Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

Thatingles t1_iqn0rsz wrote

Nice work, this is super useful for small communities and a good example of how the developed nations can produce ideas to help the developing ones.

211

Pezdrake t1_iqph57b wrote

Puerto Rico could use this RIGHT NOW.

35

Bebilith t1_iqpc9de wrote

Not very efficient though. Mechanical losses will be high.

Ok for a drop in as an emergency or temporary solution.

16

bizzaro321 t1_iqpkib5 wrote

It’s not about efficiency; it’s about shifting reliance away from major providers. Efficiency wouldn’t matter if we had a distributed, renewable power grid.

21

Bebilith t1_iqpl4bi wrote

Oh don’t get me wrong. I think micro grid are definitely the way to go. I just this the ‘expensive’ electronic controller (as described in the article, not me) is a better fit for long term and efficiency.

4

iksbob t1_iqpszwi wrote

It sounds to me like they're suggesting grid-connection management devices (such as an inverter for a solar power installation) should all have a simple ad-hoc mode so that local grids can be patched together when faced with major infrastructure damage. It's not a replacement for organized infrastructure, but a minimalist system that can still load-manage when your infrastructure consists of nothing but extension cords.

3

Bebilith t1_iqqb6ca wrote

I reread the article. I missed that they mentioned a 155k/Mw controller. I was thinking a lot smaller scale when they mentioned micro grid.

3

halibutface t1_iqpqepi wrote

All the Territories, most islands and rural indigenous areas in Canada could use this as well, all of which are relying on diesel right now with not much of an actual plan to stop.

7

jimius t1_iqq9ss8 wrote

These ideas are also meant for the "developed" world. Large central fossil feul burning is on the way out. Local wind and solar is the future. The benefits of centralized energy production in terms of economies of scale make less sense in a renewable world.

3

Pbleadhead t1_iqnn5mw wrote

Step 1: Set up Microgrid.

Step 2: Set up micromanufacting on microgrid capable of producing microgrid parts.

Step 3: ???

Step 4: Conquer the galaxy.

134

devilishycleverchap t1_iqnovko wrote

Dyson sphere isn't the greenest of power sources

41

kosmoskolio t1_iqnu6pp wrote

I don’t understand what you’re saying. I know what’s a dyson sphere. Could you explain the joke ?

23

JoeyLovesGuns t1_iqnzra0 wrote

A dyson sphere is essentially putting a solar panel around the sun.

14

kosmoskolio t1_iqo0rhy wrote

Yeah, I know.

10

MetaLizard t1_iqo7dl7 wrote

So totally or partially stopping the sunlight from reaching earth would be extremely environmentally unfriendly, or not very green.

An interesting scenario that stems from this is that if one wanted to build a dyson sphere while preserving life as we know it on Earth, they would have a few options to pick from. Build a partial sphere, excluding a narrow band on the plane that Earth orbits. Slightly more efficient would be to build a sphere with a porthole window that rotates to keep earth in the spotlight. You could have the whole sphere rotate or the band on the Earth's orbital plane that includes the window.

18

alien_simulacrum t1_iqoj689 wrote

Make a Dyson sphere around a different star.

Or - and hear me out - we could sacrifice billionaires to the ancient ones and use the incredible force of their can-do attitude and sheer gumption to power the Earth.

41

Da_WooDr t1_iqonkgb wrote

This is most logical.

Such provactive thoughts,

Ahhh yes,

Truly

12

Pezdrake t1_iqph938 wrote

The important thing is that we're talking about it.

6

Onlymediumsteak t1_iqoh33q wrote

You can have empty spots in the swarm that let light trough earth, mirrors could also be used.

4

keastes t1_isw88gw wrote

They specifically said sphere, not swarm.

1

Onlymediumsteak t1_iswgbib wrote

Then have an hole/holes and mirrors that redirect the light. A civilisation that builds Dyson spheres could probably light earth with its own Fusion reactors, I can’t see how this would be an insurmountable problem.

1

urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_iqok1ks wrote

A Dyson sphere is a sohere around the sun where the living surface is the internal wall of the sphere, there is no need for earth

the huge amount of liveable surface would allow more than trillions to live in a temperate environment and because its encasing the sun the whole energy output is available for harvesting

4

Miyk t1_iqoobbq wrote

Don't forget the sunscreen

4

narrill t1_iqp7zok wrote

There have been later fictional variants that had habitable elements, but the original description was just an energy collection device

3

TwentySevenNihilists t1_iqoeuf8 wrote

Why not just build the sphere around the Earth? And maybe Mars? Sure the surface area would become a ridiculous number that doesn't have it's own name, but we wouldn't be relying on an engineered solution to keep Earth from freezing over.

Bonus: seemingly limitless habitable area if it's fancy enough to have rock, water, and atmosphere on the inside surface.

3

littlebitsofspider t1_iqojtvu wrote

Bad time. Let's say your sphere is 2 AU in diameter, enclosing the inner planets (roughly where the Belt is). Sounds good? No! Because now there's a whole surface that has the same albedo as Earth, pointed at Earth. Kiss your diurnal cycle goodbye and kiss radiative nighttime heat transfer goodbye.

4

NiveKoEN t1_iqoshon wrote

This is so bad in so many ways. The point of a Dyson sphere is to capture the radiation of the sun that the earth doesn’t get at all.

1

TwentySevenNihilists t1_iqosxsk wrote

I meant a sphere centered on the sun, that's big enough to enclose the Earth too.

Turns out that's still a bad idea, but you'd capture all the radiation of the sun that didn't hit planets and such.

1

sharksfuckyeah t1_iqpjeo5 wrote

You’re assuming the sphere would be solid, composed of solar panels and also inside of Earths orbit. Doesn’t have to be any of those.

2

keastes t1_isw8642 wrote

Or a Dyson swarm operating at earth syncronous orbits? At these scales orbital mechanics is easy, physics are hard.

Tho imo a matryoshka brain made from the inner planets would probably be the best option

1

Ma_barron40 t1_iqp8bba wrote

It's a game on steam. You are flown to a randomly generated cluster of planets and you must create a dyson sphere on the nearest star.

3

TheClinicallyInsane t1_iqpo80a wrote

I believe, in this context, because you'd have to refine and process all the materials in a Dyson sphere---youd still produce emissions that were harmful. More than likely you'd be doing it on some other planet or in space or whatever. But it WOULD make pollution.

2

131sean131 t1_iqpo2ss wrote

Von Neumann probe your way to success and conquer.

2

kkrreddit t1_iqo2kme wrote

Step 3 is using the infinite power to to produce whatever we want

1

AKravr t1_iqozusc wrote

Get taxed to the point of disappearing because by manufacturing you're now part of interstate commerce and your economies of scale can't keep up lol.

−6

TheRealIsNow t1_iqniatg wrote

This is what the utility companies have been so invested in fighting against, any contention of their own legal monopoly.

113

[deleted] t1_iqo1o75 wrote

[deleted]

39

Knackered_lot t1_iqqrudr wrote

Where do you get this 90% efficiency from? I have heard the batteries used for the grid have been tested to produce 1KW for every 3KW stored

3

[deleted] t1_iqqwxrf wrote

[deleted]

1

Knackered_lot t1_irxl9gk wrote

Yeah maybe for things like phone batteries. Grid batteries are a whole different beast. A significant amount of KVARs is necessary to run a grid. Batteries don't scale 1:1 when comparing small Lithium batteries to ones that provide power to a grid.

In other words, the inverter necessary to store the energy from AC to DC uses power, and the same vice versa for supplying power. I'm not thinking of hydrogen, just the application of batteries on a grid.

1

TheDruidsKeeper t1_iqrxn75 wrote

This is the way I always set up my power grids in Minecraft, and it works really well.

1

Koda_20 t1_iqoe9w1 wrote

Batteries are crazy bad for environment from mining to fabricating

−11

MildlyInfuria8ing t1_iqogotj wrote

That ship is starting to sail. Advances have shown we can use much more environment friendly materials, and we can recycle many existing batteries. We can take the dirty recycled batteries and use the recovered materials to build cleaner and easier to recycle versions.

And to be frank, it's not like all the mining for coal, fracking, oil refining, etc are any more cleaner. If we can invest in 'not perfect' forms of energy storage to transition away from an energy system that is environmentally damaging from start to finish, we can move towards dramatically less damaging energy production.

It's not that we should be okay lithium ion is dirty during production and recycling, it's that we need to weight the pros and cons of staying the course on an environmentally damaging fossil fuel system, or working towards a system that in the LONG RUN will be much cleaner in most aspects.

24

99D9 t1_iqoo4n4 wrote

Maybe a solution needs to be found in the context of cleaner mining? What makes mining so dirty (apart from outputs or side effects of the machines used to mine)?

2

MildlyInfuria8ing t1_iqopjwh wrote

Mining is only a piece of the puzzle, but it is dirty for all industries, and many industries employ or buy from mines with questionable practices and human rights records. In many cases, the issue is that the materials and thus the mines are in undeveloped countries, or countries that are looking for money over treating their populace properly. Think/research stuff like blood diamonds.

What makes these mines dirty is the lack of regulation, so companies are free to run it as dangerously and cheaply as possible at the expense of environmental impacts and human suffering. These mines, usually in countries with questionable to terrible records, are not controlled by the developed countries who need those resources. An example is if America told China to clean up it's mining. China would laugh at America, who has no jurisdiction or path for reprisal, and continue to do as it pleased. There simply is no reasonable way to force a mine in another country to clean up.

That's why it is insanely important to research and develop recycling, and to enact incentives for it at the government level. Since we cannot clean up the mining in other countries, and we cannot legally, or reasonably force a company in our own country to source from more expensive but cleaner sources, we need to try a different approach. If you can recover 85% of rare materials from existing batteries/items inside our country, that is 85% less you need to source from the terrible mine in the Congo. The trick is incentivizing companies to use the recycled materials, or to develop processes to make the recycling processes cheaper and that way you can sell the recycled materials for competitive prices. Look up how incentivizing recycling of Lead Acid batteries got us to something like 97% recycle rate.

6

MilkshakeBoy78 t1_iqoxw5e wrote

Is mining for battery material worse than mining for natural gas, oil, etc.?

3

MildlyInfuria8ing t1_iqp08sr wrote

You'll need to specify what you mean by 'worse'. There is CONSIDERABLY more mining and extraction of fossil fuels across the entire globe, both in developed and undeveloped countries. This leads to considerably more emissions and environmental damage than rare earth materials. There is also all the pipeline leaks, ocean platform leaks, etc to weigh in.

I am also led to believe that rare earth material mining is more polluting on an individual mining/operation scale, but because there is farrrrrr less of these mines in operation, it does considerably less global damage. It does more damage locally than globally.

This is why, depending on which side of the fence you are on, there are ways to twist a discussion to make one side sound so much better than the other. Ultimately, both have negative impacts on environment and in many cases the employees and communities they exist in or near. Recycling can be an answer to try and prevent the impacts of either scenario above. We just need the infrastructure and political willpower to make it happen.

2

intellifone t1_iqp1zp4 wrote

Mining isnt that dirty. I mean you’re digging big holes in the ground. But you fill it back up (more complicated than that). It’s refining that is dirty. All those toxic pits are from refining, not mining.

2

anusthrasher96 t1_iqoptoh wrote

All processes involved require energy, which is almost always fossil fuels

0

urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_iqom41d wrote

How bad, are they worse than uranium from mining to fabrication? are they worse than fracking or oil extraction? are they worse than coal?

perhaps we shall cut every tree for our heating needs and forget about the CO2 released to the athmosphere

7

Koda_20 t1_iqoqrqb wrote

Far worse than both of those when you consider the amounts needed and that doesn't seem like it's gonna change for a while.

You don't need much uranium (of thorium if you wanna be 2022) for the amount of energy you get.

−3

urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_iqoyngy wrote

Actually you are wrong as many studies on the environmental footprint of different forms of energy show, on top of it modern batteries are largely recyclable

and thorium in 2022 means nothing because the plants were expected by 2070 , i.e India third phase (as in thorium power plants) and i mention india because they were the ones pushing for thorium since they have some of the largest deposits in the world

as it happens phase one wss eventually completed, phase two has been plaged by cost overrums and delays and as per now mostly paralized, at this point has been a renewed push for nuclear generation but if im correct most are conventional so

and no, uranium power plants using thourium blankets and test runs do not count as commercial thorium plants

4

Minister_for_Magic t1_iqpdos7 wrote

Hilarious that people who don't give a single fuck about mining the metals needed for solar panels, sand for construction, or fucking tar sands for oil suddenly care about the environmental impact of batteries.

Methinks this is not an honest line of argument for these people

3

Koda_20 t1_iqpdtjb wrote

I do give fucks about those things.

1

ElectrikDonuts t1_iqni9kx wrote

Would love to see this for HOAs. Roof top solar with battery backup

38

nsa_reddit_monitor t1_iqnz9lo wrote

HOAs in the future: "your solar panels aren't putting out enough power, here's a daily fine until your output rises"

40

LummoxJR t1_iqpeviw wrote

There won't be HOAs in the future. I'm outlawing them when I become a supervillain.

8

Pezdrake t1_iqpheyh wrote

And yet its the most heroic thing i can imagine.

3

snowseth t1_iqpj9e7 wrote

Wouldn’t a supervillain make them mandatory?

1

LummoxJR t1_iqq33k9 wrote

I'm going to be a beloved supervillain. I will drive the mosquito to extinction, legalize unrestricted sport hunting of spammers, and nuke Redmond.

3

killthegrid t1_iqo7odl wrote

Or you could just create your own microgrid with solar and batteries.

22

MildlyInfuria8ing t1_iqoh9li wrote

Join the solar sub. Most are doing exactly that. It might be my first larger size pet project for my home as well.

11

Kage159 t1_iqovx8c wrote

Yup my dream would be several acres off grid with solar + batteries. In the right area I would consider joining a microgrid with myself and neighbors.

6

lughnasadh OP t1_iqmrlk0 wrote

Submission Statement

I wonder if microgrids are due an economic boom? [13% of the world](https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#:~:text=940%20million%20(13%25%20of%20the,100%2Dfold%20across%20the%20world.) (940 million people) don't have access to mains electricity. These people are poor, but the cost of microgrids can be shared among small communities. If ten households could share the cost of something costing several thousand dollars, something that costs several hundred dollars seems much more doable. Especially if you consider tying the purchase to microfinance initiatives.

14

urmomaisjabbathehutt t1_iqon5i3 wrote

It is happening right now, african comunities that didn't have access to energy now they have access to solar energy

I was just watching the other day a little feed produced by a Massai guy living in a remote area in reddit and he did commented on it

3

zyzzogeton t1_iqp9feq wrote

Developing countries can often leapfrog technologies. By the time most of the developing countries in Central and South America needed to really upgrade their telco infrastructure, mobile towers became easier and cheaper to deploy and that became the norm.

2

TigerRaiders t1_iqnip60 wrote

Jason Badeaux and the network he is building is working to utilize the blockchain to help decentralize battery storage. Worth looking into especially with the tax incentives coming out of the new green deal

−6

Scytle t1_iqo56sc wrote

i have yet to see a reason why blockchain needs to be involved in ANY project, let alone this one. The article states that this is a much simpler and robust system, no block chain needed for this or anything else really.

19

TigerRaiders t1_iqo7lwf wrote

Need and want are different.

Do we need blockchain for this to operate? No.

Can you do more if you use tokenization and strategic incentivized roll outs to deploy robust infrastructure faster than any other company has ever dreamed? Resounding yes.

It’s a novel concept that has been incredibly successful. Having your user base deploy hardware for some kind of token that has a value is a rather interesting concept. Helium and nova labs are excellent examples with other companies also finding incredible success.

The helium network is largest and fastest deployed lora network in the world. While the network has yet to reach its full potential, the idea behind bootstrapping your equipment by incentivized token is proving to be a incredibly successful business model. Whether or not helium will have any actual real world use case is debatable, but the manner in which they roll out the tech is absolutely booming. React Network is one of 100s of new start ups that are adapting that model to deploy infrastructure at alarming rates.

I’m still learning about the React_Network and I’ll also remain a skeptic but from what I’ve learned, that’s going to be a boss project that will really up-end the battery storage sector.

Or I could be totally wrong. It’s all brand spanking new frontiers and I’m loving learning more about all the incredible people building these integrated technology.

Also, as for blockchain use case, check out Pharmaledger. Pharmaledger is partnered with literally every single mega-pharmaceutical. And the kicker? You can’t speculate or make money from their blockchain use case. It’s completely de-monitized token based cryptography utilizing blockchain technologies to make QC and logistics more transparent, accountable and efficient while eliminating those little leaflets (which significantly lowers carbon fuel emissions en bulk). The team heralding that project are some of the best people in the sector.

So I take pause when I hear people claim they have yet to see a reason why blockchain needs to be involved in any project. Are you living under a rock?

−9

Scytle t1_iqo8e0w wrote

i guess they need more grist for the mill, just don't spend more money than you can afford. Hopefully this whole thing blows over soon and we can get back to reality.

7

TigerRaiders t1_iqo8xev wrote

Hate to burst your bubble but T-Mobile just partnered with Helium to utilize their cellular network and to boot, nova labs just received series 4 funding. With the move to Solana, the team will be able to focus on use case rather than maintaining the blockchain.

Lots of clear evidence afoot but everyone has their eyes shut.

−4

anusthrasher96 t1_iqoqn4f wrote

Literally nothing you said had value. Pay people in fake money to do something they could do for real money? Sign me the fuck up! \s

2

TigerRaiders t1_iqou4fh wrote

I don’t know if you are lazy or willfully ignorant but Pharmaledger is using blockchain technology without a monetized coin. So this idea that you are going to use fake money is moot: there is no speculative asset involved in Pharmaledger.

And to boot, Pharmaledger is already working hand in hand with the EU medical regulators and is partnered with:

Bayer Pfizer AstraZeneca Janssen And about 10 other major pharmaceutical companies.

But yes, blockchain technology must be nothing. Carry on.

0

anusthrasher96 t1_iqucvkc wrote

Just because their website uses a lot of big words, doesn't mean they're doing anything useful. From what I can gather from their word soup, they're keeping track of prescriptions' serial numbers... Who cares? We already do that perfectly fine.

1

blankarage t1_iqnz4p1 wrote

Pretty sure this is lobbied against by every Republican/special interests group. These energy companies are public companies that care more about their shareholders than the benefit of communities

​

Theres a reason why cities/states have a "cap" on energy generation from solar panels (I.E. some dont allow you to oversize your system)

3

SnowFlakeUsername2 t1_iqph2bm wrote

So if I'm reading this right, it is using the grids frequency to communicate/regulate the power sources. I read three lengthy articles on this and all have a very vague explanation of how this is done. It would be really interesting to know the frequency varies based on loads. Anyone know more about this than the OP article?

3

mastapsi t1_iqply3w wrote

It sounds like the prime frequency of the microgrid is set by a battery system and its inverter. Everything else uses it as a reference frequency. When the battery is discharging and needs to be charged, it will lower it's output frequency, as a signal that the other generation sources need to increase production. If the battery is charging and needs to discharge, it will raise the frequency.

Frequency only really matters for three phase prime movers. Since the micro grid doesn't have any of those, there is no problem with frequency deviating from the nominal frequency by a half a Hz on either side. Once upon a time, it mattered for clocks, but we use solid state clocks with crystal resonators now.

4

AnotherFuckingSheep t1_iqpmr6z wrote

This is what it sounds to me but also this sounds like the battery is the controller. Is there some natural tendency in the system to increase the frequency when supply is bigger than the load?

1

mastapsi t1_iqpp7g2 wrote

Yes, when you have three phase prime movers (whether that is a motor or a generator). When a generator is over-generating for its load, it will spin faster and frequency will increase. When it is under-generating it will slow down and frequency will decrease. Similar for three phase motors, if there is too much power going into the motor, it will spin faster and force the frequency up, and vice versa.

If there are no three phase prime movers, then there is no natural tenancy for this. In the case of the microgrid, it's entirely manufacturers for signaling purposes.

3

AnotherFuckingSheep t1_iqppi5s wrote

I see so this system is mimicking the system already used in generator and at the same time allows existing diesel generators to also tie into the micro grid

1

SnowFlakeUsername2 t1_iqpuf8g wrote

This makes sense. But couldn't the same thing be accomplished via signaling sent at a different frequency? I'm assuming both would require a simular control system, but with the controller needing a simple low power transmitter VS the inverters varying the power frequency.

1

mastapsi t1_iqpzl4y wrote

The advantage here is it basically ties in with existing droop governors, so you don't need specialized signalling at all. You just need the specialized system driver (the battery system+inverter) that sets the reference frequency.

2

Knackered_lot t1_iqqsen7 wrote

This is not correct. You may be confusing frequency with voltage.

1

mastapsi t1_iqrkx61 wrote

No, it's not voltage. In an AC system, voltage will be determined more by reactive loads and generation than by real load mismatches. If your generators are not producing the right amount of VARs to negate the VARs produced by the system, then your voltage will deviate from your intended system voltage. This is probably not a huge deal on microgrids, since most loads will be unity power factor loads.

Now you can get voltage changes from real load mismatches, but usually you'll trip generators from deviating too far from nominal frequency long before that happens. Rotating generators are very sensitive to frequency, they are designed to run at a specific speed (which correlates directly to system frequency) and deviating too far can cause serious problems, so there is protection on them to trip them offline if they deviate too far from nominal.

2

Knackered_lot t1_irrqji2 wrote

Oh ok. I understand the AC generator part of things, but I am less sure about how this frequency works on a renewable energy microgrid. Does the variable frequency work in a way with the AC (capacitive/inductive) reactance equation? for say, you need a lower current so in an inductive circuit, higher frequency -> higher reactance -> higher impedance -> lower current.

1

mastapsi t1_irrytcm wrote

I don't think it would have much impact at all. The amount of deviation from nominal frequency is minimal, half a Hz in each direction, which is less than 1%. That's why they are using it for signaling.

Most renewables are designed to run their inverters based on a reference frequency from grid mains. For devices with no regulation capability, there would be no change to how this works. But devices that have some regulation (battery storage, hydrogen, wind) would have extra modules to interpret that frequency signal just like a droop controller would and vary their output to help balance the system.

Plus if you have existing rotating generation with droop control, like microhydro or diesel, they can tie in and still function.

1

Tight_Association575 t1_iqpta9l wrote

Yeah this isn’t new….university across the country have viable options for micro grid implementations using all kinds of cheap tech like fly wheels in neighborhoods during peak demand…utility companies make money on distribution not generation. You take distribution away they don’t make money. Follow the money and you will find out why this will never happen

2

FuturologyBot t1_iqmwfwt wrote

The following submission statement was provided by /u/lughnasadh:

Submission Statement

I wonder if microgrids are due an economic boom? [13% of the world](https://ourworldindata.org/energy-access#:~:text=940%20million%20(13%25%20of%20the,100%2Dfold%20across%20the%20world.) (940 million people) don't have access to mains electricity. These people are poor, but the cost of microgrids can be shared among small communities. If ten households could share the cost of something costing several thousand dollars, something that costs several hundred dollars seems much more doable. Especially if you consider tying the purchase to microfinance initiatives.

Please reply to OP's comment here: https://old.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/xsxnqv/the_uss_national_renewable_energy_laboratory/iqmrlk0/

1

dhc710 t1_iqnufiw wrote

And the utilities will never let Congress make it a reality.

1

everybodypretend t1_iqp3qtm wrote

What is congress? Is that something particular to your country?

0

smthngwyrd t1_iqpc3pw wrote

United States congress gets a lot of money from companies

0

LowFunctioningGenius t1_iqp6j7k wrote

I think this is how we beat climate change if you ask me. There is no doubt in my mind that we can’t undo it, but if we can figure out a way to expedite the expansion of these micro grid, we are effectively doing for energy creation and consumption, what microprocessors did for computation. It’s orders of magnitude more responsive and efficient while allowing for a place in the grid to slow in emergency measures such as gas. It’s like heating oil… the shits a lifesaver if you are working with a very low-access area.

1

stupdusrnams t1_iqpeuiu wrote

Just make solar install mandatory and offer incentives to CONSUMERS not companies. But lobbying will NEVER allow that

1

deloreanipsum t1_iqpu28z wrote

It is mandatory on all new home builds in California. One issue with that though is home builders are installing the absolute minimum possible on each home so the homebuyer either needs to add more or pay a true up bill end of every year.

1

Thegoodthebadandaman t1_iqpgvsr wrote

Wait isn't this what Edison wanted to do during the AC/DC fight?

1

Knackered_lot t1_iqqri5f wrote

This will be needed for the lack of VARs that solar produces.

1