4 ms·

The electrical engineer in me wants to see bigger and better grids that allow us to better utilize more renewable (and intermittent) sources. Show me that trans

The electrical engineer in me wants to see bigger and better grids that allow us to better utilize more renewable (and intermittent) sources. Show me that transcontinental or intercontinental or transoceanic HVDC backbone that lets electricity slosh around all over the planet. Just in the US I fantasize about an HVDC line that runs the length of I-40 alongside an aqueduct covered in solar panels to knit together the eastern, western, and Texan grids while also bringing the southeast's excess fresh water to the southwest. The pragmatist in me (and the witness to the difficulty of getting anything built, and the greater difficulty of getting anything maintained) thinks grid investment is both unlikely to happen and even more unlikely to work well. In particular, transmission is low-value, high-risk, and expensive. It's low-value because distributed generation and storage are getting cheap. It's high-risk because high-power-density things are dangerous (check out all the Western fires started by electric utilities' transmission lines and switchcraft). It's expensive partially for good material and access reasons, but also for bad political reasons (NIMBYism and the fragmentation of responsibility for large land areas) and simply real estate rights cost. It's like trying to build California's high-speed rail but with less value-add, so it's going to be a horrible uphill slog of questionable merit. So yes, I agree with you. More microgrids with more distributed generation and storage are inevitable. And I think that they're probably going to destabilize and likely kill the large-scale electric utility as we know it in ~50 years. I often wonder why more power companies haven't already become telcos to utilize their poles to distribute internet access.

bob1029 5y ago
> I often wonder why more power companies haven't already become telcos to utilize their poles to distribute internet access. I think there is a business side to this wherein big cable co made some compelling economic argument and exclusivity arrangement with the power company. Clearly, utilizing the pre-existing infrastructure and doing it all in-house would yield high-quality engineering outcomes.
- eru 5y ago
  The German railway company Deutsche Bahn used to have its own telephone network. It's since been spun out, I think.
7952 5y ago
In Europe it is distinctly less risky as you get arbitrage between different parts of the grid. You make money as long as their is a price difference. The technology is well understood. California is hardly a good case study. I think the way grids develop does still depend on local factors. In the UK rural substations have quickly become constrained and have limited export capacity. Urban areas have more capacity and are seeing peaker and battery installation. But large arrays of solar and wind just need a big connection to get power from the middle of nowhere into big cities. Places where land for batteries or peakers will be super expensive and where solar and wind are impossible. Also, if you are going to setup this kind of generation why bother selling to the public anyway. Find a ceramics factory or an steel works and run a private wire. You get a guaranteed customer who will agree prices years in advance.
- eru 5y ago
  > In Europe it is distinctly less risky as you get arbitrage between different parts of the grid. You make money as long as their is a price difference. Yes, and in theory, the market can decide whether spatial arbitrage via long interconnections or temporal arbitrage (via batteries, shutting off industrial consumers, pre-running air-cons, etc) is better. Perhaps a combination of approaches will prevail: The different arbitrage opportunities mostly make money off the price spikes they can smooth. Simplified: the first long range cable you install earns the most money, because it can pick off the highest spikes. The second cable will cost just as much as the first one to install, but will have to find its profits in a world with already slightly blunted price spikes. Similarly for batteries. But eg batteries and long cables can pick off slightly different spikes, and the back-and-forth flow in cables doesn't have to average out to zero (like batteries do).
treis 5y ago
I don't see how grid transit is a long term solution. Ultimately it doubles down on the problem of renewables. If Florida is consistently exporting solar power to the North East then it's two regions that go down if Florida is unusually cloudy.

bob1029 5y ago

> I often wonder why more power companies haven't already become telcos to utilize their poles to distribute internet access. I think there is a business side to this wherein big cable co made some compelling economic argument and exclusivity arrangement with the power company. Clearly, utilizing the pre-existing infrastructure and doing it all in-house would yield high-quality engineering outcomes.

eru 5y ago
The German railway company Deutsche Bahn used to have its own telephone network. It's since been spun out, I think.

7952 5y ago

In Europe it is distinctly less risky as you get arbitrage between different parts of the grid. You make money as long as their is a price difference. The technology is well understood. California is hardly a good case study. I think the way grids develop does still depend on local factors. In the UK rural substations have quickly become constrained and have limited export capacity. Urban areas have more capacity and are seeing peaker and battery installation. But large arrays of solar and wind just need a big connection to get power from the middle of nowhere into big cities. Places where land for batteries or peakers will be super expensive and where solar and wind are impossible. Also, if you are going to setup this kind of generation why bother selling to the public anyway. Find a ceramics factory or an steel works and run a private wire. You get a guaranteed customer who will agree prices years in advance.

eru 5y ago
> In Europe it is distinctly less risky as you get arbitrage between different parts of the grid. You make money as long as their is a price difference. Yes, and in theory, the market can decide whether spatial arbitrage via long interconnections or temporal arbitrage (via batteries, shutting off industrial consumers, pre-running air-cons, etc) is better. Perhaps a combination of approaches will prevail: The different arbitrage opportunities mostly make money off the price spikes they can smooth. Simplified: the first long range cable you install earns the most money, because it can pick off the highest spikes. The second cable will cost just as much as the first one to install, but will have to find its profits in a world with already slightly blunted price spikes. Similarly for batteries. But eg batteries and long cables can pick off slightly different spikes, and the back-and-forth flow in cables doesn't have to average out to zero (like batteries do).

treis 5y ago

I don't see how grid transit is a long term solution. Ultimately it doubles down on the problem of renewables. If Florida is consistently exporting solar power to the North East then it's two regions that go down if Florida is unusually cloudy.