Remember me
▼ Content

Do we handle electricity correct?


Do we handle electricity correct?13-12-2019 00:10
Anders
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
I am from a country where we trade electricity on the Northpool exchange. Prices on electricity are close to free for 4 hours a day and for 20 hours price differ between 2cents and maybe 3.5cents.

My claim is, that for a part of day producers choose to sell at 2cents because they still make money here, so i GUESS, that real price to produce is close to 1.5cents per kwh.

In my country price for consumers is more like 9cents, this mean we waste alot of money on our road to consumers, but why do we accept this difference?

I understand that we lose alot on delivery over big distance, and I accept that owner of wires need to survive. But do it make sense to us to transport energy that far?

In theory if electric consumption was calculated differently like pay per m2, and we produce electricity within 10-20miles, would we be able to produce at 2cents and lose 50% and pay a fixed price of 1cent - could price be 4cents plus tax?

Why do we transport power for many 100s of miles? We now we lose alot of power on way. Right now goverments speculate in selling coal power from Germany to England! It is a crazy thought!

I wont fight people who claim CO2 is needed in the world - but i hope everyone understand that it make sense to produce power where you use it.

How much of energy produced will dissapear before consumers get it?

JMHO
13-12-2019 12:06
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
Anders wrote:
I am from a country where we trade electricity on the Northpool exchange. Prices on electricity are close to free for 4 hours a day and for 20 hours price differ between 2cents and maybe 3.5cents.

My claim is, that for a part of day producers choose to sell at 2cents because they still make money here, so i GUESS, that real price to produce is close to 1.5cents per kwh.

In my country price for consumers is more like 9cents, this mean we waste alot of money on our road to consumers, but why do we accept this difference?

I understand that we lose alot on delivery over big distance, and I accept that owner of wires need to survive. But do it make sense to us to transport energy that far?

In theory if electric consumption was calculated differently like pay per m2, and we produce electricity within 10-20miles, would we be able to produce at 2cents and lose 50% and pay a fixed price of 1cent - could price be 4cents plus tax?

Why do we transport power for many 100s of miles? We now we lose alot of power on way. Right now goverments speculate in selling coal power from Germany to England! It is a crazy thought!

I wont fight people who claim CO2 is needed in the world - but i hope everyone understand that it make sense to produce power where you use it.

How much of energy produced will dissapear before consumers get it?

JMHO


Hej Anders


Nordpool is är you say simply a marketplace where electricity is traded both on a hourly basis, but also in forwardcontracts. It also has regularions that stipulates balance responsibilities, although that is not the same as the physical balancing on a grid in terms of keeping the frequency at a given Hz +/- given values and what to do when theese thresholds are breached.

Now, you can actually buy (in Sweden) electricity with Nordpool as basis, i.e nordpool + a few öre/kWh. BUT, it is in monthy basis for private consumers. Larger corporations does purchase with on an hourly basis, but so far our metering system isn't up to standards for a nationwide implementation of hourly metering.

In Nordpool the prices can vary quite significantly, during a day, between days, weeks and months. But 9c/kWh för electricity must either be a really bad deal or you include the price for grids and/or taxes. Probably not both though. Grids in Sweden is a local monopolly, i.e you can choose electricity but not grid. And the prices for grid varies significantly depending upon where you live, but it also under heavy preassure for the regulators to do something about the sharp increases in grid-fees we have seen lately. That is also underway as we speak.

Over to losses, which are very countrydependent. Contrary to what most People think the majority le the losses is NOT from the long high Voltage lines we have. In Sweden the energy losses on the 220kV/400kV backbone is only about 2,5 to 3 TWh, which represents just about 2 % of the anual generation. The majority ps the losses is within the underlying regional grids and local grids, where the latter still holds the most part of the loases. All in all our losses are at ~10 TWh / year, or about 1.5 %. The wheather however works with us, since the momentaneous effect-losses are temperature dependency due to changes in resestivity. So basically, whem we need more effect during winter time the external temperature will help to decrease the losses, but at the same time when we transfer more power will will increase temperature slightly..

With the continous expansion of HVDC we will decrease the losses, among others benefits. Rights now China is leading that race and their biggest HVDC is now at 12 GW over a distance of more than 3000 km running at 1100kV...

Hopw this answers some of your questions.
13-12-2019 13:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
MarcusR wrote: In Sweden the energy losses on the 220kV/400kV backbone is only about 2,5 to 3 TWh, which represents just about 2 % of the anual generation.


From a discussion of electric cars earlier:
tmiddles wrote:
Crap
the U.S. loses more than 67.8% of the electricity that is generated in our Grid.
13-12-2019 21:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
Anders wrote:
I am from a country where we trade electricity on the Northpool exchange. Prices on electricity are close to free for 4 hours a day and for 20 hours price differ between 2cents and maybe 3.5cents.

My claim is, that for a part of day producers choose to sell at 2cents because they still make money here, so i GUESS, that real price to produce is close to 1.5cents per kwh.

In my country price for consumers is more like 9cents, this mean we waste alot of money on our road to consumers, but why do we accept this difference?

I understand that we lose alot on delivery over big distance, and I accept that owner of wires need to survive. But do it make sense to us to transport energy that far?

In theory if electric consumption was calculated differently like pay per m2, and we produce electricity within 10-20miles, would we be able to produce at 2cents and lose 50% and pay a fixed price of 1cent - could price be 4cents plus tax?

Why do we transport power for many 100s of miles? We now we lose alot of power on way. Right now goverments speculate in selling coal power from Germany to England! It is a crazy thought!

I wont fight people who claim CO2 is needed in the world - but i hope everyone understand that it make sense to produce power where you use it.

How much of energy produced will dissapear before consumers get it?

JMHO


It actually does make a certain amount of sense to transmit electricity that far. Most electricity is used fairly close to where it's generated. The additional transmitted long distance covers any gaps.

As for how much is lost, that depends on the voltage used for transmission, the type of wiring, how well it's maintained, and even the humidity in the area at the time. There is no fixed number per mile.

The amount lost for most power transmission lines is trivial compared to that useful at the end of the line. Long haul lines can often run into 800kV. This minimizes waste heat on the line. Much more than this and corona losses become too significant.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-12-2019 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote: In Sweden the energy losses on the 220kV/400kV backbone is only about 2,5 to 3 TWh, which represents just about 2 % of the anual generation.


From a discussion of electric cars earlier:
tmiddles wrote:
Crap
the U.S. loses more than 67.8% of the electricity that is generated in our Grid.


As before, and as I already told you, this article contains paradoxes. It is making up numbers and quoting conflicting numbers from someone else that makes up numbers.
RDCF.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-12-2019 12:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:....this article contains paradoxes....
ITN/IBD... never trust the printed word. Only the oral tradition of learning.

So many books, so many lies they say!

You should just make a form letter ITN.

"Your reference ___________ is not reliable, and don't bother because ALL references are unreliable. End of discussion"
16-12-2019 23:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:....this article contains paradoxes....
ITN/IBD... never trust the printed word. Only the oral tradition of learning.

So many books, so many lies they say!

You should just make a form letter ITN.

"Your reference ___________ is not reliable, and don't bother because ALL references are unreliable. End of discussion"


Not a book. A website. It's wrong.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
19-12-2019 01:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:....this article contains paradoxes....
ITN/IBD... never trust the printed word. Only the oral tradition of learning.

So many books, so many lies they say!

You should just make a form letter ITN.

"Your reference ___________ is not reliable, and don't bother because ALL references are unreliable. End of discussion"


Not a book. A website. It's wrong.
Again. A normal response would be:
"Your citation is incorrect.
I will prove that with a correct citation which is ____________."

But you never have and never will provide any references for your BS (because there aren't any).
19-12-2019 15:32
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)

the U.S. loses more than 67.8% of the electricity that is generated in our Grid.
[/quote]

Actually, that figure is not electrical losses per se. The definition of electricity losses is "the amounts of electricity injected into the transmission and distribution grids that are not paid for by users". The losses can then be devided Into technical losses (such as the ones previously described here) and non-technical losses such as anything from theft to bad functioning meters.

The figure from LLNL also takes into account generation, and that makes quite a difference. From an energy perspective it is ofcourse relevant, but if is important to know the difference between what LLNL defines as rejected energy and what is defined as electrical losses. I have sent a mail to LLNL for a comment. Lets see what they answer.

They provide an interesting point of view nonetheless !!
19-12-2019 16:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
MarcusR wrote:I have sent a mail to LLNL for a comment. Lets see what they answer.
Very cool! Thanks for that.

Yeah it's a very interesting subject. I was shocked to learn it was so sloppy.
19-12-2019 16:38
MarcusRProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(111)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:I have sent a mail to LLNL for a comment. Lets see what they answer.
Very cool! Thanks for that.

Yeah it's a very interesting subject. I was shocked to learn it was so sloppy.


US technical losses seems to be about 6% which is fairly OK. I have not found a over all figure for non-technical losses, but it is the same where I live.

It is very interesting, and I hope that the head of public relations can out me in contact with the right persons at LLNL. My specific question was what key figures they used for each type of generation. As Always It is whats behind the headline that matters.
20-12-2019 22:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:....this article contains paradoxes....
ITN/IBD... never trust the printed word. Only the oral tradition of learning.

So many books, so many lies they say!

You should just make a form letter ITN.

"Your reference ___________ is not reliable, and don't bother because ALL references are unreliable. End of discussion"


Not a book. A website. It's wrong.
Again. A normal response would be:
"Your citation is incorrect.
I will prove that with a correct citation which is ____________."

But you never have and never will provide any references for your BS (because there aren't any).

No need. The quoted article contains paradoxes as its main argument. That alone renders it an invalid argument.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-12-2019 22:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
MarcusR wrote:

the U.S. loses more than 67.8% of the electricity that is generated in our Grid.


Actually, that figure is not electrical losses per se. The definition of electricity losses is "the amounts of electricity injected into the transmission and distribution grids that are not paid for by users". The losses can then be devided Into technical losses (such as the ones previously described here) and non-technical losses such as anything from theft to bad functioning meters.

The figure from LLNL also takes into account generation, and that makes quite a difference. From an energy perspective it is ofcourse relevant, but if is important to know the difference between what LLNL defines as rejected energy and what is defined as electrical losses. I have sent a mail to LLNL for a comment. Lets see what they answer.

They provide an interesting point of view nonetheless !![/quote]

Nope. If load goes down, generation goes down with it. Nothing is lost there.

You apparently have no concept of voltage, current, resistance, or power.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-12-2019 22:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:I have sent a mail to LLNL for a comment. Lets see what they answer.
Very cool! Thanks for that.

Yeah it's a very interesting subject. I was shocked to learn it was so sloppy.


It isn't.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-12-2019 22:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
MarcusR wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:I have sent a mail to LLNL for a comment. Lets see what they answer.
Very cool! Thanks for that.

Yeah it's a very interesting subject. I was shocked to learn it was so sloppy.


US technical losses seems to be about 6% which is fairly OK. I have not found a over all figure for non-technical losses, but it is the same where I live.

It is very interesting, and I hope that the head of public relations can out me in contact with the right persons at LLNL. My specific question was what key figures they used for each type of generation. As Always It is whats behind the headline that matters.


Define 'technical loss'. Buzzword fallacy. Argument from randU fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-12-2019 23:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3323)
MarcusR wrote:As Always It is whats behind the headline that matters.
Yes! It's so easy to totally mislead with true statements.

MarcusR wrote:The definition of electricity losses is "the amounts of electricity injected into the transmission and distribution grids that are not paid for by users".
That's a business perspective not one based on efficiency.

Like a user of a care pays for all the gas. The energy is released and only 15% moves the car forward. That's 100% efficient for the gas station and 15% efficient as far as energy is concerned.
21-12-2019 01:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13024)
tmiddles wrote:
MarcusR wrote:As Always It is whats behind the headline that matters.
Yes! It's so easy to totally mislead with true statements.

MarcusR wrote:The definition of electricity losses is "the amounts of electricity injected into the transmission and distribution grids that are not paid for by users".
That's a business perspective not one based on efficiency.

Like a user of a care pays for all the gas. The energy is released and only 15% moves the car forward. That's 100% efficient for the gas station and 15% efficient as far as energy is concerned.


Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit




Join the debate Do we handle electricity correct?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is reason for climate change correct?4830-08-2019 03:14
China uses coal for most of its electricity. Should China leave UN if IPCC orders China to925-02-2019 23:27
I have done the correct experiment and concluded CO2 does not affect temperature3709-02-2017 09:06
the 15 C average global temperature figure, how is this even correct?109-01-2016 01:20
I have an idea to correct Global Warming.514-08-2014 08:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact