, maybe batteries for storage don't make sense. I'll tell you though fracking to get natural gas ain't the answer either.

We need jobs, we need infrastructure, and we need a new direction. The same ol', same ol' isn't working anymore.

To say that there is a problem is the easy part. Deciding what to do about it is orders of magnitude harder.

A major obstacle to any proposal of sweeping change is always what has gone before. The establishment of a universal DC voltage isn't going to happen; any voltage you pick will make obsolete everything that uses a different voltage, which would be most of it. My guitar amps use 500VDC, can we make that the standard? Heck, many things that convert AC to DC for internal power produce several different voltages.

Neither PV, wind, nor grid storage is THE answer to our electrical power needs because there is no single answer, but AC transmission is here to stay.

 

[iceworm]

... I'll tell you though fracking to get natural gas ain't the answer either. ...

Bummer. I always thought it was a good idea. I always thought the only thing wrong with fracking was the bad publicity from the eco-wackos. Now that you tell me it is not the answer I'll have to give up on that. I'm sure you are stating your conclusions based on reputable technical journals so I'll absolutely believe you. Too bad.

It's a shame though. I am generally in favor of most things that increase supply, increase reliability, decrease costs.

ice

 

[ggunn]

Bummer. I always thought it was a good idea. I always thought the only thing wrong with fracking was the bad publicity from the eco-wackos. Now that you tell me it is not the answer I'll have to give up on that. I'm sure you are stating your conclusions based on reputable technical journals so I'll absolutely believe you. Too bad.

It's a shame though. I am generally in favor of most things that increase supply, increase reliability, decrease costs.

ice

All sarcasm aside, fracking is not without its downside. Pumping toxic chemicals into underground formations is not without risk to the drinking water supply, despite the assurances of the natural gas exploration and production companies to the contrary. Once an aquifer is contaminated, there's no un-contaminating it.

 

[ramsy]

if I had the answer I'd be rich and you all would be paying me to install my designs.

Inverters could also be eliminated by developing a natural AC battery, to discharge stored power at grid frequencies, perhaps from motor, flywheel, or super-capacitor designs.

 

[iceworm]

All sarcasm aside ...

Nope. Opinion stated as truth, based on unverified news media, deserves sarcasm - unless you wish to treat it as simply annoying and not bother to answer.

... fracking is not without its downside. ...

That's true. Pick something out you like that isn't. If zero risk is the goal, I guess we could all go back to surfing the internet by candlelight.

... Pumping toxic chemicals into underground formations is not without risk to the drinking water supply, ...

That is absolutely correct. Just curious - are you (that's you plural - all those commenting, not just you singular - gg) knowledgable about the toxic chemicals that are already at the depth of the wells - the naturally occuring ones, but severely toxic none the less.

... Once an aquifer is contaminated, there's no un-contaminating it.

So don't contaminate it. An aside: One may wish to do a bit of research on the Colorado water wells that the media showed were catching fire and stating it was caused by the gas fracking. Interestingly there are reports during the 1890s that water wells in that area had gas coming up in them. Hummm - wonder if we are hearing the whole truth.

... despite the assurances of the natural gas exploration and production companies to the contrary. ...

Corporations don't have a soul, or a conscience. I don't trust them at all. (Okay - I trust corporations slightly more than the news media). That is why we have regulators (disgusting evil that they are).

So how is this related to the electrical industry?

America wants energy - lots of it. And anything you want - you either grow it or mine it. There are no other ways. This includes energy. If we want to make a living distributing energy there has to be energy available. And gas looks like one of the more favorable alternatives. JMO

ice

 

[ActionDave]

So don't contaminate it. An aside: One may wish to do a bit of research on the Colorado water wells that the media showed were catching fire and stating it was caused by the gas fracking. Interestingly there are reports during the 1890s that water wells in that area had gas coming up in them. Hummm - wonder if we are hearing the whole truth.

I was there, and it was absolutely a media hype event.

So how is this related to the electrical industry?

America wants energy - lots of it. And anything you want - you either grow it or mine it. There are no other ways. This includes energy. If we want to make a living distributing energy there has to be energy available. And gas looks like one of the more favorable alternatives. JMO

ice

I agree. Coal and nuclear are both viable too.

 

[ggunn]

That is absolutely correct. Just curious - are you (that's you plural - all those commenting, not just you singular - gg) knowledgable about the toxic chemicals that are already at the depth of the wells - the naturally occuring ones, but severely toxic none the less.

Actually, I am. I am degreed in chemistry and I was a drilling fluids technologist (mud engineer) on drilling rigs and in the lab in a former life.

Don't misunderstand me; I am not against fracking as a whole. I am, however, skeptical of the ability of the industry to regulate itself and its inclination to err on the side of caution when it comes to protecting water resources in the face of stupendous profits. A cement plug failure (like the one that happened in the Deep Water Horizon incident) between a fracked gas production zone and a major aquifer would be a far worse disaster and would be impossible to clean up.

As you say, corporations have neither soul nor conscience. Years ago I was involved in a situation where oil/chemical companies were using salt water injection wells to get rid of noxious industrial wastes. The controversy revolved around the definition of salt. The permitting authorities assumed that "salt" meant sodium chloride, but the corporations used the general chemical definition of the word, which means any substance that dissociates into anions and cations upon dissolution in a polar solvent (such as water). The fight got quite nasty in every sense of the word and at least one person was killed under very questionable circumstances.

The oil and gas companies' track record on doing the right thing is abysmal.

 

[iceworm]

... Just curious - are you (that's you plural - all those commenting, not just you singular - gg) knowledgable about the toxic chemicals that are already at the depth of the wells - the naturally occuring ones, but severely toxic none the less. ...

Actually, I am. I am degreed in chemistry and I was a drilling fluids technologist (mud engineer) on drilling rigs and in the lab in a former life. ...

Excellent. So, how do they compare? Equally toxic?

ice

 

[ggunn]

Excellent. So, how do they compare? Equally toxic?

ice

Define "equally". It appears to me that you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, or "catch me" on a technical point with a challenge disguised as a question. I don't want to play.

My last word is that I am not unequivocally opposed to fracking for the mining of natural gas, but I am concerned about the way it is being pursued. I do not think that the worries about the contamination of aquifers are totally without merit. I think that safety is often subjugated for the sake of profit, and practices that I have witnessed through my experiences dealing with the oil and gas industry bear that out.

 

[iceworm]

Define "equally". ...

Giving similar results in killing living things

...It appears to me that you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, or "catch me" on a technical point with a challenge disguised as a question. ...

Not really. I mostly want to point out the major problem with fracking is the eco-wackos (in which I do not include you) in bed with the liberal media.

... I don't want to play. ...

Good. I'll get the last say and we can all get to something more interesting. :roll:

... but I am concerned about the way it is being pursued. I do not think that the worries about the contamination of aquifers are totally without merit. ...

That sounds reasonable - but not insurmountable

... I think that safety is often subjugated for the sake of profit, ...

Absolutely. Nothing is zero risk. And if an activity is not profitable no one will do it. Everyone decides how much risk they are willing to accept and often they are also deciding how much money they are willing to pay to lower that risk. One does it in daily life, and also one does it through the election process.

... and practices that I have witnessed through my experiences dealing with the oil and gas industry bear that out.

Absolutely. No risk - no money. And repeating myself: Corporations have no soul or conscience.

One thing I don't understand is why there are not more big oil/big gas executives in jail. The laws are in place to do it - but we don't. If we truly don't want gas and oil crapping up the earth, why don't we put a few of them in jail each year. I'm baffled.

ice

 

[ggunn]

One more thing. I do not believe in the "liberal media" in any sort of objective sense. I have friends on the right that see it that way, but I also have friends on the left who see the media as being biased to the right. Relative to their respective points of view, they are both correct.

 

[kingpb]

Good info... I think there is a still a lot to be learned about fracking process. It does bring two cases to mind. The well known Erin Brokovich, and another one, not so widely known called A Civil Action - The Real Story. I recommend it as a good read.

Somebody mentioned AC batteries. Can't say I know anything about that. Fly wheel technology, I thought was a good idea, but never seemed to really take hold. I would agree nuclear for large generation is good, but you have the downside of the spent fuel rods and what to do with them.

Corporate greed goes without saying. You have to make shareholders happy, which means big bottom line. We cannot allow them to self regulate, I think history shows us what happens in that scenario, although the government regulators aren't any better.

Maybe I'll sign up for the one-way trip to Mars. That would be a challenge.

 

[iceworm]

... I would agree nuclear for large generation is good, but you have the downside of the spent fuel rods and what to do with them. ...

I'm holding out for pocket sized cold fusion. AKA Foundation :roll:

ice