Talk:Islanding

A fact from Islanding appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 11 June 2011 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:

Did you know... that despite tests showing "virtually zero" risk, utility companies still cite islanding concerns to refuse connection of new distributed generation systems?

A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2011/June.

Wikipedia

Added a citation and expanded the original article a bit based on the citation Gearløs 10:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rate of change of frequency

One of the preferred passive detection methods in detecting an island is the measurement of the rate of change of frequency (ROCOF).

Smilesgiles89 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pros and cons of passive detection methods

Passive detection methods generally can lead to spurious operation of tripping devices. For example, a detector may measure a change in frequency which is not actually an islanding event, but the loss of a single major generator or load shedding. Research into being able to distinguish between true islanding events and perceived islanding events is being carried out. For example, in conjunction with the ROCOF measurement, a rate of change of power measurement may also be used.

$P={\frac {EV}{X}}\sin \delta$

In an islanding event, the rate of change of power tends to zero because the reactance, $X$ , tends to zero, whilst it does not in the case of a different type of fault. Please see Advanced ROCOF Protection Of Synchronous Generator by Liu, Thomas, etc. for further reading.

Smilesgiles89 (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Expert review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was: The topic is notable. Will remove notability tag. --B. Wolterding 09:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As part of the Notability wikiproject, I am trying to sort out whether this topic is notable enough to have its own article. Actually the article is currently a complete mess and desparately needs cleanup. But my question is actually: Is this topic notable enough for an own article, should it be merged somewhere, or should it be discarded?

Your opinions are welcome; please add your comments below. --B. Wolterding 14:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Islanding is new to me but I definitely think it's notable in view of the growing use of photovoltaics and inverters. Biscuittin 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Islanding dangers

Islanding can be dangerous to utility workers, who may not realize that the building is still powered even though there's no power from the grid.

This one comes up time and time again,frequently as 'dangerous backfeeding' to utility workers. While this is theoretically POSSIBLE, it's *HIGHLY* unlikely.

1) Routine safety procedeurs check if the cable about to be worked on is live or not. 2) Here (South Africa) if a route is being worked on, a dead short is placed across it. (So that if it accidentally becomes live, there's very little danger.) 3) Any power source IN a building will be 'looking back' into the grid , will be effectively 'looking' into a dead short.

41.208.48.160 (talk) 06:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

valuable resource underutilized

As we build more and more distributed residential power generation in the US, it is a shame that the current standard is for it to all totally shut down when it is most needed -- when the main grid stops working.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

needs related article (see also) list.

This needs a thorough list of related articles. i am trying to find a article that covers overvoltages when there are too many putting power in. it would help if wikipedia provided the ability to see a list of articles directing to this article, since such an effort would be difficult with other articles having the same problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlieb000 (talk • contribs) 05:33, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good article

Unlike many other electric engineering articles in Wikipedia, I think that this is one very well-written, thorough but understandable (for a reader with an appropriate background, that is). It covered many aspects of the problem. Kudos to the authors.

Still, one aspect remains unclear: point 2, end-user equipment damage. The article just skims over that topic, asserting that "islanding detection systems also have absolute thresholds that will trip long before..." But it assumes that there is a reliable islanding protection. However, what will happen if there is not, or if it fails? My understanding is that islanding detection is tricky, or at least expensive. What will happen if a small generator of, say, 300 kVA feeds an island worth 600 kW of consumption? Frequency will drop, voltages will drop, generator will overload, something will break? 91.233.24.6 (talk) 09:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest alternatives

My suggestion is for the electricity companies and manufacturers of grid-connected inverters agree on a new system. The electricity company sends a high-frequency signal or intermitant heart-beat for all inverters (or generators) to listen to (or a generic coded signal every 5seconds). When the power from the grid fails, the signal is stopped, the inverters etc. sense this and disconnect. This way it doesn't matter how many grid connected solar etc. are in the street, the systems will always disconnect. No one but the electricity company sends the signal and assume if the power fails the signal is also stopped from sending eg. if it needs to be on every transformer then add current sensing on the grid side of transformer in the street? tygrus (talk) 07:51, 31 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Islanding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:50, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]