what does 'pressure force the raw line through the shielding' means ?
696 karma · joined September 5, 2014
Some example: https://www.convertenergy.co.uk https://dualsun.com/
Then I realised couple of things, an humbling experience:
1) given any position on earth, you can compute exactly what's the optimal inclination at any given point in time for a PV to maximize the energy production. Sure, there are reflection and secondary irradiation conditions (eg.: there is a lake close to it), but again, assuming the environment is static, it's way faster to just compute it statically rather than dynamically. Also, in most scenarios Beam irradiance from diffusion (the beam hitting the object) is order of magnitude higher than from reflective one (the same beam bouncing on a 3rd object first).
2) In mechanics movable part are the things to avoid. They have lower MTBF (mean time before failure) and as such they introduce complexity and increase cost
3) Economics is a key component of engineering. There is a cost to everything, the computational power, the energy needed by the servo, etc, etc. Given 1 and 2, a dynamic solution simply has a lower ROI than a static one.
I really appreciate the OP exploration here: there is a good overview of basic control theory and a good foundation of ML (although don't be deceived, this is a very simple modelling task that OP is overkilling with a way more complex model). That said, for everyone reading, this is not something you want to do in a real world situation.
Something is off with earplugs as a product
Cole's Law.
I'd love to also hear more from OP the business side of this venture. OP if you can read me, I'd love to talk!
They usually use as reference their own test methodology, which is overall a bit pointless. Either make it a standard, or adhere to one.
Quote: the government collected several million tonnes of equipment, and extracted 32 kilograms of gold, 3500 kilograms of silver and 2200 kilograms of copper and zinc for the bronze medals
1- what is the response time and the cost for alternative generation: Biomass is a valid 'on demand' alternative here. Geothermal + Tidal, while still intermittent are more predictable (like the Sun) hence it's easier to design ahead. Which is quite useful when it comes to deployment You can read more here: https://courses.edx.org/assets/courseware/v1/95ea4a6731bff7e...
2- what other demand-respond can be achieved/deployed (i.e.: storage and demand side response). For instance hydro is a very good solutions here, malten salt storage, and hydrogen are upcoming technologies. More on flexibility here: https://courses.edx.org/assets/courseware/v1/416cc82fc233d20...
The other aspect to always keep in mind, when looking at a system as mature as the energy grid is COSTS. Most likely the economy of nuclear doesn't work out compared to the alternatives available. (that's why policies and incentives are needed to move away from fossile fuel)
It is a mature system. Having been operating in the space for over 100 years, it is true that the current grid systems are extremely well operated. Yes, even the Western NA and the ERCON (Texas one). They have a very complex system of ancillary services in places, order value of generation based on conditions, etc, etc.
It is also true that having a multi time zones footprint (and multiple geographies) allows for interesting properties. For instance, Denmark energy produced through offshore wind turbines is sent to Norway (equivalent to LA - SEATTLE distance) to be transformed into hydro storage.
So why do we need decentralisation? First of all, there are places where a central grid don’t exists. You can think about Africa, but also some rural areas of US. Having the traditional grid reaching those places is simply not economical feasible. Secondly, while a country level grid is operated effectively, is not always efficient. There are plenty of energy transformation (from DC to AC, but also different voltage conversion, etc). And then there is the OMH low, and energy loss through resistance of the material used to transmit it. To be honest, is not that microgrids don’t have loss, but there are definitely less conversions, and shorter distances to travel Thirdly is resiliency and robustness. If we push for smaller decentralised grids, we are pushing for an extra level of redundancy in the operations, for instance by increasing adoption of residential/neighborhood storage solutions. If one of those microgrids goes down, there are no chain reactions, or tip-over effects, which today are quite common in a centrally operated grid. Lastly, it’s about innovations. Central grid systems have made us ‘lazy’. Energy prices have been going up, but slowly enough that we haven’t been really bothered by them (boiling-the-frog effect). In markets where the traditional grid was not as present/robust, innovation has moved way faster. For example, is no surprise that the majority of residential storage solutions companies are based in Australia, where they are experimenting with multiple chemical compounds (zinc, bromine, titanate, etc) as well as different architectures (ie. Hydrogen)