Hint at a New Prusa Printer?  

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

The reason being that a large fraction of energy usage is simply for heating and cooling, and it costs almost nothing to time-shift heating and cooling by up to 24 hours. You just heat (or cool) a big pile or rocks or a tank of water and distribute it later as needed. This has been commercialized since the 80's but it's not common because most people don't get enough financial incentive to bother. But if the right incentives can be put in place, just making heating and cooling a dispatchable source of demand can help renewables become a much larger piece of the overall energy picture.

I agree for those uses. My point was that in general a household will have a limited number of devices for which demand response does not affect the user: you cannot use it for a TV, coffee machine, it may have limited use for cooking and washing. But heating and cooling are relatively big consumers in a household and there it has a point. However, introduce an electricity storage and suddenly all devices become independent of the incoming power, creating a perfect environment for demand response without any additional requirements to devices or limitations to users. And energy storage becomes cheaper and cheaper, making this option something that was not even considered 10 years ago.

Interesting that you mention that heating! From 2000-2007, I lived in a flat that had 3-rate electricity: day rate, night rate and peak rate (indicated with an indicator light in the kitchen). It had a heating system that heated concrete blocks at night (cheap rate) and gave of the heat during the day. My personal experience is not too positive: I had to make sure they were charged enough in order to have heating late in the evening (those devices were unable to give heat on demand, I know that some other devices were capable of that). Overall, as I was at work the whole day, I would actually have used less energy if I were not to charge it at night and just use heating in the evening (but that was not an option). Also, if the day was colder than anticipated from the night temperature, the stones were not heated enough and you ran out of heat in the evening. On two occasions, it malfunctioned and charged maximally during a hot summer, it took more than a week before temperatures became livable again. 😯 But ok, a bad implementation does not mean the technology is bad. 🙂
The peak rate was an experimental setup where you could decide to postpone cooking so that you could do it at a cheaper rate (sort of a "manual" form of demand response :)). Be are you going to do that? You had no indicator when the peak time would finish. The experimental setup lasted a few years, but was abandoned as it turns out not to make a significant enough difference.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

The experimental setup lasted a few years, but was abandoned as it turns out not to make a significant enough difference.

From your description I'm not surprised to hear that. Customer experience is going to be a big driver of adoption of technologies like this, and unfortunately there's not a lot of attention today on anything other than raw economics.

I know of some cabins in Northern Minnesota which use the heated-brick method and it works very well. They're at the end of a long power line, so there's a huge discount for off-peak power (the power cooperative really doesn't want to have to upgrade the transmission!). The system they use always charges the bricks every night during the cold season, and there's a blower that gets turned on by the thermostat. From experience it's extremely comfortable and zero effort.

The same cabins have three water tanks connected in series. Two only run on off-peak power, and the third runs all the time. It's a clever solution that only requires a timer switch.

Batteries are an important part of the overall system, and will probably be essentially to get from 50% renewables to 100%. But there's so much untapped potential in demand response that costs almost nothing.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

The system they use always charges the bricks every night during the cold season, and there's a blower that gets turned on by the thermostat. From experience it's extremely comfortable and zero effort.

Sounds like it is a similar installation as where I was living. But perhaps with a few small improvements and better implementation. 🙂

Batteries are an important part of the overall system, and will probably be essentially to get from 50% renewables to 100%. But there's so much untapped potential in demand response that costs almost nothing.

Well, I agree. I just think that batteries could be a way to increase the potential. 🙂

Should we move it to "demand response in 3D printers?" 😆

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

I'm extremely skeptable [sic]. I would like to see the study before accepting those conclusions--It just doesn't sound right, and it's way too easy to find contradictory statements:

According to the World energy Coucil, the total amount of solar energy falling annually on the earth surface is 1,059 E15 MWh, while, according to OCDE, the annual primary energy use of the mankind is 15 E10 MWh. The total solar energy potential is then about 7'000 times the human actual use. Of course, we cannot use the total potential, buit there is a good margin. In addition, the geothermal energy, i.e the heat generated in the earth core by natural radioactivity, could also be used. Its potential is about 30 TW or, annually, 2.63 E 11 MWh. This also cannot be exploited totally, and estimates of the electricity generating potential of geothermal energy vary from 35 to 2000 GW depending on the scale of investments or, annually, between 3 E8 and 178 E8 MWh.

I trust the IEEE (an engineering group who is neutral in these types of arrairs) far more than a UN paid for group which is known for wanting to push renewable energy.

Obviously, the 800 lb./363 Kg. holy graillila in the middle of the room is fusion, but since that's been "only 20 years away" for the last 70 years ±, thorium fission might be a more palatable intermediate alternative.

That said, this is really a discussion for elsewhere. Shall we get back to speculation, rumor, and innuendo about a new printer (or line thereof)? 😀

Agreed, thorium reactors are the way to go for now. I am sure we will see fusion as soon as the ice caps all melt, so around 2015. 😉

But yeah, more interesting is the rumor of Prusa abandoning us! 🙂

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

I trust the IEEE (an engineering group who is neutral in these types of arrairs) far more than a UN paid for group which is known for wanting to push renewable energy.

Then why not post a link to this study? :geek:

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

[...] Then why not post a link to this study? :geek:
Never mind studies. When I see liberal bastions like power companies and Walmart popping up wind turbines and solar panels everywhere, I have to think they're not doing it because they want to feel good about saving the planet. They're doing it because it makes good business sense. Politicians can try to make things political issues all they want, business is going to chase the almighty dollar.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

[...] Then why not post a link to this study? :geek:
Never mind studies. When I see liberal bastions like power companies and Walmart popping up wind turbines and solar panels everywhere, I have to think they're not doing it because they want to feel good about saving the planet. They're doing it because it makes good business sense. Politicians can try to make things political issues all they want, business is going to chase the almighty dollar.

"Liberal bastions"? 😕 "Oh, no! You’re supposed to use a sarcastic voice! Now, I look foolish!"--Rocket Raccoon, Guardians 2 😛

I don't disagree; good business sense can include things like PR, tax incentives, and... others.

Rather than just rudely declaring BS, I thought I'd like to see the study to see what I believe may have been misunderstood/misstated/misinterpreted... YMMV.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

[...] Rather than just rudely declaring BS, I thought I'd like to see the study to see what I believe may have been misunderstood/misstated/misinterpreted... YMMV.Oh definitely good to see the source of anything quoted, particularly these days. It's just always interesting seeing business doing what is best for business despite politicization of science (and facts, I guess) these days. I have high hopes for the future of space exploration simply because hot damn! there's money to be made!

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

I am going to ask the obvious question. Why would they produce a new product when they are having trouble delivering the one they currently produce?

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

I am going to ask the obvious question. Why would they produce a new product when they are having trouble delivering the one they currently produce?

Microsquish has been doing it for decades.... 😛

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

I am going to ask the obvious question. Why would they produce a new product when they are having trouble delivering the one they currently produce?
They are selling more than they can keep up with. That's usually a good thing in business. Waiting until everything is perfect is usually a bad move in an industry based on technologies that change as quickly as 3D printing does. Prusa having a warehouse full of unsold printers wouldn't be good for business.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

I think we're (at the risk of further thread drift) talking about supply chain management (though my other half--the Lean 6σ Black Belt--is more conversant on that than me).

Now if Management would implement the Customers for Life philosophy, Prusa might have something...

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

I trust the IEEE (an engineering group who is neutral in these types of arrairs) far more than a UN paid for group which is known for wanting to push renewable energy.

Then why not post a link to this study? :geek:

It was in a print magazine. I will see if I can find it online, though.

I cannot, but I did find this:

https://www.cnet.com/news/figuring-land-use-into-renewable-energy-equation/

It is from 2010 and shows how much land space is needed to meet 100% of the power needs of 2010. It makes the assumption that solar panels can be placed directly next to one another without any space for maintenance workers and that transmission lines, transformers, converters, etc., do not exist. In other words, it is the best case and impossible to achieve scenario. It also assumes cars will never become all electric...

The IEEE report I read took these numbers and added in space for maintenance, took into account where things can actually be placed (putting solar panels in a forest means removing the forest, so they did not put them there), transmission equipment, etc. That is why they determined there simply is not enough land available.

This one:

https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/Renewable-energy-cannot-replace-FF_Lyman.pdf

explains how long it will take to produce the materials needed for the renewable energy sources. For example, if Canada wants to meet its 2050 goal of having 58.5% of its energy needs produces by wind turbines, it will have to produce 5 turbines a day, every day, from now until 2050 (which is simply not possible given the current production infrastructure). These then have to be installed and anyone who lives in their areas will have to be forcibly relocated. To meet Canada's desire for 16.5% of its power to come from hydroelectric, it would have to make new rivers that currently do not exist so they can damn them up and make the land surrounding them flooded and unusable for food or habitation. When China built its largest damn, they had to forcibly relocate over 1 million people. All of this also ignores the massive costs involved.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

Cybersage, thank you for those links. VERY informative

Gary

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

It was in a print magazine. I will see if I can find it online, though.

I cannot, but I did find this:

https://www.cnet.com/news/figuring-land-use-into-renewable-energy-equation/

It is from 2010 and shows how much land space is needed to meet 100% of the power needs of 2010. It makes the assumption that solar panels can be placed directly next to one another without any space for maintenance workers and that transmission lines, transformers, converters, etc., do not exist. In other words, it is the best case and impossible to achieve scenario. It also assumes cars will never become all electric...

The CNET article does not say that... It literally says:

In the second category of the land use study is solar photovoltaics and wind, which have land use requirements in the same range as petroleum and hydropower.

It does say that there is not enough land for biosources:
All of those are just beyond the pale. We would have to double the amount of the Earth's land area that we currently devote to human purposes to get energy from any bio sources so it's just not going to happen," he said. "For 10 percent, maybe a niche market, but don't count on them for broad solutions.

Renewables are perfectly possible. As I mentioned, in Belgium, 8% of power in 2015 was generated from wind turbines (link). Far less than 8% of Belgium is covered with them; it has a population density of 372.06 people/km2 (or 963.6/sq mi) (it is on number 38: link). Using photovoltaics, Belgium currently (data of 2015) generates 4% (according to this link, 4th in the world), but still behind the leading 3 countries that have between 7 and 8 % (same link). Far less than 8% of them is covered in solar panels. This article has even higher numbers (link) as they consider all renewable sources (probably includes geothermal and tidal); it shows that there are almost 10 countries that get at least around 25% from renewable sources.

Also note that the efficiency of solar panels and wind turbines still increases. As a wind turbine example: the wind farm on the Thorntonbank off the Belgian coast has a fewer wind-turbines less than initially planned as the technology advanced enough between planning and building that they could achieve the same output with less turbines.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

Is that the Robert Lyman of the "Friends of Science", whose motto is "The sun is the main driver of climate change. Not [human activity]. Not CO2." and whose president "admitted that about one-third of the funding for the FOS is provided by the oil industry."? https://www.desmogblog.com/friends-of-science

And that's more trustworthy than "a UN paid for group which is known for wanting to push renewable energy."?

Sounds like a bit of P-K-B to me.

While I did find that the World Energy Council is accredited by the U.N., I found nothing about the U.N. paying for it. On the contrary, their revenue sources can be found in their Report and Financial Statements

In any event, neither citation states anything even remotely close to
[IEEE] determined there would be a need for more surface area than our planet currently has. No room for people, trees, animals, etc, just 100% energy generation equipment and it still would not meet our current needs.

I think the best course henceforth would be to agree to disagree, and move on.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

So many big thinkers in here. You're all straight shooters with middle management written all over you.

BTW, the I3 is not finished, at least from a technical standpoint.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

The CNET article does not say that... It literally says:

In the second category of the land use study is solar photovoltaics and wind, which have land use requirements in the same range as petroleum and hydropower.

Which is why I put more than one article, to help in understanding. And yes, if you did not put any room for human workers in a petroleum plant, it would take up far less room as well. Thing is, no one does that.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

I think the best course henceforth would be to agree to disagree, and move on.

True, you we can both agree that you are allowed to be wrong.

Re: Hint at a New Prusa Printer?

So many big thinkers in here. You're all straight shooters with middle management written all over you.

BTW, the I3 is not finished, at least from a technical standpoint.

Agreed. The new MMU 2.0 will be a large improvement for it. I bet there will also eventually be a 3.5 version, with an upgrade kit for 3.0 users. 🙂