3 ms·

You hit the nail on the head with your "over two trillion to replace" number: why replace them if they are still working? If expected cost of failures (probabil

You hit the nail on the head with your "over two trillion to replace" number: why replace them if they are still working? If expected cost of failures (probability of failure * number of things that could fail * cost of failure) is lower than the cost of replacement, it would be stupid to replace them. I will consider it a resounding success if these old transformers are still transforming away forty _more_ years from now.

euroclydon 16y ago
Well, a few things come to mind: The utilities have customers, most of whom should expect that the utility will do what they can to avoid power failures, not just sit around and wait for them to happen. Also, apparently, the quality of power is pretty poor; lost of surges and unclean waveforms. Finally, the grid is unsuited going forward for more local and regional power generation (microgrids), because it was built for giant bulk power providers to transmit power over long distances, which made sense fifty years ago, but not as much today. All of this is from Perfect Power. I'm trying to sort out, myself, how much of this is hyperbole on the part of companies with a stake in re-making the electrical power industry, and how much is legit (carbon tax/credits come to mind as potentially illegitimate).
- houseabsolute 16y ago
  > The utilities have customers, most of whom should expect that the utility will do what they can to avoid power failures, not just sit around and wait for them to happen Obviously if the equipment were unsafe or likely to fail frequently, it should be replaced. I have yet to see this demonstrated. > Also, apparently, the quality of power is pretty poor; lost of surges and unclean waveforms. I don't think I know anyone who would be willing to pay more on their bill in order to get cleaner waveforms. > Finally, the grid is unsuited going forward for more local and regional power generation Is that really true? I know that in many places in California, it's possible to put power back into the grid and get paid back from the utility company.

euroclydon 16y ago

Well, a few things come to mind: The utilities have customers, most of whom should expect that the utility will do what they can to avoid power failures, not just sit around and wait for them to happen. Also, apparently, the quality of power is pretty poor; lost of surges and unclean waveforms. Finally, the grid is unsuited going forward for more local and regional power generation (microgrids), because it was built for giant bulk power providers to transmit power over long distances, which made sense fifty years ago, but not as much today. All of this is from Perfect Power. I'm trying to sort out, myself, how much of this is hyperbole on the part of companies with a stake in re-making the electrical power industry, and how much is legit (carbon tax/credits come to mind as potentially illegitimate).

houseabsolute 16y ago
> The utilities have customers, most of whom should expect that the utility will do what they can to avoid power failures, not just sit around and wait for them to happen Obviously if the equipment were unsafe or likely to fail frequently, it should be replaced. I have yet to see this demonstrated. > Also, apparently, the quality of power is pretty poor; lost of surges and unclean waveforms. I don't think I know anyone who would be willing to pay more on their bill in order to get cleaner waveforms. > Finally, the grid is unsuited going forward for more local and regional power generation Is that really true? I know that in many places in California, it's possible to put power back into the grid and get paid back from the utility company.