Of Sand and Power
No one will argue against the
necessity of applying every known (and developing) source of
renewable energy to meet our planet’s exponentially
increasing need for electricity. However, it behooves us to look at
where it is we’re going to jump before we actually implement
on a fuller scale things like photovoltaics, wind, hydroelectric,
and other so-called “green” energy sources. This also
applies to other, less favored but proven ones such as nuclear
which, eventually (albeit with clenched teeth and despite loud
protestations), must be considered as part of the solution.
While the various advantages and disadvantages of each of these
energy sources are heatedly debated, and cries go out for more
government subsidies (bailouts?) for one or the other, there rarely
seems to be any consideration given to the crucial link in the
energy chain that can be viewed as one of the bigger energy wasters
around and which, unfortunately, we cannot do without.
I refer to the power grid itself.
This is the distribution system composed of cables, towers,
transformers, switches, and various assorted doohickeys that
connect you to whichever source of power is at the other end,
enabling you to get electricity from your walls. If one were of a
mild nature and overly polite, the national power grid might be
described as “antiquated.” The truth is that it is a
ramshackle, tottering, patchwork compendium of hardware and
rule-of-thumb techniques precariously maintained by an
ever-declining and increasingly less skilled workforce. I’ve
had more than one engineer from my local and other utility
companies tell me that with very few (and minor) exceptions, the
entire setup—from sea to shining sea—would be perfectly
understandable to Thomas Edison who, well over a century ago,
kick-started the whole thing with his killer app, the lightbulb; in
fact, he could go to work as a field engineer with little or no
training. So much for high-tech—in Silicon Valley or anyplace
else!

Thomas Alva Edison and his killer
app. If the old boy were still active today, he
would have no problems in understanding and working with our
current power
grid. Source: National Archives.
If telephone technology had frozen where grid technology has,
mechanical switches would still be activated by rotary phones, and
things like cell phones and texting would be limited to
science-fiction. There has been some talk and even less action
about modernizing our fragmented transmission system into something
resembling a nationwide intelligent grid system, that would use
readily available and proven technology to improve energy
efficiency, reduce consumer costs, and get us closer to the
asymptotic Shangri-la of energy independence.
At present, the national power grid’s outdated technology
results in transmission congestion, making the whole setup if not
wholly unreliable, certainly extremely inefficient, requiring
utility companies to keep adding plants to meet peak demand
periods. While these peaking plants may operate just a few hours
per day (or per year!) their construction, operation, and
maintenance costs are billed to us, the consumers, not to mention
the added environmental strain. Another cost associated with this
is the addition of transmission lines, which can run as high as $10
million per mile. Reliance on an electric power grid still
structured much as it was during the 1930s also subjects the system
to massive failures, whether caused by weather, sabotage, or the
type of cascading blackout that left 50 million Americans without
power in 2003.

The nationwide power grid is the
link between the source generating electricity
and your home. If things were as simple as this, we would not have
much to worry
about, but the 21st century requires a power distribution system
that is more
sophisticated and intelligent. Source: Think Safe.
The semiconductor industry has enabled the creation of smart
technologies that could be applied to track electricity use in
realtime and spread power availability more evenly to reduce demand
during peak periods. This kind of efficiency demands a grid that
carries not only electricity, but also information. Sensors could
receive digital data from everywhere on the grid, showing how much
power is flowing and how reliable it is. This would, for example,
allow a real-time determination of when a line is about to become
congested, leading to an instantaneous rerouting of power to lines
that have the necessary capacity. This could considerably reduce
the dependence on expensive sources, and benefit power generators
by providing more potential buyers for their energy. (It should be
remembered that limited electric transmission capacity reduces
opportunities to transfer power between sellers and buyers over
long distances.) It would also allow the application of things such
as smart meters that tell consumers exactly how much electricity
they are consuming and what is the real-time price of those
kilowatts, enabling them to decide how to moderate consumption. An
even larger bonus would be the capability to more efficiently use
the power generated by intermittent power sources such as
photovoltaic installations—whether on homes or commercial
properties—as well as wind.
The least expensive and painful way to conserve and reduce the
demand on our current power sources is through a nationwide
modernization of the power grid. This could increase the efficiency
of the use and distribution of electric power by orders of
magnitude, preparing the consumer to truly benefit from greener
sources of energy. This would give us the kind of conservation that
does not require self-denial or a diminished way of life, where
we’re cold in winter and hot in summer, or told to cut down
on appliance use during certain times.
If we are to create a sustainable energy future, we must start at
the foundation of the power infrastructure—the grid;
otherwise, as Matthew warns, we “shall be likened to a
foolish man, which built his house on sand.”
*
* * *
On a different tack, I’ve been warned that unless
one posts a picture of one’s critter, one is not considered to be a
true blogger. Not wanting to be deficient in this respect, it gives
me great pleasure to introduce you to Gypsy, the cat who owns us
and who graciously allows us to live in her house and serve
her.

Her Royal Highness, Gypsy, enthroned in her bay
window.
Dick Coad commented:
Some thoughts on sourcing and distributing power, these days. Nuclear power, quantify and qualify the present and future water needs for sustaining specific plants and such plants in general. Compare the numbers with Agriculture and its projections. Do not look at the San Joaquin Valley in California. Keep the math and the underlying issues open, the math accurate.
Second instance: Solar issues: The extent to which existing buildings, industrial, commercial and residential produce their own power requirements both now and in the near future - good projections only. Also take a closer look at the rising curve of "crap in near-earth orbit. Reason, where is the only "safe" place in our Solar system for "toxic" wastes? Probably our only "gravity" well. Unfortunately we are "crapping up" the near-earth path. If there are better solutions than disposing of our rising tide of toxic wastes, now would be a very good time to do so. That economics and physics would need to be heard from, will make the discussion livelier, yes? For sure, it will be unlikely to have a less expensive time to address and pretty good solve this issue and its relatives. Thanks, dc
800LB Gorilla commented:
The real 800lb Gorilla is making certain that the ‘grid’ has as much base load generation capacity as demand requires … if not, when all these new distributed ‘renewable’ energy sources - connected to the grid - are not producing (i.e., no wind, no sun) … the grid will go down … so, if you have to build the base load capacity to meet the demand ‘at all times’ anyway, why not put the money there and forget all these ‘renewable’ unreliable energy sources! … Nuclear is the best answer and waste can be reduced to manageable levels.
Sacha Potapenko commented:
Grids are dumb all over the world. There is much work to be done.
ls commented:
Markus - if Fusion was easy, we would have it. The "best" plan now
is going to cost multiple billions and might be on line in 30 year
or 40 years. In the meantime, the sun is shining every day and even
with clouds, solar works. The cost will drop like it did for chips
as soon as this moves to large scale. And, it puts power generation
near to use. If we commit to solar today, in just a few years, we
will see the benefits and it is clean. What other technology can
offer that?
Markus commented:
We can easily use nuclear power and fusion is the clear way to go.
We have a power plant that has run for billions of years with no
accidents, downtime, strikes, natural disasters and runs 24/7.
Solar thermal, PV, Wind at all derivative of fusion. No need for
building dirtier fission plants with proliferation risks
David Levenson commented:
Not only would Edison understand the current electric system, he
would be appalled! Edison was a DC man and what we have is Tesla's
AC system, with the losses and instabilities that old Thomas
feared. It is well past time to re-think everything.
Jayna Sheats commented:
Much of what you have proposed (regarding sensors, efficiency
monitors, etc.) is already being done by startups and (relatively)
small companies; of course it could be accelerated by sensible
government industrial policy but up till now that phrase has been
regarded as equivalent to communism. I would make one point about
the relation of grid to distributed power: it isn't all or nothing.
PV, solar thermal, and wind energy are well suited to intermediate
scale facilities. Exchange of power according to local need can
still be done without sending it over thousands of miles. If Mr.
Obama's push for infrastructure actually did include money for the
electric grid, it should be weighted toward these kinds of
generating facilities. The problem with nuclear power is not safety
of the plants (though ensuring it raises costs to marginal
competitiveness). The problem is the lack of waste disposal which
is socially and politically acceptable, and the specter of
proliferation. Not to mention that the huge concentrated facilities
now require the most expensive grid. It just does not add up
economically.
P. Ehrmann commented:
When it comes to urging the government to do something truly useful
that will be of benefit for generations, Mr. Braun, you and others
like you are "a voice crying in the wilderness." :-)
John Higashi commented:
We need more engineers not in utility companies but in Congress.
There is no understanding of technology there or of what it takes
to maintain the country's infrastructure, or of what those in high
tech need to help solve these problems.
WGS commented:
Does anybody think that the average person has ANY idea of where
their electricity comes from and what it takes to get it to them?
People want more and cheaper electricity but don't want new power
plants built. Right!
Walt Rutenbar commented:
So much could be accomplished by just maintaining or slightly
improving the country's infrastructure. I guess it's not glamorous
enough for the politicians and too dull for the media to focus on.
LOOKCLOSER commented:
GB is totally right, more nukes could go a long way to make us more
energy independent. It's like nobody want to look at the whole
picture. Cute kitty. :)
GB commented:
Dear T. Wayne, No one is proposing the use of "dangerous" nuclear
reactors. The safety track record of the nuclear power industry in
the USA is exemplary. Our nukes have been extremely safe, and I
have no reason to believe this will change.
T. Wayne commented:
The use of dangerous nuclear reactors can not be justified, no
matter what the reason!!!
1Geek commented:
You'd think that the politicians would invest on this instead of
bailing out failing mismanaged companies. How much could be done
with those $700 billion?
No Name commented:
I have worked as a Con Edison engineer for more than 10 years and I
can tell you that things are far worse than what you say.
SiGuy commented:
I think that your message is starting to get through. I've heard
this from several people already. Love your cat! Happy New Year!


















