Welcome to the Utopia Forums! Register a new account
The current time is Thu Oct 29 21:28:58 2020

Utopia Talk / Politics / Gridstuff
jergul
large member
Fri Sep 11 09:17:56
Nimi
Its not a peak issue so much as a baseline one. Sweden's hydro can easily deal with peaks (its on demand with the push of a button) and fluctuations in wind production, but not if it is already covering baseline use.

The solution probably rests with a combination of conservation and a willingness to shut down energy demanding (kraftkrevende) industry for periods of time (if water resevoir levels require this).

But this still requires a properely dimensioned grid in good repair.
jergul
large member
Fri Sep 11 09:18:24
http://www...iles/countries-o-s/sweden.aspx
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 11 11:01:09
According to Svenska kraftnät, the government institute who is responsible for balancing the grid it is a peak issue that arises because wind can not be prognosticated and because the available effect vs the installed effect is very different. Nuclear availability is 90% during peak hour, hydro around 70% and wind is 9%. Yet we are breaking records in installed and produced effect from wind.

Last year we shut down 1 reactor and some thermal power plants, for a combined 1800 MW loss, at the same time we gained 1500 MW of wind and 260 solar. One thinks ok that is almost a net of 0. Yet we are still at a deficit during peak hours for around 1500 MWh during a normal winter, considerably more during really cold winters. Because as I said solar and wind have low available during peak hour, unlike the reactors and thermal plants. During the summers when the demand is lower, we have to sell the wind power to other countries, like Finland. So we can’t use it. Ironically once the Olkiluoto nuclear plant expansion is finished in Finland, we will probably end up buying Finnish nuclear energy to make up for the reactors we retired… lol?

There are 3 ways you can have deficiencies.

1. Lack of production, that is during a year you produce less than you consume. This is the bulk, the baseline, which Sweden has a lot of, we are net exporter of electricity, wind in particular.
2. Lack of effect during peak hours, this is the flexible mass you need, which Sweden does not have (anymore.
3. Lack of transmission capacity. Which Sweden has local issues with, usually this has resulted in new bakeries and factories being denied to plug into the grid. This is of course something that needs to be resolved, the Swedish grid is dimensioned for the 1950’s!

Solving nr 3, if you also suffer from nr 2, will not solve the problems of CA and Sweden which occur during peaks. Sweden is OK as long as we can buy electricity from Norway and Finland during peak hours, but if the margins are slim in those countries then we will have blackouts. It isn’t one problem.

Now the report does mention as I said in the other thread, that this development will make hydro power even more important for balancing the grid, but that this isn’t without problems. There is no way that the hydroplants will cover the planned retiring of all our reactors, that is for sure. They are a finite reserve.

It is not as simple as a grid capacity issue.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Sep 11 12:06:19
It's a peak issue in California. I love how jergul got owned in the last thread, more or less pivoted, and then declared victory.

lmfao

Interview after interview, article after article, describe California not having enough power generated to supply peak demand around 7:00 PM or so once solar power begins to fade out. Heat waves affecting all of the western US prevent California from pulling from other grids, which is something they heavily rely on. A number of plants either being totally down or partially down on power generation (for various reasons), hydroelectric failing to generate as much as planned because of reduced water levels, etc.

And yet, somehow jergul thinks it's a transmission problem. Sure.

lmfao
jergul
large member
Fri Sep 11 12:28:36
I was not suggesting it was that simple. Though for now, it actually is. The concequences of long term policy visions like hoping Sweden is nuke free by 2050 do not match current realities.

One important point is that Nordic electricity is transnational by design.

Sweden cannot run out of electricity out of sync with any country it is connected to unless there is a grid issue. There is for example nothing (bar transmission losses) to keep electricity produced in Scottish ocean windfarms from being sold to Norway that can in turn sell its own power to Sweden.

If production is the cause of black outs in Sweden, not grid limitations, then it is pretty much game over for Europe. Swedish blackouts would be a symptom of something horribly wrong everywhere.

This is also true for peak use. Sweden cannot black out on its own unless the grid is to blame.

Sweden has a large portion of hydro in its electricity mix. Hydro is by definition flexible. It can pick up any slack in other production for as long as hydro is kept in reserve to do that.

Sweden cannot shut down its nuclear reactors until some gamechanger emerges. But it retains a lot of conservation potential (you do not actually have to lead the world in electricity use per person).

As a side note. A lot of Norwegian electricity production is sold at low cost for industrial use. The purpose is to use excess production for something sort of useful, but we do not actually have to smelt aluminium if consumer demand is consistently large enough to take that supply.
jergul
large member
Fri Sep 11 12:31:37
WoO
You really have to put more effort into reading what I wrote. Perhaps brush up a bit on capitalism too. You seem to be making a North Korean big deal about interstate electricity transmissions.

California can use all the electricity it can buy. Subject only to grid limitations that might hinder electricity getting from A to B.

Its the grid, stupid.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Sep 11 12:42:23
As I already stated, California relies heavily on importing energy from other western states. However, under the conditions we've seen lately with heat waves affecting pretty much the entire western US, that extra energy from other grids is not available in the quantities that California needs.

Or are you suggesting that California can just import the energy from any state in the US on a short notice whim? Because it doesn't work like that.
jergul
large member
Fri Sep 11 14:21:44
WoO
I am saying that any black outs caused by lack of production can occur anywhere in the market if grid capacity is disregarded. It is generally a controlled, rolling blackout.

http://poweroutage.us/area/regions

Here are the technicalities of interstate electricity. California and the States bordering are a common electricity market.

http://electricenergyonline.com/article/energy/category/Energy-Efficiency/82/600062/Arizona-Public-Service-Puget-Sound-Energy-Enter-the-EIMISO-Real-Time-Market-Is-Now-Providing-Low-Cost-Energy-to-Consumers-in-Eight-Western-States.html
Wrath of Orion
Member
Fri Sep 11 17:50:32
Yes, it is a possibility anywhere, but unlikely and not nearly as frequent as the issues California is facing. And it's a CALIFORNIA PRODUCTION ISSSUE, not a fucking grid issue.

California imports almost a third of its electricity at times. California's recent rolling blackout issues were a complex set of circumstances that had little to nothing to do with an inadequate transmission grid (either within or outside of California).

I'm not going to go over it again because it seems you're just incapable of getting off the hill you've already died on several times regarding this topic. Good stuff.
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 12 01:35:52
WoO
There is not such thing as California production issues. California is part of a larger regional electricity market.

Its like you do not understand capitalism and Federal interstate trade regulations that dictate electricity access across state lines.

Have you flipped your position and no longer think that "If their power grid was properly managed and maintained, they'd probably be fine (though I would still say too close for comfort)"?

Now, it is entirely possible that regional electricity production is too low currently because massive record forest fires and multi states of emergence has limited electricity production. The link I posted indicates that is possible now (it was not the case when a few days ago when the discussion started).

Sam Adams
Member
Sat Sep 12 10:33:03
Jergul still doesnt understand that a power plant built inside california would add power to california without the need for more interstate transmission lines.

this aint a hard concept.
Wrath of Orion
Member
Sat Sep 12 11:01:53
California's power grid has not been properly managed or maintained. The grid includes the electricity generating facilities - I was not talking about transmission capabilities within California.

It is well documented that California has had issues with quick spinup gas facilites not coming online, or coming online at lower than needed capacities, and that these issues were not anticipated or well communicated. Hydroelectric generators were running at lower than anticipated levels due to low water levels. Some plants that were taken offline were never adequately replaced, leaving too large of a shortfall around 7:00 PM during heat waves when solar faded out.

This is all easily within your reach to find. As I've said, article upon article and interview after interview clearly outline this. You simply refuse to accept it because you know you're wrong.

California has been relying too much on energy imports and when their own production capability dropped below certain levels, there was not enough readily available energy to import due to the regional heatwave causing other local grids to eat up more of their own (usually excess) power.

I'm done with the conversation. At this point, you're either too stupid to understand or trolling.
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 12 11:46:18
Sammy still doesnt understand that powerplants need transmission lines regardless of where they are built.

Your failure to comprehend state line irrelevance is staggering.

WoO
That is my feeling exactly. You are either too stupid to understand, or are trolling.

If you want to fragment a regional market, then why not fragment it down to county level and look at which counties are not producing enough of their own power?

Otherwise, the regional market of which California is a part was fully capable of producing enough power. At least until the forest fires reached catastrophic levels.

The problem was getting electricity from A to B. Its the grid, stupid.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Sep 12 11:47:17
Jergul
Sweden is a net exporter of electricity, you can on an annual basis produce more electricity than you consume, but at the same time have deficits during the peaks.

"This is also true for peak use."

It isn't, because the installed effect of renewable sources isn't the available effect during the winter peaks. Which is why we have to import it from Norway and Finland during those hours. This works unless we have a really cold winter the stays over Scandinavia for a prolonged time and Norway and Finland no longer have surplus to sell. Or say other weather phenomena that occurred a few years ago, that didn't replenish the reservoirs in Norway and Norway ended up buying from Sweden.

Balancing the grid has become more and more important as grids have grown in complexity and size. When you produce electricity it has to be used, by someone. This becomes a down side for renewable like wind and solar, because you can't turn them on and off with a switch. In Sweden this also creates large fluctuations in prices over the year. These are issues unto themselves by the way. Instability in pricing created because it was an unusually windy or sunny year, means uncertainty for the energy companies and makes it difficult to plan.

The main way the grid capacity is a problem, is as I explained it is a hurdle towards the establishment of new industries, especially in the south. The idea that we should use the dams more, build better transmission to send electricity from the north at a loss of 10% on transmission, nobody in the energy business believe this is a sound approach for a long term balancing of the grid. Certainly not as the trend is to electrify everything and build new server farms and what not.

We need more plannable source, like nuclear. So, I find little consolation in your analysis that the shut down of a few reactors has _perhaps_ been a wake up call for Swedish "symbol politics" and saved the remaining reactors indefinitely. I say perhaps, because at this time this hasn't happened, no new legislation has been written, no official changes in policy have been made. The Swedish energy policy is still aiming for 100% "renewable" and uranium does not count as renewable. We are still on the planned trajectory to retire the remaining reactors. Nobody of course can give a good answer as to what is going to replace them. Wind and solar isn't the answer, clearly as we had to import during peak hour in 2019, one of the windiest years ever, so we produced more wind energy than ever before, just not during the time of the year we needed it.

With that said, Swedish problems is no where near those of California, we are often talking about less than 1 hour of deficit in the southern sectors. For now.
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 12 12:04:48
Nimi
I know that Sweden is usually a net power exporter. I posted a link that gave a pretty good overview.

Sweden is part of the Nordic Spot bourse and is part of the regional market. It does not matter if you have to import electricity periodically.

Electricity has to be used immediately. That is the great thing about hydro as its production rate is incredibly easy to regulate within seconds. It balances supply and demand perfectly.

Water resevoirs are currently the absolutely best way of storing energy.

10% transition loss seems rather low. I would have guessed higher losses. A powerplant running on LNG has something in the region of 65% net energy loss (counting from the LNG process to the transition to electricity).

I don't think anyone knows what will replace nuclear. But I do know it will be a common European problem if it becomes a problem at all. You are too interconnected for it to be a Swedish problem in isolation.

My best guess is ocean based power generation will meet a lot of Europe's energy needs. Both in the form of electricity and in the form of hydrogen (excess electricity generation stored in the form of hydrogen by way of electrolysis of water).

Seb
Member
Sat Sep 12 13:13:42
Jerguls point is that saying California has an electricity production problem is like saying that Manhattan has a food production problem.

There might be a broader mismatch of peak demand and supply across the grid area.

But the idea that states should be self sufficient is ... odd ... and reflects and underdeveloped US electricity grid.
Habebe
Member
Sat Sep 12 13:35:10
Who says the state's should self support all electricity? That just sounds inefficient. There is a reason most areas share grids, the US both buys and sells power to Canada and Mexico, usually do to geographic reasons.

Now CA has been known to mismanage things like not securing enough power ahead of time from neighboring areas.
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 12 13:56:35
habebe
That makes no sense. California is part of a regional market. Long term contracts make no difference as it cannot give priority to this or that customer. Planned blackouts are set by an independent authority. The Federal Government has rules against barriers to interstate trade. The only reason electricity is not getting from A to B is grid issues.
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 12 14:02:00
Barring disaster like massive forest fires over multiple states of course. The entire region has lost a lot of power capacity and almost certainly grid disruptions.

http://poweroutage.us/area/state/california

Its not actually looking that bad right now.

The situation is worse in Oregon

http://poweroutage.us/area/state/oregon
Habebe
Member
Sat Sep 12 14:13:07
And yesterday, California had to impose rolling blackouts because it had failed to maintain sufficient reliable power from natural gas and nuclear plants, or pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states.

It may be that California’s utilities and their regulator, the California Public Utilities Commission, which is also controlled by Gov. Newsom, didn’t want to spend the extra money to guarantee the additional electricity out of fears of raising California’s electricity prices even more than they had already raised them.

http://www...ng-electricity-black-outs/amp/
Habebe
Member
Sat Sep 12 14:21:45
While experts have stated that more grid connections to other states would allow California to export its excess solar and wind generated electricity to other states during sunny times of the day, and to import wind generated electricity when wind is blowing in other Western states but not in California, the legislature has resisted allowing more connections for fear of losing sovereignty over the state's electricity supply.[23][24]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_in_California
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 12 14:35:03
"pay in advance for enough guaranteed electricity imports from other states."

That is not a thing. I read the link. California could imaginably pay some hydro electic company to keep its resevoir full, but that would be on behalf of the entire regional market.

Its illegal to block interstate trade you see. Any electricity produced from an emergency reserve would go everywhere in the region.



jergul
large member
Sat Sep 12 14:37:48
That last post of your goes to "its the grid, stupid".
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 12 14:39:18
You should read the underlying article 24. I can explain it to you if you like.
Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Sat Sep 12 15:33:48
Jergul
We are OK as long as we can buy from each other. One of the key points of the report however is that the margins have shrunk. I want to stress, the grid isn't an issue for Sweden during peak hours, since we have no problems buying it from you guys and supplying into the grid. The peak hour issue is exclusively a availability issue. The grid is an issue for expansion of business, it is an economic growth issue in this sense.

"Water resevoirs are currently the absolutely best way of storing energy."

Funny I was going to say that in some earlier post. If we can find a way to use the solar and wind to pump water back up into the reservoirs, that would be a great. Why are we not doing that? Probably because it is more profitable to sell it to Norway and Finland?

The report if you feel like reading some Swedish.
http://www...a-elmarknaden-rapport-2020.pdf

Seb
"Jerguls point is that saying California has an electricity production problem is like saying that Manhattan has a food production problem."

Electricity isn't food though, as I have pointed out about "balancing the grid" and Jergul mentioned when you produce electricity it has to be used, it isn't similar to food production, not even perishables that can be stored. Technically you can send electricity from Manhattan to LA. It would be a waste though, since some obscene amount of it would go towards transmission. The same argument can of course be made about food production, produce locally to avoid unnecessary transit costs. For food production this isn't always possible, for some foods impossible (climate requirements) but electricity is almost always possible to produce locally or regionally.

I have to say this again, because I once started talking with a guy at a party with a PhD in electrical engineering (it turned out). I said that if some North African country built a giant solar farm they could supply all of Europe with electricity and become filthy rich. He looked at me like I was retarded and explained that to transmit electricity, you need electricity, the longer the distance, the more electricity lost in transit. You produce electricity where you are going to use it.

I am just saying, if you are arguing that that we we should build more lanes on the electro highway, know that Electrical engineers are looking at you as if you are retarded ;)
jergul
large member
Sat Sep 12 16:12:58
Nimi
You have read Dilbert? Civil Engineers will look at you like you are retarded no matter what you say, or if you say nothing at all :).

He is wrong. It is optimal to have colocation, but transmission losses are not a big deal unless the distance is insane. Comparable to say spoilage of food sent to Manhattan :).

Pumped storage gave capital and operating costs. Its more profitable to sell directly. The same logic applies to overinvesting in power plants. It is often better to just take the electricity from elsewhere.

For green energy, the wider the regional network, the more stable as baseline supply. It may not be windy where you are, but it is windy somewhere. Hence my comment on ocean windfarms and hydrogen production. The most likely issue is when it is windy everywhere and overproduction occurs (even after taking hydro and natural gas production offline to limit the glut)).
Seb
Member
Sat Sep 12 18:24:14
Nim, I literally have a PhD in this area.

Effective grids can minimise power losses over long distances (very high voltages), and there are effective ways of storing energy (pump storage).

Yes, it's true that a giant solar farm on North Africa to supply Europe is dumb: engineer it that way and you have one giant source and a huge transmission loss 24/7. That's far from the same thing as saying all electricity should be local. However when you are talking peaks and troughs, particularly where there's an appreciable lag between peaks due to time zone differences, that's a very different thing. The transmission losses for shifting power thousands miles to cover a regular peak for an hour are far less than the opportunity costs of capital sitting idle 23 hours waiting for that peak.

A continental scale grid is entirely feasible and Western Europe actually has one, albeit some issues with directionality. Of course Western Europe is more geographically compact than the US and more densely and evenly populated.

America's grid is nuts because it's less market driven than the EU: everyone thinks America is the land of the free market, but it's also the land of the local utilities where states still have a lot of leverage. The EUs energy markets are policed by the commission which is a fundamentalist on free market in this area, and there's been a lot of regulatory and pretty intervention to segregate grid and production and make the grid work as a n effective market. Supports integration.

The US actually has three distinct regional grids (or did ten years ago and I doubt that's changed much). Within those regional grids there's loads of bottlenecks, directionality issues, and enough local monopoly utility contracts that the whole thing doesn't really work.

I don't know if California's woes can be blamed on a historic under production or grid problems or extenuating circumstances; but the moment you start talking about a specific "California doesn't produce enough energy for itself", you are essentially annoying your regional grid sucks, or you don't have one.

If it's a supply issue, it's because over the entire regional grid there not enough juice going in.

I can explain more about voltages, currents and the impact of reduced local supply but I kinda don't think it's worth while.



Habebe
Member
Sat Sep 12 20:27:38
" 12 14:37:48
That last post of your goes to "its the grid, stupid".

Well , Due specifically to CA politicians mismanaging it though. CA specifically chooses not to build it.They say vaguely that they want more control over the power. Which likely means more renewables, hich is why they lack power to maintain regular service.
jergul
large member
Sun Sep 13 03:05:53
habebe
That is true. Its the first thing anyone has said that supports Sammy's initial argument (waah green energy).

Did you check source 24? Tell me when you have. Its a premise for explaining stuff.

Seb
Heh, I thought you would be all over H2 from surplus hydro and wind production (abeit electrolysis, not from cracking CH4).

I am not a fan of pumped storage. Its symptomatic to me of mismanagement.
sam adams
Member
Sun Sep 13 11:29:10
"Within those regional grids there's loads of bottlenecks, directionality issues, and enough local monopoly utility contracts that the whole thing doesn't really work."

Seb the phd (lol!) jumps on the wrong train. The whole thing works great in 49 states.

sam adams
Member
Sun Sep 13 11:33:59
Keep in mind the US grid does the same thing the euro grid does for half the price.

Unless you are california. Lol.

Phd! Lololol!
Seb
Member
Sun Sep 13 16:37:33
Sam:

It does not.

https://energyprofessionals.com/power-outages-on-the-rise-in-the-us/


https://www.popsci.com/story/environment/why-us-lose-power-storms/

US has more power outages than any other developed economy.

This is why your grid runs for "half the price", you are nickle-and-diming on investment: either to cut tax rates or boost share price, transferring the cost of power outages to businesses and consumers.

The kind of thing third world countries do.
sam adams
Member
Sun Sep 13 18:43:20
Are you trying to compare power outages due to storm damage? Europe has a benign climate with a tiny fraction of storms.

Lol seb fail.
jergul
large member
Mon Sep 14 02:11:41
Sammy
Developed countries are called developed for a reason. Grid infrastructure is dimensioned and hardened to meet natural conditions. In developed countries that is.

There are things I have seen in the US grid that makes me laugh out loud. Transformers hanging from electrical poles is one of them.

WTF man? Fine that you save money on those mini things. But the price you pay is in energy security.
Habebe
Member
Mon Sep 14 02:22:14
Well, I wouldn't disagree we need infrastructure upgrades. Having our population spread out so far has its costs.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 14 08:27:03
Sam:

We get storms. We don't get power outages because we buried our local cables during grid infrastructure, and our grid allows power to be easily routed around damage to the high voltage lines.

You guys get fucked by storms because you rely too much on shitty wires dangling from poles in areas where they get blown over too easily and your grid makes recovery hard.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 14 08:30:45
We also get lots of flooding, and we are largely hardened against that too.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Sep 14 10:11:03
Lol seb the "phd" forgot to account for the US getting much worse weather and will now try to weasel out of it by trying to make weather in europe look much worse than it is.

Phd ahahaha. Where did you get your degree?
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 14 10:20:29
Sam:

Tell yourself whatever excuses you like.

It's piss easy to build your grid such that this doesn't happen.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Sep 14 13:07:19
If it was easy, why did a euro with a "phd in energy" make the childish mistake of trying to compare two regions without controlling for storm frequency?

Do you normally mess up such easy things?

Lol
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 14 13:50:37
Harden your grid.

It's not difficult.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Sep 14 14:36:46
Why did you mess up something so obvious seb?
jergul
large member
Mon Sep 14 14:42:12
Sammy
Developed countries manage nature. Its not a point of discussion. If your grid is third world, then it is third world.
Seb
Member
Mon Sep 14 15:08:37
Sam, I didn't mess up. You are missing the point.

Predictable severe weather events shouldn't lead to much grid outages. Yes the US has a cost exposed to hurricanes etc. but the metric is the average number of minutes of power outage experienced per capita.

Bury your cables, and invest in better interchanges at regional and lower level.

The UK regularly gets big storms and flooding, and other than very local outages due to the buildings being under water, the grid stays up because there's nowhere reliant on only one high voltage connection, local lines are underground and proofed against flooding, and substations and transformers are in strong enclosures; not mounted on top of poles.

If you did the same, you'd have far fewer issues.

It's not extreme weather, it's just you don't bother building the redundancy and hardening you need to deal with it.
Sam Adams
Member
Mon Sep 14 15:43:45
"Sam, I didn't mess up. You are missing the point."

You tried to compare rates of power outages between 2 regions that have much different rates of storm damage, without even considering that effect.

This is not only a mess up, but a very amateur one. And yet again you cant even admit your mistake and fix yourself.

Lol phd.
jergul
large member
Tue Sep 15 00:32:39
Sammy
Yepp, one of the regions has hardened its grid according to natural conditions, the other one has not.

This is like civilization 101. Develop infrastructure to control nature.

lol@your two threads asking about portable generators for personal use.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 15 01:28:41
"you failed to correct child birth rates for disease, clearly this remote Amazon village inhabited by people who have no contact with the rest of the world is as developed as the West".
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 15 01:30:17
Bury your cables. The hurricanes and tornados will be less of a problem.

Build a proper grid, and one or two high voltage lines going down won't be an issue.

Simples.

Weather isn't something that should be that big an issue.
Habebe
Member
Tue Sep 15 01:40:27
Seb, For the most part that does seem to be common sense.

I will say that in some cases burying lines may be both expensive and challenging.

IE where I live many places that Ive dug down even a few feet water fills the hole.

Also many rural areas in the US have few people over vast areas which would beg the case is it cost effective?

But I definitley agree in many areas something like that should be done.
jergul
large member
Tue Sep 15 01:50:27
habebe
I would strongly advise using insulated cables. Of course it is expensive and difficult compared to hanging wires between sticks.

Its not something you need to do everywhere, but everywhere needs redundancy. If power cannot come one way, then it has other ways.

But grid issues are just symptomatic of chronic underinvestment in the infrastructure of everything save the military and the criminal justice systems.

You are probably short about 25 trillion. Dwarfed only be unfunded future government obligations.

More taxes. If you want to be a developed country that is.
habebe
Member
Tue Sep 15 03:36:17
Jergul, All electricity carrying wires are insulated.

I agree the grid could use some plenty of upgrades.

I was merely pointing out that im certain areas its easier said than done and may not be worth it financially.Also that its super expensive to cover much of the country.

But Im not actually disagreeing with you.

Ive seen estimates in upgrading to one national grid at about 5 trillion. So your guess at 25 trillion may not be off.
habebe
Member
Tue Sep 15 03:45:33
http://www...ges-why-grid-so-vulnerable/amp

Here is an article about attempting to shore up the grid in Florida.

It mentions hurricane Matthew which in SC for example did massive amounts of damage. My parents house even had a tree land on the roof, and uprooted trees that were huge.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 15 04:20:45
"One issue: The grid in Florida and nationwide has so many poles and wires to start out with. It’s a long-distance system that evolved over time. A century ago, power systems were built locally."

It goes on to talk about flooded sub stations.

You could put them in blockhouses designed not to flood easily. High walls. Or mount them in towers.

Upgrading from wooden to concrete poles is a half measure.

Habebe
Member
Tue Sep 15 04:34:57
I guess at some places you could make them into bunkers, but for example no one here ( SC) has basements because of water issues.

Towers to withstand hurricanes just to house substations sounds expensive as fuck.Have you seen the effects of hurricane Mathew and Andrew?

It comes down to a matter of where and how is the money best spent.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 15 04:44:55
Habebe:

It's one thing to look at the capital cost of a storm proof basement to hold some tools and shit.

It's another to look at a piece of infrastructure that protects a substation (expensive kit) and power to an area for a few days of outage every year for say, 50 years.

I'm pretty sure the business case stacks up using public sector depreciation and discount rates. Probably not for private sector (discount rates - i.e. time value of money - are much higher so long term investments discouraged).




Habebe
Member
Tue Sep 15 04:58:24
Seb, I get your point. I'm just not sure what the cost would be to make something to withstand such extreme weather like Florida who probably gets the worst storms at least in the US.

I'm sure there is a cheaper solution than even we are talking about to this problem, I just dont know it.
habebe
Member
Tue Sep 15 06:30:40
http://the...frastructure-spending-go-68290

Here is that article about the estimated.cost of upgrading the US grid.
jergul
large member
Tue Sep 15 09:07:18
"Jergul, All electricity carrying wires are insulated"

Yepp. Why then were you worried about soggy and flooded ground for buried lines?

Yah, my total estimate of infrastructure underfunding of 25 trillion is probably too low.

Time to start demanding to pay more taxes.
Seb
Member
Tue Sep 15 10:29:07
Soggy and flooded land tends to cause poles to fall over when their anchorings slip.

Cables from sub stations to premises ought to be burried. Cant be knocked down by wind, debris or the pole falling over. Also less ugly cabling festooned everywhere.

jergul
large member
Tue Sep 15 10:43:51
Seb
I meant why was he worried about buried cables and soggy, flooded land. Hence the "for buried cables" :).
sam adams
Member
Tue Sep 15 11:39:17
"Weather isn't something that should be that big an issue."

Says the weenie that lives in a maritime climate with benign weather.
jergul
large member
Tue Sep 15 12:54:19
"benign weather"

You have obviously never been to the UK.

Its sad to see your decline sammy. Remember how you laughed and laughed about New Orleans stupidly being built below sea level.

Why not laugh and laugh about all aspects of US civic planning and infrastructure?

Every rainy day has a disaster. As does ever sunny day for that matter.
sam adams
Member
Tue Sep 15 20:16:21
Sure the west coast of the uk can get pretty windy, but nothing like big hurricanes or tornadoes, and fewer people live there. The maritime and med climates of the major euro population centers are the exact definition of benign.
jergul
large member
Wed Sep 16 00:57:07
Sammy
Tamed you mean. Like developed countries do. Here is a picture

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dvg2asACsG0

We call those things "investments in infrastructure".

Your grandparents used to pay taxes build things like that. Back in the heyday when the US was something remarkable.
Habebe
Member
Wed Sep 16 03:06:25
I think Japan would be the best comparison for weather of the US SE.

How does there grid stack up?
Habebe
Member
Wed Sep 16 03:12:30
http://www...an-seeks-home-battery-networks

Sounds like the best idea yet. Have a plan B.
Seb
Member
Wed Sep 16 04:05:41
Jergul:

I was agreeing and pointing out the reverse is often the case.

Sam:

It took us precisely one hurricane in the 80s to harden the grid against future hurricanes, despite then being infrequent.

You could do the same, you don't, because your country has many of the features of a banana republic.
Seb
Member
Wed Sep 16 04:08:24
The West coasts of the UK is highly depopulated.

Glasgow, Liverpool, Lancaster... nowhere important.
habebe
Member
Wed Sep 16 05:02:05
seb, What exactly didnthe UK do to protect the grid from hurricanes?
Seb
Member
Wed Sep 16 08:24:30
Replaced a lot of overhead wires with buried cables, ensured no foliage near those that remained, ensured better ability to shunt power around the system to avoid overheating when areas were cut off, hardened substations against flooding and avoiding foliage.

Basic stuff really, accelerating the rolling grid upgrade program and getting rid of Victorian equipment and network architecture, rather than simply replicating it with modern materials.
Seb
Member
Wed Sep 16 08:26:08
Best focus is on minimising mean time to recovery.

You can't necessarily get to the point where there's no impact from extreme events. It's how you handle it.
TJ
Member
Wed Sep 16 10:36:50
I pulled my the following information from various resources.

According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration Exit, the U.S. power grid is made up of over 7,300 power plants, nearly 160,000 miles of high-voltage power lines, and millions of miles of low-voltage power lines and distribution transformers, connecting 145 million customers throughout the country (EIA, 2016). Approximately 25% is underground.

Just California has 25,526 miles of higher voltage transmission lines, and 239,557 miles of distribution lines, two-thirds of which are overhead, according to CPUC. Less than 100 miles per year are transitioned underground, meaning it would take more than 1,000 years to underground all the lines at the current rate.

PG&E, the state's largest utility, maintains approximately 81,000 miles of overhead distribution lines and approximately 26,000 miles of underground distribution lines. It also has about 18,000 miles of larger transmission lines, the majority of which are overhead lines.

At a cost of $3 million per mile, under grounding 81,000 miles of distribution lines would cost $243 billion. PG&E has 16 million customers; distributing that expense equally would amount to a bill of more than $15,000 per account.

The smart grid segment of the industry has a promotional interest in manipulating or using the numbers to diminish the perceived reliability of the system to look poorer than it may actually be.

Obviously, it is true that buried power lines are protected from the wind, ice, and tree damage that are common causes of outages, and so suffer fewer weather or vegetation-related outages, but buried lines are more vulnerable to flooding and can still fail due to equipment issues or lightning.
sam adams
Member
Wed Sep 16 10:38:13
"It took us precisely one hurricane in the 80s to harden the grid against future hurricanes, despite then being infrequent."

Except you dont get hurricanes. Hurricane remnants sure. Weaker mid latitude cyclones, yup.

A big hurricane is a much different animal. Comparing europe and its wuss-weather with hurricane coasts is of course invalid.

So congrats, you spent a shitload of money to defeat low end storms.

"Household electricity prices in the United Kingdom saw an overall increase, peaking at 22.1 euro cents per kWh in the second half of 2019. This was up from 21.22 euro cents in the first half of that year. On average, the UK pays some of the highest electricity prices in Europe."

Note this is about double the price of most of the US.



sam adams
Member
Wed Sep 16 10:39:40
So with much weaker weather, euros still have to spend much more money.

Lol.
Seb
Member
Wed Sep 16 11:25:42
Sam:

And grid transit fees account for how much of the retail price of electricity? About 6p /kwh

Average UK price for retail and domestic electricity is 13.26 p/kwh. Note there is a daily service fee that the retailer can charge that pays for retail operation, but the regulator does not allow cross funding; so in relation to the actual cost of the electricity and distribution, it's all in that 13.2.

Of that £13.2p, there is the 6p the grid charges in transmission fees that pays for grid upkeep, operation and maintenance of the physical infrastructure. There are some other fees the grid charge to generators relating to load balancing and operational management of the grid.

http://www...,hour%20and%2027p%20per%20day.


http://www.statista.com/statistics/200197/average-retail-price-of-electricity-in-the-us-by-sector-since-1998/#:~:text=In%202019%2C%20the%20average%20retail,13.04%20cents%20per%20kilowatt%20hour.

US average residential retail price for electricity in 2019 is 13.04 cents per kwh, which works out today at around 10 pence.




Seb
Member
Wed Sep 16 11:33:27
TJ:

The problem with looking at the bill in those terms is the longer you delay, the bigger it gets, and the more affordable it gets within existing expenditure.

Sam talks in his inane comments about "shit load of money", but it's more about spending just a little bit more than do-minimum as part of a rolling maintenance; and the payoff comes from higher up-time which has a net economic benefit that flows back to the taxpayer at some point.

Flooding is a big problem for parts of the UK: we get a lot of rain, we build on a lot of flood planes in the latter half of the 20th century, cut down a lot of trees increasing runoff, and we've stopped pumping so much water from aquifers.

We have about 1000km of underground to 7000km of overhead cables on the high voltage grid, but generally flooding isn't a massive problem for the grid.

I'm not sure they need to be more vulnerable to flooding than overhead: a major problem with particularly low voltage overhead cables on wooden or concrete poles is that flood related subsidence and ground softening can cause the poles to fall over.

Of course, all of this costs - but then so does power outage.
jergul
large member
Wed Sep 16 11:46:42
TJ
Cables vulnerable to moisture would be in trouble with or without flooding. The ground often having enough water content to carry a current (pun intended) if the insulation is failing.

Sammy
Yes, developed countries have developed infrastructure and that costs money. Fully half my electricity bill is for grid maintenance and upgrades.

habebe
Home power systems are surrender to banana statism. You might as well build your own portion of a highway next.
TJ
Member
Wed Sep 16 11:57:42
Seb->The problem with looking at the bill in those terms is the longer you delay, the bigger it gets, and the more affordable it gets within existing expenditure.

True without undiscovered innovation.

jergul->Cables vulnerable to moisture would be in trouble with or without flooding. The ground often having enough water content to carry a current (pun intended) if the insulation is failing. True, best not to lose underground ground. :D


habebe
Member
Wed Sep 16 11:59:28
damn it Seb, you stretched the page out.
jergul
large member
Wed Sep 16 13:27:03
TJ
:D
sam adams
Member
Wed Sep 16 13:50:13
"Of course, all of this costs - but then so does power outage."

Yes. Which costs more? For most places, heavily armored power lines and transformers that could completely withstand once per decade winds is not worth the cost.
jergul
large member
Wed Sep 16 14:07:19
Sammy
That is true everywhere. Which is why acceptably secure lines combined with redundancy in case of line failure is opted for in developed countries.

Its amazing the things you find acceptable. Very third world mudhutter of you.
TJ
Member
Wed Sep 16 15:15:21
The U.S. grid is nearly all privately owned. That alone considerably changes the dynamics between aerial and buried services as well as the differing costs that terrain presents.

I suspect that increases the difficulty dealing with Federal, State, local municipalities and the differences in their regulatory commissions. I don't fully understand all the technicalities involved and my knowledge is surely limited when it comes to all the complexities.

I'm pro-underground and paid out of pocket to have all my service wires buried from the aerial pole to house because the city has regulations on the utility company where different areas are required to have buried and aerial sectors. Those restrictions do not apply for customers if they pay the cost. Aerial wires destroy the landscaping views.
habebe
Member
Wed Sep 16 17:47:09
Jergul, Japan is being smart having people get battery back ups in case of extreme weather. Weatherproofing the grid makes sense if its financially worth it, if its like that 15k per person extra it may not ve worth it yet.

Maybe tunnels?
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 17 06:14:01
http://poweroutage.us/area/regions

Rofl?
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 17 07:08:11
Notice how the SE is way* higher than the rest? They also get some of the worst hurricannes I. The world.

Norway meanwhile has moderate weather, no Hurricanes and still has plenty of power outages.

In winter 2017/2018, more than 200 000 outages occurred in Norway; about 20 000 end-users experienced power cuts several times, some more than five times. Southern and Eastern areas were particularly affected, especially the Agder counties

http://www.../pii/S2214629619301938#bib0036
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 17 07:11:06
That's more than the entire US minus hurricane alley.
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 17 08:07:24
Habebe
The link I provided is for this moment in time. So right now, you have more people without electricity than Norway has for an entire year.

From your link: "the delivery reliability (related to both frequency and duration of power cuts) in 2018 was as high as 99.983%, with an average duration of outage per customer of just below two hours"

Customers pay for grid upgrades. There is no motive to short change grid development. Our grid improves. Yours degrades.

We are a developed country by all measures. You are not a developed country by many measures.
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 17 09:17:45
Now your just being delusional.
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 17 09:17:46
Now your just being delusional.
Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 17 09:23:51
Here I thought a tiny oil rich country with no real storms would have a top notch grid, Norway cant even handle snow.
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 17 10:33:28
hahabe
One of the ways you can tell it is a top rate grid is by how many decimals used to count up-time. 99.983%

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37652

You are not even able to get reliable reporting, let alone use decimals in statistics.

97% reliability? 99%? Who knows? You are unable to even collect the data.



jergul
large member
Thu Sep 17 10:33:28
hahabe
One of the ways you can tell it is a top rate grid is by how many decimals used to count up-time. 99.983%

http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=37652

You are not even able to get reliable reporting, let alone use decimals in statistics.

97% reliability? 99%? Who knows? You are unable to even collect the data.



Habebe
Member
Thu Sep 17 11:09:18
Listen, I didnt come on here to shit talk anyonea grid, I even fully admited the faults with the different grids in the US.

But you can cherry pick all the stats you want to make you feel better but lets face it, when was the last natural disaster to hit Norway? And even with that going for then and being a super rich country with oil you still cant handle snow, fucking snow!
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 17 11:14:23
When was the last natural disaster to hit Norway that would have caused loss of power and loss of lives if we had US' sucky infrastructure?

Today.

Gale force winds are expected here tomorrow. Do I expect to lose power? Nope.

Because we are a developed country.
Sam Adams
Member
Thu Sep 17 14:01:50
Oh wow gale force winds. The horror. Your grid is fancy because it can handle a blowing twig.

Rofl.
jergul
large member
Thu Sep 17 16:04:54
Its fancy because it works and works better for every year because we keep investing in it.

Meanwhile, we watch you slowly sink into the sea. During the daytime at least. Do dark at night. No electricity.
habebe
Member
Thu Sep 17 20:51:50
The US definitley needs an Infrastructure upgrade, nnthat we agree.

But what your comparing is like saying Utah has better buildings than Japan because typhoons knock out Japanese buildings.

Japan actually has great hurricane resistance built into thete infrastructure in general.
jergul
large member
Fri Sep 18 02:31:17
What I am comparing is systematic and ongoing investment into grid infrastructure since wwii.

We are willing to pay for it you see (and this is one of the things that customers pay for directly. We even pay for the interconnectors running to sweden, scotland and the continent).

Nimatzo
iChihuaha
Fri Sep 18 02:44:44
This thread, is amazing.
jergul
large member
Fri Sep 18 02:45:26
http://poweroutage.us/area/regions

350k households still out of power. Wow.
show deleted posts
Bookmark and Share