The US Power Grid Is Vulnerable And Inefficient

[Belegon]

This story and the events of this winter...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm

...re-emphasize for me that a large part of the problems we are facing in the area of this latest energy crisis have as much or more to do with distribution as supply.

Not only the vulnerability of these systems to failures caused by weather, accident or deliberate manipulation...

Degradation is a MAJOR part of our energy problem. In order to deliver 100 units of electricity to your home in many places, the power plant has to generate 400.

Oh, the expense to fix (or at least reduce) this issue is staggering... but far more of a "sure thing" than some of the experimental research going on.

Of course, the issue of conservation in the election was most visible in the form of Republicans giving out mocking "Obama Tire Pressure Gauges."

Is the very simplicity of this approach considered a negative by many?

 

[R. Richard]

This story and the events of this winter...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm

...re-emphasize for me that a large part of the problems we are facing in the area of this latest energy crisis have as much or more to do with distribution as supply.

Not only the vulnerability of these systems to failures caused by weather, accident or deliberate manipulation...

Degradation is a MAJOR part of our energy problem. In order to deliver 100 units of electricity to your home in many places, the power plant has to generate 400.

Oh, the expense to fix (or at least reduce) this issue is staggering... but far more of a "sure thing" than some of the experimental research going on.

Of course, the issue of conservation in the election was most visible in the form of Republicans giving out mocking "Obama Tire Pressure Gauges."

Is the very simplicity of this approach considered a negative by many?

An orator can convince at least a majority of the people that wind power, sun power and/or geothermal power will solve the energy problems of the united states. The need is simply to find the right words to appeal to the emotions of the people. However, when the orator tries to deal with an issue such as the power grid, then the orator has to move from the area of emotion to the area of practical details. That's where the idea of alternate energy sources fails.

It's not that alternate energy won't work, but that alternate energy won't work this year or next year. In order for alternate energy to work, there needs to be a power grid to move the energy from the remote places where you can realistically put wind farms, solar power farms or geothermal energy plants to the big city, where the power is needed. As you have pointed out, the grid is not currently in place.

The problem is pointing. An orator can point to the wind tower that will produce so much energy [only when the wind blows] and speak to the emotions of the greens. Trying to point to an ugly march of energy grid poles across the landscape doesn't work nearly as well. Thus, orators tend to ignore the less dramatic parts of the system.

The idea of maintaining proper tire pressure is a good one. However,the idea that maintaining proper tire pressure is going to have any real impact on the energy problems of the United States is, frankly, insane.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Oh, the expense to fix (or at least reduce) this issue is staggering... but far more of a "sure thing" than some of the experimental research going on.

Of course, the issue of conservation in the election was most visible in the form of Republicans giving out mocking "Obama Tire Pressure Gauges."

Is the very simplicity of this approach considered a negative by many?

Fixing, as opposed to introducing something new, you mean?

I dunno. I'd like to see us move toward green building and energy...fixing what we have seems like throwing bad money after bad...

But I'm an idealist, I admit, and don't think in very practical terms.

 

[Belegon]

However,the idea that maintaining proper tire pressure is going to have any real impact on the energy problems of the United States is, frankly, insane.

Actually, all research I have ever seen says almost the same thing... on an individual basis, it is effective at saving anywhere from $200.00 to $800.00 a year. (based on 2008 gas prices, when they were in the $4 range.)

Even the GOP admitted the research was solid. They just saw an opportunity to be "cute."

A real impact on the "energy problem?" Debatable. But $800.00? There are plenty of people in the US that would mean something to, and the most needy would get the most benefit.

 

[Belegon]

Fixing, as opposed to introducing something new, you mean?

I dunno. I'd like to see us move toward green building and energy...fixing what we have seems like throwing bad money after bad...

But I'm an idealist, I admit, and don't think in very practical terms.

In San Diego, where the major development didn't kick in until after WWII, most power lines are underground.

The idea of people losing power because someone hit a pole or because of weather would be returned with a blank stare by most residents.

Of course, the extensive power lines over this part of the country would require an investment of literally billions to accomplish that.

Also, part of the problem is resistance. Electricity loses power as it is transmitted. And while we have created far more efficient conduits, they are all expensive.

 

[impressive]

But I'm an idealist, I admit, and don't think in very practical terms.

Ditto.

When the ex (who works for Dept of Energy as an environmental engineer) starts in on how much it would cost to "convert" our infrastructure from fossil fuel-based energy to renewable energy, my response is typically, "So? It's the right thing to do." I've never shied away from hard stuff when it's the right stuff.

However, while we can (and, IMO, should) convert and conserve in many ways, we're just not at the place to fly a jet on solar or wind power -- and a nuclear-powered aircraft would (currently) be too enormous to make it feasible.

I don't think Obama's approach is silly at all. Little stuff adds up and will make a significant difference over time.

Distributed power -- at least for domestic applications -- is a dinosaur. We'll see it replaced in our lifetimes.

 

[R. Richard]

Actually, all research I have ever seen says almost the same thing... on an individual basis, it is effective at saving anywhere from $200.00 to $800.00 a year. (based on 2008 gas prices, when they were in the $4 range.)

Even the GOP admitted the research was solid. They just saw an opportunity to be "cute."

A real impact on the "energy problem?" Debatable. But $800.00? There are plenty of people in the US that would mean something to, and the most needy would get the most benefit.

Let's, just for the moment, assume that proper tire inflation would save 5% of fuel used and that all tires were badly under inflated [unreasonable, but just for the sake of argument.] Then, in order to save $800 per year, the person would have to be spending $16,000 per year on gas, or 4,000 gallons at $4 per gallon. Assuming 15 MPG, the person would then have to be driving 60,000 miles per year. Not likely. Now, using the $200 per year figure, the mileage would only need to be 15,000. Reasonable. However, that assumes that the most needy would indeed use the tire pressure guages on a daily basis.

Let me ask the greens, From your check, what is the exact pressure in all four of your tires, as of this morning?"

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Let me ask the greens, From your check, what is the exact pressure in all four of your tires, as of this morning?"

I don't know. I drive somewhere maybe 2-3 times a month. And I usually check it before I leave and add air at the corner if I need to.

Although when hubbie was commuting (100 miles a day) he did check it daily. We had access to our own air compressor at the time.

 

[trysail]

This story and the events of this winter...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090129/ap_on_re_us/winter_storm

...re-emphasize for me that a large part of the problems we are facing in the area of this latest energy crisis have as much or more to do with distribution as supply.

Not only the vulnerability of these systems to failures caused by weather, accident or deliberate manipulation...

Degradation is a MAJOR part of our energy problem. In order to deliver 100 units of electricity to your home in many places, the power plant has to generate 400.

Oh, the expense to fix (or at least reduce) this issue is staggering... but far more of a "sure thing" than some of the experimental research going on.

Of course, the issue of conservation in the election was most visible in the form of Republicans giving out mocking "Obama Tire Pressure Gauges."

Is the very simplicity of this approach considered a negative by many?

I have to admit that I'm not 100% certain that I see a connection between an aging, inefficient power grid and conservation.

Conservation occurs automatically because consumers have every reason and incentive to save money by consuming less. Similarly, generators, wholesalers, and transmission companies all have powerful incentives to increase the efficiency of the grid by reducing transmission losses.

The distribution system has problems, not the least of which is an enormous amount of "NIMBY" with respect to the construction of new transmission lines.

It is virtually impossible to build new generating facilities in certain areas of the country. When they are able to get permitting, transmission companies are building new lines to arbitrage the price differentials that exist between power-short regions and power-rich regions ( one example would be Allegheny Energy's line now nearing completion which will allow electricity to be imported to the chronically power-short Middle Atlantic region from the comparatively better-supplied Midwest via the PJM regional transmission interconnection: http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/how-we-operate/territory-served.aspx
http://www.pjm.com/about-pjm/how-we-operate.aspx )

Perhaps you viewed the recent PBS-Frontline program called "California's Big Gamble" which examined California's dilemma and the enormous risk the state is running because of its failure to construct any new generating facilities in the last decades. If not, it's well worth the time. Perpetually power-short, California is really rolling the dice— there is no margin for error.

 

[Belegon]

Let's, just for the moment, assume that proper tire inflation would save 5% of fuel used and that all tires were badly under inflated [unreasonable, but just for the sake of argument.] Then, in order to save $800 per year, the person would have to be spending $16,000 per year on gas, or 4,000 gallons at $4 per gallon. Assuming 15 MPG, the person would then have to be driving 60,000 miles per year. Not likely. Now, using the $200 per year figure, the mileage would only need to be 15,000. Reasonable. However, that assumes that the most needy would indeed use the tire pressure guages on a daily basis.

Let me ask the greens, From your check, what is the exact pressure in all four of your tires, as of this morning?"

Look, since you've decided to ramp up the "attitude." I can play there, too.

Fuck, bitch, where the fuck do you live? In SoCal, I have had one-way commutes as long as 93 miles. 15K ain't shit. And what the fuck is this bullshit about "my daily check?"

Shit, motherfucker, once a week is plenty. Or once a fill-up. And if you are putting in 180+ miles a day in a vehicle that gets 15 mpg max, you are filling up plenty.

I can't remember a time in SoCal when my fuel bill was less than $250, even when my commute was more like 12 miles.

So, what's 5% of $1200, you irreverant mother-fucker?

It's enough to pay for your fucking cable so you can watch all the dumb shit you want while stuffing your fat face with KFC, lazy sod. THAT'S how you sell it to the apathetic ones.

Using all caps and a big font makes you important or something? Fuck, bitch ass wannabe lazy suck-ass whiner. Until you can come up with something more creative than a couple of fucking little keystrokes, don't point your fat finger at me and call me lazy.


Okay, now if we can get away from "attitude"...

Yes, tire pressure and regular maintenance of all kinds can be important and cost-effective. just like regular check-ups can save you some pretty fucked up medical bills.

If you are too "inconvenienced" by checking your pressure then you are obviously part of the problem, not part of the solution.

 

[JagFarlane]

In San Diego, where the major development didn't kick in until after WWII, most power lines are underground.

The idea of people losing power because someone hit a pole or because of weather would be returned with a blank stare by most residents.

Of course, the extensive power lines over this part of the country would require an investment of literally billions to accomplish that.

Also, part of the problem is resistance. Electricity loses power as it is transmitted. And while we have created far more efficient conduits, they are all expensive.

You also have to take into effect the environmental impact that would occur. What would you do with all of the chemically treated poles? How are you going to deal with the high voltage lines that criss-cross through the countryside?

Also as a note, you're technically incorrect. The issue is current, not resistance. Electricity does lose energy, but in a different way than you say. The energy lost is through heat produced by current traveling through the resistance of the copper wire.
V = Voltage, I = current, R = Resistance, E = heat energy lost.
Now V = IR. And the measure of E = I2[squared, sorry dunno where the superscript button is]R. So, by dropping the current you rapidly drop the energy lost. You do this by balancing the voltage equation and increasing resistance.

Thus, power companies use high resistance to drop the current, and thus massively drop the loses due to heat.

Ditto.

When the ex (who works for Dept of Energy as an environmental engineer) starts in on how much it would cost to "convert" our infrastructure from fossil fuel-based energy to renewable energy, my response is typically, "So? It's the right thing to do." I've never shied away from hard stuff when it's the right stuff.

However, while we can (and, IMO, should) convert and conserve in many ways, we're just not at the place to fly a jet on solar or wind power -- and a nuclear-powered aircraft would (currently) be too enormous to make it feasible.

I don't think Obama's approach is silly at all. Little stuff adds up and will make a significant difference over time.

Distributed power -- at least for domestic applications -- is a dinosaur. We'll see it replaced in our lifetimes.

I agree that little stuff, over a long period of time will begin to add up.

However, I argue with the "So?". Considering the breadth of the topic at hand, one must consider it will take billions of dollars of work, a couple decades to accomplish, as well as headaches created by traffic, loss of power to homes, and increased power bills. In the end, remember, most of the power network is owned by companies, whom will have to increase charges to the consumer in order to cover the cost of doing this.

But in the end, the big push will be when coal begins to rise in price. Until then, most companies will continue to just use that, rather than risk cutting too much of their profits, and thus increasing consumers bills and lowering their stock, thus lowering the value of your 401K.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

However, I argue with the "So?". Considering the breadth of the topic at hand, one must consider it will take billions of dollars of work, a couple decades to accomplish, as well as headaches created by traffic, loss of power to homes, and increased power bills. In the end, remember, most of the power network is owned by companies, whom will have to increase charges to the consumer in order to cover the cost of doing this.

Again... SO????

There's just no arguing with doing the right thing, kwim? It's cheaper to kill your kid and stuff them in a box than take care of them, too. Would ya?

Ethics is an issue here. What we're doing to the planet is just plain wrong.

 

[Belegon]

Jag, I defer to you on the tech. Not my field. I just know that the farther you send it, the less arrives.

But in the end, the big push will be when coal begins to rise in price. Until then, most companies will continue to just use that, rather than risk cutting too much of their profits, and thus increasing consumers bills and lowering their stock, thus lowering the value of your 401K.

This speaks to the biggest problem.

We need to create an incentive for efficiency. Make it less expensive to improve. Make improving a way to better the bottom line, not hurt it.

How to accomplish that? Ay, there's the rub.

 

[JagFarlane]

Again... SO????

There's just no arguing with doing the right thing, kwim? It's cheaper to kill your kid and stuff them in a box than take care of them, too. Would ya?

Ethics is an issue here. What we're doing to the planet is just plain wrong.

-quirks an eyebrow- Rather extreme example don't you think?

And did I not agree that in the end these things should be done? Yes. However I brought up outside points, stating mostly that it will take time, as well as the other damages that will be done. If you wish to be taken seriously in debates of this nature, then you must contemplate all sides of the argument. You see one end, and only one end, where we must do it without concern of how it will be done. Thats called tunnel vision and its a very poor concept. Thats really why PETA is not taken seriously, they don't contemplate everything, but instead force thoughts with gruesome images. Taking a moment to understand the other side, and instead push for small changes over a slightly longer period of time will get things pushed in motion, instead of asking for the whole pie at once, and getting none.

 

[Guest]

The bad part is that this is not something new.... this has been an ongoing for some time. It is one of the few infrastructures that has been talked about repeatedly being weak and a possible way to collapse the US inwards....

 

[trysail]

...When the ex (who works for Dept of Energy as an environmental engineer) starts in on how much it would cost to "convert" our infrastructure from fossil fuel-based energy to renewable energy, my response is typically, "So? It's the right thing to do." I've never shied away from hard stuff when it's the right stuff.

Well, that makes it easy; we'll just send all the bills to you. Thanks for picking up the tab.

Which do you prefer? Chapter 7 or Chapter 13?

 

[Belegon]

Well, that makes it easy; we'll just send all the bills to you. Thanks for picking up the tab.

Which do you prefer? Chapter 7 or Chapter 13?

speaking of issues with font. etc. Try, I just need to ask. Do you realize that a bunch of people have you on ignore (including me) simply because of your insistence on the oversized font and color game? NOT because of anything you actually have to say?

 

[Selena_Kitt]

-quirks an eyebrow- Rather extreme example don't you think?

Nope.

And did I not agree that in the end these things should be done? Yes. However I brought up outside points, stating mostly that it will take time, as well as the other damages that will be done. If you wish to be taken seriously in debates of this nature, then you must contemplate all sides of the argument. You see one end, and only one end, where we must do it without concern of how it will be done. Thats called tunnel vision and its a very poor concept.

I don't care how it gets done. Not my department. If it's yours, then more power to you. (literally and figuratively...)

But ignoring it and pretending it isn't a problem at all, as has been happening generation after generation, isn't getting anything done, hasn't gotten anything done, and "agreeing it should be done" is the only step we honestly need to move in the right direction.

Unfortunately, that idea has only very, very recently moved to the forefront.

You can't bring back the dead.

 

[xssve]

Trysail, you are aware that you are basically saying we need new power generation, when the real problem is the outdated grid - there is no reason to build new large power generation facilities when the ones they have have to be shut down to keep from blowing the rickety grid during high demand periods - that's why CA has brownouts, it has nothing to do with not having enough generating capacity, it has to do with not having any way to get the energy from here to there - they start shutting down power plants when the grid get to withing 5% of capacity, look it up.

R. Richard, you make no sense either - micropower is the only way to optimize use of the current grid, it's quite simply a question of distance: in order for a large power plant to deliver 1 KW it has to generate at least Two, because of the line losses involved over the distances that energy has to travel - the closer the point generation is to the point of use, the lower the losses - it's that simple, there is no necessity for elaborate hypotheticals, it's simple electrical engineering - the same reason that microprocessors increase their efficiency the smaller they get - the electrons don't have to travel as far.

If it works on the micro scale, what makes you think it doesn't work on the macro scale?

It's the only way you can increase capacity without overloading the grid.

Read: WIRED: The Energy Web

Note the date, this is not new information.

I hate to shout, but flat out, you can build all the new plants you want, you just can't use them, so get a clue already.

 

[R. Richard]

R. Richard, you make no sense either - micropower is the only way to optimize use of the current grid, it's quite simply a question of distance: in order for a large power plant to deliver 1 KW it has to generate at least Two, because of the line losses involved over the distances that energy has to travel - the closer the point generation is to the point of use, the lower the losses - it's that simple, there is no necessity for elaborate hypotheticals, it's simple electrical engineering - the same reason that microprocessors increase their efficiency the smaller they get - the electrons don't have to travel as far.

If it works on the micro scale, what makes you think it doesn't work on the macro scale?

It's the only way you can increase capacity without overloading the grid.

Read: WIRED: The Energy Web

Note the date, this is not new information.

I hate to shout, but flat out, you can build all the new plants you want, you just can't use them, so get a clue already.

xssve: If you would read what I have written, you would see that what you have just said, is my argument against 'green power.' Most green power ideas put the generation facilities remote, windswept, sundrenched area. Thus, the power has to travel a long way to get to 'the big city.' Thus, you have large transmission line losses. If you put micro nuclear plants close to the big city, transmission line losses go way down. If you put wind farms way out in the windswept hills, you get large transmission line losses. The problem with at least current solar power plants is that they are located in the desert, a long way from the big city.

By the way, I keep hearing about battery backups that will keep wind/solar planst going when the sun doesn't shine. The batteries are not large enough to do the job, unless you use so many that you can't afford it. I also read about thermal solar units that will last for 'three days at full power' when the sun doesn't shine. All I can tell you is that the local units can only operate when the sun shines and the grid has to pick up the slack when the sun doesn't shine.

 

[R. Richard]

From your non-answers to my question I strongly suspect that the greens don't actually check your tire's air pressure on any sort of regular basis. [Hint: the answer is not as simple as it seems.]

Belegon, your resonse to my politely asked question is just profanity for the sake of using profanity and also abuse. A complaint will be made.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

From your non-answers to my question I strongly suspect that the greens don't actually check your tire's air pressure on any sort of regular basis. [Hint: the answer is not as simple as it seems.]

I answered you quite clearly.

 

[xssve]

xssve: If you would read what I have written, you would see that what you have just said, is my argument against 'green power.' Most green power ideas put the generation facilities remote, windswept, sundrenched area. Thus, the power has to travel a long way to get to 'the big city.' Thus, you have large transmission line losses. If you put micro nuclear plants close to the big city, transmission line losses go way down. If you put wind farms way out in the windswept hills, you get large transmission line losses. The problem with at least current solar power plants is that they are located in the desert, a long way from the big city.

By the way, I keep hearing about battery backups that will keep wind/solar planst going when the sun doesn't shine. The batteries are not large enough to do the job, unless you use so many that you can't afford it. I also read about thermal solar units that will last for 'three days at full power' when the sun doesn't shine. All I can tell you is that the local units can only operate when the sun shines and the grid has to pick up the slack when the sun doesn't shine.

Sorry, nobody is calling for shutting down current generation facilities, I guess it always helps if you choose the most unrealistic people to debate, then you skip right over all that common sense part.

Micropower is meant to supplement the current power supply, not replace it - you can add capacity without overloading the grid - about half of all energy use is domestic, if everybody in the sunshiny states installed enough solar cells just to run their air conditioners when the sun is shining, it would probably be enough right now to avoid most of the Brown outs when everybody comes home at Five 'O Clock and turns on their air conditioners, opens the refrigerator, turns on the TV, etc.

Not only that, but the increase in demand for PV means that the price would drop due to economies of scale, and maybe in another year or two you could add a few more panels, i.e., phase it in and spread the initial costs, as well as the replacement costs out.

That was the goal of the Clinton/Gore million rooftops program: by installing solar cells on every government building, the one time consumption stimulus would have resulted in economies of scale that would probably have cut the cost of PV in at least half, and we'd have had something to export while the dollar is tanking.

But Whaaaaaah, you say, greenie weeenie meanie blah blah, what about my stocks?

What about your fucking stocks? The Neo Con energy plan has worked out really well for you has it? Buy fucking Siemans AG and shut the fuck up.

 

[xssve]

I know somebody that works for Siemans, and they only run their PV production facility Three months out of the year, that's why PV costs so much.

That is a significant market factor at the moment, but go check the futures on oil a year out.

It's really no longer a question of market distortion, the market is already distorted with ongoing subsides for oil, nuclear, etc., it's costing you right now - it's question of which way do you need to distort the market in order to get it working properly and generating those capital gains again?

It's not that it's the right thing to do, it's the economical thing to do.

 

[R. Richard]

I answered you quite clearly.

My question was: "From your check, what is the exact pressure in all four of your tires, as of this morning?"

You told me that you check your tire pressure before you drive, but didn't cite the exact pressure. You told me that your husband checked his tire pressure each morning. Since it is likely that you would at least sometimes drive your husband's car, you would know what pressure to check for. You didn't cite the tire pressure for your husband's car either.

I'm not a green, but I check my tire pressure very regularly. I own a high performance car and I use the performance, from time to time. I need to know that my tires are at the proper pressure, for safety's sake.