3 ms·
TBH, I'm astounded. I always went off a discussion we had in a 100-level physics class that basically boiled down to "We're considering deregulating the electr
by hakfoo 6y ago
TBH, I'm astounded. I always went off a discussion we had in a 100-level physics class that basically boiled down to "We're considering deregulating the electrical market here, but any claims of choosing your electrical supplier is nonsense-- if you wanted to get electricity from one state over, you'd need to buy 6 units to get 1 at the point of consumption." I suspect it may be a combination of figures off by a few orders of magnitude and a worst-case of sending power 500km instead of 50.
OTOH, I am still interested in the grid-fragility aspect-- if the main grid is only carrying relatively low peak power needs, instead of the entire base load, won't we be able to better handle failures? Wouldn't extra redundancy be cheaper and easier to build?
- dehrmann 6y ago> if you wanted to get electricity from one state over, you'd need to buy 6 units to get 1 at the point of consumption. There's a chance you were talking about transmission of household voltage. What Ohm's Law does for long-distance energy transmission is amazing Found this: > For example, a 100 mi (160 km) span at 765 kV carrying 1000 MW of power can have losses of 1.1% to 0.5%. And also > As of 1980, the longest cost-effective distance for direct-current transmission was determined to be 7,000 kilometres (4,300 miles). For alternating current it was 4,000 kilometres (2,500 miles) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Lo...