5 ms·

The best places for generating (conventional) wind power in the US are the prairie states, and the best places for generating solar power are in the Southwest.

by sethg 16y ago

The best places for generating (conventional) wind power in the US are the prairie states, and the best places for generating solar power are in the Southwest. But since both of these regions are sparsely populated, there isn’t very much grid infrastructure there—there is enough to bring power to the people who do live there, but not enough to handle taking power from a power plant to population centers farther away. Also, if a substantial portion of our power supply is going to come from intermittently available sources, then the switching technology in the grid is going to have to be a little more sophisticated.

houseabsolute 16y ago
I'm fine with the idea that more lines would have to be built in the case of wind-power. That's not what I was questioning. I was questioning the claim that the US power grid is in a "miserable state" for current applications, which is a notion I see bandied about a lot with nary a citation. Also would you please describe what about the switching technology in the grid is going to have to get better? Or cite some source that does so?
- sethg 16y ago
  I think this is basically what people mean by “miserable state”. It’s not just more lines, but more very-very-high-voltage lines. Also, these lines are generally regulated at the state level: the government of Nebraska may not be exactly eager to authorize a high-tension swath being cut through its land just so that power can get from North Dakota to Texas. Regarding switching technology, Technology Review had an article a while ago (http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/ http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/) mentioning the wind-power industry in Spain: “Because wind is an intermittent resource, providing power only when it blows, the grid has to be able to cope with fluctuations and dips in electricity. When wind accounted for only a small percentage of the country’s power, such dips made little difference. But as this resource achieved greater prominence, split-second losses of power could have caused problems, especially since Spain doesn’t have strong grid connections with neighboring countries....” The article goes on to describe how the grid management system adapts to this problem.
  - houseabsolute 16y ago
    OK, I still haven't seen any evidence that the US's system is relatively miserable. Am I not clearly asking for what I want? Articles about how Spain's grid system adapts to wind power don't do much to prove the point that I'm questioning.
    - sasvari 16y ago
      The fact that the grid still works most of the time for most of the people doesn't proove that the grid is in good shape, in my point of view. Yes, it worked, and it still works. But the US missed to invest in its infrastructure - roads, bridges, water, just to name a few besides the grid - in the last couple of decades. This might be cheap on the short term, but it's going to be even more expensive in the future. The US has a critical investment deficite regarding its infrastructure, including the grid. 'In August 2003, the power failure that affected 50 million people in the United States and Canada was not caused by a single extraordinary event on a single system, but rather a series of routine events that quickly became unmanageable because of an aging electricity distribution system lacking redundancy. National laboratories and others that have evaluated the weak points in our energy infrastructure have identified similar scenarios where a seemingly modest, routine occurrence can cascade into a debilitating energy supply disruption in very short order.' - http://www.energyxxi.org/pages/Blueprint_Modernize_and_Protect_US_Energy_Infrastructure.aspx http://www.energyxxi.org/pages/Blueprint_Modernize_and_Prote...
      - houseabsolute 16y ago
        > The fact that the grid still works most of the time for most of the people doesn't proove . . . That's not what needs to be proven. The opposite does. The default assumption is that something that works is working. It's the responsibility of those who disagree with that point of view -- those who claim that the grid is underdeveloped -- to prove that it's broken. > But the US missed to invest in its infrastructure By what metric? > This might be cheap on the short term, but it's going to be even more expensive in the future. That's not how these kinds of things usually work. Usually the longer you can put off an upgrade, the cheaper it is to maintain a system when you amortize it. And I can't see why this would be any different in the grid (or roads, or whatever else). > [Your quote from the Institute for 21st Century Energy] This * doesn't cite any sources, and * is a lobbying group whose members stand to benefit financially from me accepting their claims uncritically. Which means that the last thing I am going to do is accept their claims uncritically.

by sethg 16y ago

houseabsolute 16y ago

I'm fine with the idea that more lines would have to be built in the case of wind-power. That's not what I was questioning. I was questioning the claim that the US power grid is in a "miserable state" for current applications, which is a notion I see bandied about a lot with nary a citation. Also would you please describe what about the switching technology in the grid is going to have to get better? Or cite some source that does so?

sethg 16y ago
I think this is basically what people mean by “miserable state”. It’s not just more lines, but more very-very-high-voltage lines. Also, these lines are generally regulated at the state level: the government of Nebraska may not be exactly eager to authorize a high-tension swath being cut through its land just so that power can get from North Dakota to Texas. Regarding switching technology, Technology Review had an article a while ago (http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/ http://www.technologyreview.com/microsites/spain/wind/) mentioning the wind-power industry in Spain: “Because wind is an intermittent resource, providing power only when it blows, the grid has to be able to cope with fluctuations and dips in electricity. When wind accounted for only a small percentage of the country’s power, such dips made little difference. But as this resource achieved greater prominence, split-second losses of power could have caused problems, especially since Spain doesn’t have strong grid connections with neighboring countries....” The article goes on to describe how the grid management system adapts to this problem.
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  OK, I still haven't seen any evidence that the US's system is relatively miserable. Am I not clearly asking for what I want? Articles about how Spain's grid system adapts to wind power don't do much to prove the point that I'm questioning.
  - sasvari 16y ago
    The fact that the grid still works most of the time for most of the people doesn't proove that the grid is in good shape, in my point of view. Yes, it worked, and it still works. But the US missed to invest in its infrastructure - roads, bridges, water, just to name a few besides the grid - in the last couple of decades. This might be cheap on the short term, but it's going to be even more expensive in the future. The US has a critical investment deficite regarding its infrastructure, including the grid. 'In August 2003, the power failure that affected 50 million people in the United States and Canada was not caused by a single extraordinary event on a single system, but rather a series of routine events that quickly became unmanageable because of an aging electricity distribution system lacking redundancy. National laboratories and others that have evaluated the weak points in our energy infrastructure have identified similar scenarios where a seemingly modest, routine occurrence can cascade into a debilitating energy supply disruption in very short order.' - http://www.energyxxi.org/pages/Blueprint_Modernize_and_Protect_US_Energy_Infrastructure.aspx http://www.energyxxi.org/pages/Blueprint_Modernize_and_Prote...
    - houseabsolute 16y ago
      > The fact that the grid still works most of the time for most of the people doesn't proove . . . That's not what needs to be proven. The opposite does. The default assumption is that something that works is working. It's the responsibility of those who disagree with that point of view -- those who claim that the grid is underdeveloped -- to prove that it's broken. > But the US missed to invest in its infrastructure By what metric? > This might be cheap on the short term, but it's going to be even more expensive in the future. That's not how these kinds of things usually work. Usually the longer you can put off an upgrade, the cheaper it is to maintain a system when you amortize it. And I can't see why this would be any different in the grid (or roads, or whatever else). > [Your quote from the Institute for 21st Century Energy] This * doesn't cite any sources, and * is a lobbying group whose members stand to benefit financially from me accepting their claims uncritically. Which means that the last thing I am going to do is accept their claims uncritically.