This’ll Kill Ya: They’re Coming For Your Electric Power

Up to 90% of the inhabitants of advanced nations would die within one year, if all electrical power were lost.

No, I Am Not Talking About Electromagnetic Pulse

Area Affected by Nuclear EMP According to Altitude of Blast

Although both North Korea and Iran are steadily working to build the capability to “put the lights out” in all the infidel nations using any means necessary.

Dr. Peter Pry, a member of the Congressional EMP Commission and executive director of the Task Force on National and Homeland Security, said during testimony that the issue is urgent because an EMP event could wide out nine-tenths of the nation’s population. __ Source

But the loss of the continental power grid by any cause could lead to the same dire outcome.

No, I Am Not Talking About CyberAttack

Although both China and Russia are working feverishly to develop the means to shut down any power grid on the globe, should it serve their goals. The collapse of power grids by cyber attack is possible and would lead to many of the same deadly outcomes as collapse by EMP.

A Stable Power System is Vital to any Advanced Nation

A stable power system is one that continuously responds and compensates for power/ frequency disturbances, and completes the required adjustments within an acceptable timeframe to adequately compensate for the power/frequency disturbances. __ Source

Who Needs EMP and CyberAttack When They Have These?

Reliable, Affordable Electricity is a Life or Death Matter

Sure, they kill bats and birds, break down years before their time, make deep maddening noises that drive any humans close by to distraction, and are apt to burst unpredictably into flames. But those problems do not even hint at the life or death threat posed by big wind developments and their cousins big solar.

Why Are Big Wind and Big Solar a Deadly Threat to Humans?

Reliable and affordable power is the life’s blood of any modern society. As long as electric power remains reliable, affordable, and abundant, the wheels of society can keep rolling. Without electric power, as many as 90% of the inhabitants of the advanced nations of Europe and the Anglosphere would die within one year. Up to half of Americans living in cities could die after just two weeks without any power in the national power grids. According to a poll linked above:

Almost 50% of the people who were polled said they would not be able to survive for more than 2 weeks without the electricity. An astonishing 75% of them said they would be dead within two months.

The grid collapse events above are of a sudden and catastrophic nature. But a grid collapse that creeps up gradually behind a media and governmental smokescreen can be equally deadly to large portions of a modern population. Our societies are built upon a foundation of electrical machines, lights, and appliances. Any persons or movements which threaten the reliability, affordability, and supply of electrical power represent deadly threats to that society’s existence.

What Makes a Reliable Power Grid?

Voltage and frequency define a modern grid supply. Both must be kept within close margins of stability, but frequency in particular must be tightly controlled. If one does not understand these basic concepts, he has no chance of understanding the life or death issues of energy policies and the relative merits of large energy supplies of various kinds.

For a power supply system to be stable it is necessary to control the frequency. Control systems continuously observe the frequency, and the rate of change of the frequency. The systems control generator outputs up or down to restore the frequency to the target window. An also as a backup, other control systems measure the frequency and rate of change of frequency and carry out staged load shedding to help restore the frequency to the target window.

Of course energy imbalances of varying size are occurring all the time. Every moment of every day the load is continuously changing, generally following a daily load curve. These changes tend to be gradual and lead to a small rate of change of frequency. Now and then however faults occur. Maybe a whole city is disconnected instantly removing say 50 MW from the grid. Or maybe a generator trips off removing say 100 MW of generation. A power system has to cope with these changes too. The rate of change of frequency in these cases is far higher. These events require a fast response (within a few seconds) if the deviation is to be corrected before system collapse. If the system can cope with the range of disturbances thrown at it, it is described as ‘stable’. If it cannot cope with the disturbances it is described as ‘unstable’. __ Energy Balance and Grid Stability

When large and unpredictable load changes occur, grid supplies and connections must be able to respond very quickly, or the entire grid can collapse. In the face of this innate unpredictability with its threat of potentially catastrophic grid instability, an intelligent observer would expect policymakers to try to increase the robust resilience of the power system and to reduce as many unpredictable threats to grid stability as they can.

Instead, government policy-makers are ramping up unpredictability and potential instability in power grids too quickly for utilities and technological innovation to compensate.

It is the assertion of most professional power engineers who keep the grids operational for a living, that grid penetration of unpredictable energy sources such as big wind and big solar can not be allowed to exceed 20% — else grids will grow unstable, risking collapse. But Germany is aiming for a renewables grid penetration of 50% by 2030 and 80% by 2050. Renewable advocate Mark Jacobson of Stanford University is on record claiming that a 100% grid penetration by renewables can be both affordable and reliable. Who is right, and who is headed for disaster?

The Debate: 100% Renewables Pro or Con?

On the face of it, it makes no sense to expect unreliable intermittent sources of energy to be able to match unpredictable changes in demand. But wind/solar activist professor Jacobson makes a bold try at “making water flow uphill.”

Mark Jacobson’s 2015 paper in PNAS claims an affordable and reliable path to 100% renewable energy supply. Jacobson made a large number of questionable assumptions in asserting what would seem (to anyone who knows anything about power grids) impossible.

But a recent 2017 PNAS examination of Jacobson’s paper by more careful investigators reveals some startling weaknesses and outright falsehoods contained within the Stanford energy activist’s paper. Once again, we see how activism and science do not mix well in a free society.

The new paper concludes that the prior study is based upon significant modeling inadequacies, is “poorly executed” and contains “numerous shortcomings” and “errors” making it “unreliable as a guide about the likely cost, technical reliability, or feasibility of a 100% wind, solar and hydroelectric power system.”

Additionally the new paper harshly chastises the previous study by noting “It is one thing to explore the potential use of technologies in a clearly caveated hypothetical analysis; it is quite another to claim that a model using these technologies at an unprecedented scale conclusively shows the feasibility and reliability of the modeled energy system implemented by midcentury.”

The new paper describes in detail many flaws and failures of the prior study to address and appropriately deal with critical electric system reliability requirements… __ WUWT

More on the recent PNAS expose of Mark Jacobson’s shenanigans from Brian Wang

Grid Stability: Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Generation

Conventional power generators driven by coal, nuclear, and natural gas turbines add stability to the electrical grid because they operate synchronously with grid power. This provides near-instantaneous frequency control. But synchronous generators can also be “governed” to adjust the energy input and thereby control frequency.

Synchronous generators are controllable by governors which monitor system frequency and adjust prime mover input to bring correction to frequency movements. Asynchronous generators are typically used in applications where the energy source is not controllable, eg: wind turbines. These generators cannot respond to frequency movements representing a system energy imbalance. They are instead a cause of energy imbalance.

… Synchronous machines provide stability under power system imbalances because the kinetic energy of their rotors (and prime movers) is locked in synchronism with the grid through the magnetic field between the rotor and the stator. __ Synchronous vs. Asynchronous Generators

More on this:

Conventional generation has characteristics that support the stability and operation of the grid. They have inertial mass and spin in synchronism with the wave forms powering the system while readily providing voltage and frequency support. The grid was built upon and depends on the characteristics associated with large rotating machines. __

Big wind and big solar have no similar grid support mechanism, nor could they. This means that the more wind and solar that is thrown slapdash onto the grid, the more unstable it becomes.

You Cannot Control the Wind or the Sun

One of the many fatal flaws of wind and solar energy in the context of large electrical grids is that energy output is erratic, and not available on demand (not dispatchable). A patient in an intensive care bed on a ventilator and computer controlled intravenous pump cannot wait around for the wind to blow or the sun to come up high enough to provide energy. In a modern society, high quality – affordable – reliable – abundant electric power must be available at the flip of a switch.

What is less well known is that erratic and quickly changing power inputs fed into the grid create constant mini-instabilities which must be solved on a moment to moment basis. Failure to solve these constant mini-crises of wildly fluctuating intermittency can lead to destruction of customers’ sensitive equipment and in some cases to grid collapse.

South Australia: Poster Boy for Green Disaster

South Australia — like California and Germany — is at the forefront of the government-mandated intermittent energy experiment. Predictably, prices are high and reliability is low. South Australia has pushed grid instability to the point of failure, risking the economic livelihoods of its residents on a technology that cannot perform as advertised.

Produce supplier Tony Belperia said supermarkets were already suffering from “ridiculous” power increases and were losing thousands in blackouts.

“When power goes out in supermarkets, you’re talking thousands and thousands of dollars,” he said.

“Once it goes out over 24 hours, you start throwing your stock out, such as ice creams and frozen stuff.

“We supply [produce] locally, all the country areas, as far as Coober Pedy and all the way to Mount Gambier. Everyone reckons it’s a joke about this power.

“What are the governments doing about it? Nothing. They’re just sitting back.” __

Will hospitals have to start throwing out their critically ill patients in the same way that grocers are throwing out their spoiled frozen goods? It may be just a matter of time.

We should get used to hearing more stories such as the above from Australia, Germany, California, and the other green delusional jurisdictions who never seem to learn. Spain and Denmark have stepped back a bit from the disastrous government mandates that threatened their economies. Other governments apparently have harder heads, and will need to be concussed by reality in far more forceful ways.

We’re Gonna Need A Lot More Guillotines!

It is government policy that is driving power grids into instability and collapse. Thus it is government policy-makers who are responsible for the carnage that is coming.

First we see higher prices and economic hardship, along with brownouts and blackouts. Then businesses and employers begin moving away in hopes of finding greener energy pastures to graze. With higher unemployment and lower incomes, hard times set to in earnest. Perishable items — including foods, medicines, vaccines, and even people — are thrown onto the rubbish heap in greater numbers due to the inability to power the equipment that had previously kept them fresh and viable.

When the axe falls onto the back of society, who will remember the government policies that led to such problems, and the many activists who cheered on the deadly changes?

We’re gonna need a lot more guillotines.


Renewables and grid reliability

Balance and the Grid

Wind Power Chaos Promises to Deliver Mass Summer Blackouts Across Australia

Comparing Costs of Intermittent and Dispatchable Generation: Why Popular Cost Comparisons Fail Badly

Shocker: Government mandated trillions in global renewable investment tally

It is the unpredictable occurrences that set the collapse in motion. When government officials go out of the way to make the life-or-death power grid more vulnerable to unexpected events, they set themselves up for culpability of mass murder on an unprecedented scale.

Without Heavy Government Subsidies, Unreliables are Doomed

… in the markets where governments reduced generous financial support for solar, wind and electric vehicles, sales have plummeted. New European solar installations dropped by one-third in 2016 as several countries reduced high prices for purchased power.

… An end to heavy subsidies and mandates might not cause the near-disappearance of these industries as in the past, but some serious retrenchment is a real possibility and it’s puzzling that so many are treating that as impossible. __ Michael Lynch

Natural gas cleanest and most versatile form of energy, next to advanced nuclear.

Advanced societies cannot survive without abundant, affordable, reliable electric power — the cleaner the better. That is why advanced nuclear and natural gas should receive the lion’s share of backing, and why the unreliables should be ejected post haste.

This entry was posted in Electrical Power Grid, Energy, Green Quagmire and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.