If something needs that much flexibility in it's UI that people are messing with it at the last minute it doesn't belong as something people should be messing with while driving. The OP talks about HVAC controls. How much flexibility do you really need for that? The interface has been standardized for a long time. It's a known quantity both from a design perspective and user perspective. Ditto for common audio controls like volume, pause/play, skip.
The article is a bit misleading. They talk about how many AC induction motors there are and how much power they consume. I don't doubt those numbers. But the vast majority of those are synchronous: they run at a set speed.
What they are working on is variable speed motors which need a special "drive" (aka VFD) device to convert the constant 50 or 60 Hz power supply to a variable frequency. Now VFDs are getting more common as simply using a VFD can make big efficiency gains on a process. But VFDs are still not the norm yet.
It won't help Joe Six-pack. And your questions make me think you did not read the article. The manufacturing output will increase due to automation & other improved techniques.
My fave quote from the article:
> So while it's understandable the state of manufacturing is of concern to presidential candidates, those who say they can bring back lost jobs in the sector either don't know what they are talking about, or are being disingenuous.
> So while it's understandable the state of manufacturing is of concern to presidential candidates, those who say they can bring back lost jobs in the sector either don't know what they are talking about, or are being disingenuous.
No. It implies one is attempting to pass of a false statement as true. If you know your statement is false, you are lying. Just because you don't know the truth doesn't mean you can't lie.
It is true that nuclear power is bad at peaking. That's why no one uses them for that. They are good at base-load power, which is where they are used.
Use the right tool for the job. Different sources of energy have different upsides and downsides and we should take advantage of those. Use wind and solar (possibly backed by batteries) and natural gas as peak load generation because they are good at that. And use nuclear as the base load.
I agree with the premise floated by the 1st expert in the article that we are not rewarding nuclear for its carbon free generation. The reason utilities are closing nuclear plants are because of the deregulation of electric power and creation of power supply "markets". Nuclear has to compete on price alone against cheap natural gas and subsidized renewables (not only are the fuel sources of those cheap, so are the capital costs compared to nuclear).
Re your PS, are you saying that hydrogen atoms in coal DO NOT combine with oxygen to create water during combustion? Because my college education and career as a mechanical engineer taught me otherwise.
Using batteries for grid storage is terrible compared to pumped hydro and on demand hydro.
We agree on the chemistry. The point of my ps is the C becomes CO2 the H becomes H2O, but we don't care about H2O. Which is why hydrocarbons produce less CO2 per watt than coal.
The downside of PSH of course is the massive reservoirs you have to create, but they have astonishingly good efficiency (I was skeptical when I first heard of the concept, but real-world examples can hit an 80% efficiency target which more than makes up for the constant replacement of batteries and the potential impact of sourcing lithium or other materials depending on who is mining them).
Anthracite coal is up to 85.7% carbon by weight the rest is not pure hydrogen but a mix of sulfur, oxygen, nitrogen, and hydrogen. (And yes, that Oxygen lowers the energy density while increasing CO2 release.)
Natural gas is 25% hydrogen 75% carbon.
Burning hydrogen produces water not CO2.
So, while the specific bonds play a role the actual carbon vs. hydrogen content is a major issue.
Lower gas prices certainly did not help, but if not for regulations introduced during the Obama administration, many coal plants would still be running. I worked, as an engineer, for a company that made equipment pretty much just for coal fired power plants from 2002-2014. Starting with the ammendments to the Clean Air Act in 2009, then the CSAPR, then MATS, we watched utility after utility make the decision to close plants rather than install the required emissions control equipment. So maybe if natural gas was more expensive they would have chosen to install the equipment, but if not for those regulations they would have just kept running.
Why are people comparing and debating "batteries vs combustion turbines"? Batteries only store energy and you still need to generate it somewhere. Probably from a CCGT plant.
And it's not risk aversion. Its buried subtly in the article but part of SoCal's gas infrastructure is shut down because of the leak. They literally can't provide enough gas to generate enough electricity for peak demand. So they will generate over capacity at night, store in the batteries, and discharge during the day.
Also what seems to be lost here is that Tesla created it's utility battery products as a renewables play, but are just taking advantage of extra-ordinary circumstances in this case.
People are comparing them because they serve the same purpose here.
Base and peak loads on the grid can be wildly different. Without storage, if you want to avoid brownouts or blackouts, your generating capacity needs to match the peak load, even though you might only hit peak load a few times per year. The traditional way to handle this is to have power plants that can be spun up rapidly but sit idle 99% of the time. Because they're idle most of the time, the electricity they produce is extremely expensive.
Storage (including batteries, but also many other technologies) can substitute for these plants. You fill the storage when demand is low, then drain it when demand is high. Yes, the energy still needs to be generated somewhere, but you can generate it using existing plants during periods of low demand. If this is cheaper than maintaining peaking plants that mostly sit idle, it's a win.
Yes I know how all that works becuase I worked in the utility industry for over a decade.
My point was
(1) when comparing peakers vs storage you need to consider the cost of:
Off-peak generation + storage cost vs peaker cost.
(2) This wasn't a cost driven thing. This is a demand driven thing.
Off-peak generation is really cheap, though. It doesn't affect the equation that much. In some places (I'm sure SoCal isn't one of them) it's cheaper than free sometimes.
And of course it was a cost driven thing. This is the cheapest way to meet the demand. If there were a cheaper way, they would have taken that.
Energy density of gas (at conventional pressure) is 100x lower than that of a charged battery. Storing gas instead of electricity might not be such a good option.
Otoh, a gas tank requires only O(E^(2/3)) material, while a battery requires O(E) material, where E = stored energy.
Your mention of Alibaba made me think of something. I believe the electrical manufacturing world is much more globally integrated than the mechanical world. I say that as a practicing mechanical engineer. A resistor, capacitor, chip are the same in US, Europe & China. On the mechanical side all have different material standards and industrial standards.
And here is the US's disadvantage there, we are still on an island when it comes to that stuff. Sure you can get some metric nuts and bolts here (in US steel grades). But try buying European grade steel here (nigh impossible). Try getting an EN (nee DIN) or JIS flange here (do-able but lots of calling around). Try finding an engineer competent in the PED or machinery directive.
In Europe and Asia they can get US materials and make to our standard and sell to us. But its much harder and more rare to make products here and sell them to Europe and Asia. Usually you are making a US product, and "proving equivalency" with the European and Asian standards.
A mechanical engineering professor at our institution loves to ask the uninitiated what the difference between the two is. His answer, "It's the intent or purpose for which it's being used."
From the linked document, it sounds like the key difference is whether it's tightened by the head (screw) or by torquing down a nut (bolt). Seems like an adequate definition, but then I don't work for the government, so I guess somebody, somewhere, needs 17 more pages of guidance.
Parenthetically, if you want to get a Ronald Reagan elected over a Jimmy Carter, this is how you get a Ronald Reagan elected over a Jimmy Carter. You wave a document like this around in front of a TV camera.
> Parenthetically, if you want to get a Ronald Reagan elected over a Jimmy Carter, this is how you get a Ronald Reagan elected over a Jimmy Carter. You wave a document like this around in front of a TV camera.
That this can work only makes me sad about the intelligence level and sanity of the population. Documents like these don't get crafted because the government has nothing better to do - it's usually a hotfix applied to a hotfix. There's a law, then there's some "entrepreneur" who uses a technicality to get around its spirit, and then the govt needs to patch the exploit. Rinse, repeat. It's not difficult to understand, but sadly, I don't expect most people to do so before outrage instinct kicks in.
This. I took Calc 1 twice. First time was during the day in a big auditorium style classroom. The prof had a pompous attitude, like he didn't even want to be there. I dropped the class mid-term. I re-took it in the evening. Smaller class size, mostly "non-traditional" students. Prof was awesome. Frequently stopped the lesson to re-explain things and made sure everyone was understanding, stayed after class to help students. Because of that class I actually "got" calculus.
