Joe Fischer wrote:
On 28 Feb 2007 10:13:28 -0800, "nada" <dwaltersMIA@gmail.com> wrote:
What is clear is the US grid needs a massive rebuilding and
investment. This should only really happen after a clear
nationalization, and not just regulation, takes place.
David

You may not be kidding everybody else, but you
are kidding yourself, there is no way that any country,
government, organization, or political entity can do
that

It's exactly how the UK grid used to be run.
Graham

On Feb 28, 3:56 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com
wrote:

So what you're saying is that California's grid is in need of some upgrades.
Fair enough, but that's not the whole country now is it? A NewYork company
is trying to get a HV line through from the Canadian border down towards
NYC. But since it's a private company and not a regulated utility, they've
run into a lot of opposition.

You are correct. But the big black out in the NE of the US a few years
ago show serious flaws. ERPE and FERC both have done studies...the
whole system, essentially, needs investment. Distribution grids are a
different story and some are better than others, of course.



No doubt CA has similar problems. Last I heard, it was almost impossible to
get a siting permit for a new plant *anywhere* in the state. Yet demand
continues to grow.
IMHO, too many people want cheap, readily available power but are not
willing to sacrifice their own back yard to supply, transmit it.

Agreed. Major NIMBY state. The only real growth industry here. We need
to come up to 100% generation-to-load for the non-summer months about
another 8,000 MWs total, I think in about 5 years.

Ideally they should build about 4,000 more MWs of GT turbines where
they already have an installed base and about 8,000 more of nuclear,
or about 5 - 8 plants depending on configuration. That will take care
of retiring plants and growth in load over the next 10 years. I might
be a little low on the numbers.

On Feb 28, 7:33 pm, "nada" <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Feb 28, 3:56 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com
wrote:

So what you're saying is that California's grid is in need of some upgrades.
Fair enough, but that's not the whole country now is it? A NewYork company
is trying to get a HV line through from the Canadian border down towards
NYC. But since it's a private company and not a regulated utility, they've
run into a lot of opposition.

You are correct. But the big black out in the NE of the US a few years
ago show serious flaws. ERPE and FERC both have done studies...the
whole system, essentially, needs investment. Distribution grids are a
different story and some are better than others, of course.

No doubt CA has similar problems. Last I heard, it was almost impossible to
get a siting permit for a new plant *anywhere* in the state. Yet demand
continues to grow.
IMHO, too many people want cheap, readily available power but are not
willing to sacrifice their own back yard to supply, transmit it.

Agreed. Major NIMBY state. The only real growth industry here. We need
to come up to 100% generation-to-load for the non-summer months about
another 8,000 MWs total, I think in about 5 years.

Ideally they should build about 4,000 more MWs of GT turbines where
they already have an installed base and about 8,000 more of nuclear,
or about 5 - 8 plants depending on configuration. That will take care
of retiring plants and growth in load over the next 10 years. I might
be a little low on the numbers.

Well, here we come into the major and fundamental problem. Not
the grid, the generation. Coal plants are the world's leading source
of co2, NG is maxed, oil is maxed and expensive, biomass is an
abortion, solar is too expensive, wind is sporadic and runs into
opposition wherever they try to build it, tide/wave doesn't work yet,
solar is too expensive to contemplate as a real solution, geothermal
and hydro are maxed, nuclear has political problems, and that
leaves.... nothing.
Personally, I would suggest the nuclear option, it's the only
carbon neutral energy source that works with existing tech and
produces cheap and plentiful electricity. In addition, unlike wind
and solar, it is reliable.
Our own grid is in fact regulated to the gills, more regulation
will help nothing.

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Joe Fischer wrote:
"nada" <dwaltersMIA@gmail.com> wrote:

What is clear is the US grid needs a massive rebuilding and
investment. This should only really happen after a clear
nationalization, and not just regulation, takes place.
David

You may not be kidding everybody else, but you
are kidding yourself, there is no way that any country,
government, organization, or political entity can do
that

It's exactly how the UK grid used to be run.

I meant it wouldn't be possible to nationalize
anything in the US, the world socialists are wasting their
time dreaming. :-)

What happened to government owned utilities
there?

Actually, there are a few city owned utility companies
in the US, I don't know of any state owned, it would be
interesting to know how government owned utilities
rate compared to rural co-ops and private utilities.

Joe, could be...but these problems, last I looked into them a year or
so ago, are national.

There are contraints...caused by the grown of
load on one side and not enough generation on the other of any given
line or cable...all over the US.

NYC, for example, has it's own
internal problems with contraints they are trying to address. So does
Texas.
David

On Feb 28, 7:33 pm, "nada" <dwalters...@gmail.com> wrote:



On Feb 28, 3:56 pm, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com
wrote:

So what you're saying is that California's grid is in need of some upgrades.
Fair enough, but that's not the whole country now is it? A NewYork company
is trying to get a HV line through from the Canadian border down towards
NYC. But since it's a private company and not a regulated utility, they've
run into a lot of opposition.

You are correct. But the big black out in the NE of the US a few years
ago show serious flaws. ERPE and FERC both have done studies...the
whole system, essentially, needs investment. Distribution grids are a
different story and some are better than others, of course.

No doubt CA has similar problems. Last I heard, it was almost impossible to
get a siting permit for a new plant *anywhere* in the state. Yet demand
continues to grow.
IMHO, too many people want cheap, readily available power but are not
willing to sacrifice their own back yard to supply, transmit it.

Agreed. Major NIMBY state. The only real growth industry here. We need
to come up to 100% generation-to-load for the non-summer months about
another 8,000 MWs total, I think in about 5 years.

Ideally they should build about 4,000 more MWs of GT turbines where
they already have an installed base and about 8,000 more of nuclear,
or about 5 - 8 plants depending on configuration. That will take care
of retiring plants and growth in load over the next 10 years. I might
be a little low on the numbers.

Well, here we come into the major and fundamental problem. Not
the grid, the generation. Coal plants are the world's leading source
of co2, NG is maxed, oil is maxed and expensive, biomass is an
abortion, solar is too expensive, wind is sporadic and runs into
opposition wherever they try to build it, tide/wave doesn't work yet,
solar is too expensive to contemplate as a real solution, geothermal
and hydro are maxed, nuclear has political problems, and that
leaves.... nothing.
Personally, I would suggest the nuclear option, it's the only
carbon neutral energy source that works with existing tech and
produces cheap and plentiful electricity. In addition, unlike wind
and solar, it is reliable.
Our own grid is in fact regulated to the gills, more regulation
will help nothing.

ultracapacitors and flow batteries and fuel cells are already making a
difference

Joe Fischer wrote:
ultracapacitors and flow batteries and fuel cells are already making a
difference

In respect of grid electricity ?? !

What's a 'flow battery' btw ?

Graham

Joe Fischer wrote:

Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote:
Joe Fischer wrote:
"nada" <dwaltersMIA@gmail.com> wrote:

What is clear is the US grid needs a massive rebuilding and
investment. This should only really happen after a clear
nationalization, and not just regulation, takes place.
David

You may not be kidding everybody else, but you
are kidding yourself, there is no way that any country,
government, organization, or political entity can do
that

It's exactly how the UK grid used to be run.

I meant it wouldn't be possible to nationalize
anything in the US, the world socialists are wasting their
time dreaming. :-)

What happened to government owned utilities
there?

They were privatised mainly during the 80s and 90s.


Actually, there are a few city owned utility companies
in the US, I don't know of any state owned, it would be
interesting to know how government owned utilities
rate compared to rural co-ops and private utilities.

I can't think of any city owned utilities here.

Graham
They were the rule of the day in early 1900's ,all over

Joe Fischer wrote:
ultracapacitors and flow batteries and fuel cells are already making a
difference

In respect of grid electricity ?? !

What's a 'flow battery' btw ?
Graham

Joe Fischer wrote:


I can't think of any city owned utilities here.

I can't think of any city owned utilities here.

There are hundreds of Municipal Utility Districts...California has
about 20 of them. The biggest the Sacramento Utility Municipal Utility
District (SMUD). ALL MUDs provide power cheaper than privately owned
utilities because there is no need for a 'return on the investment'.

Joe is correct that nationalization is not on the agenda, although it
came VERY close in 2000 during the California energy crisis brought on
by deregulation... but movements for the take over of power companies
is very strong. In Nebraska, it's actually written into the State
constitution, a holdover of the New Deal.

I'm not against distributive generation and storage, but base load is
base load. I see the future where 90% of the power is nuclear
generated; where peaking power and emergency power is powered by
combination of wind, solar, and, mostly, gas turbine.

If, as a society, we decided that in the next 20 years we can replace
*most* fossil plants: coal and gas, with nuclear (closed fuel cycle/
breeder), there will be plenty of very cheap natural gas to use for
peak and emergency power (with close to 60% efficiency now, they are
the 'peakers of choice'). My only real concern is base load
application.

I can't think of any city owned utilities here.

There are hundreds of Municipal Utility Districts...California has
about 20 of them. The biggest the Sacramento Utility Municipal Utility
District (SMUD). ALL MUDs provide power cheaper than privately owned
utilities because there is no need for a 'return on the investment'.

Joe is correct that nationalization is not on the agenda, although it
came VERY close in 2000 during the California energy crisis brought on
by deregulation... but movements for the take over of power companies
is very strong. In Nebraska, it's actually written into the State
constitution, a holdover of the New Deal.

I'm not against distributive generation and storage, but base load is
base load. I see the future where 90% of the power is nuclear
generated; where peaking power and emergency power is powered by
combination of wind, solar, and, mostly, gas turbine.

If, as a society, we decided that in the next 20 years we can replace
*most* fossil plants: coal and gas, with nuclear (closed fuel cycle/
breeder), there will be plenty of very cheap natural gas to use for
peak and emergency power (with close to 60% efficiency now, they are
the 'peakers of choice'). My only real concern is base load
application.

I am in total agreement about the nuclear for baseload, it's
really the only viable choice. I would however suggest wind with
pumped storage for peaking. It's only a little more expensive, and
with the storage it's reliable and non-consuming. Possibly forgo the
wind portion and just build a few extra nuc plants with pumped storage
for the overflow from baseload.

On Mar 1, 9:03 am, "bill" <ford_prefec...@hotmail.com> wrote:



I can't think of any city owned utilities here.

There are hundreds of Municipal Utility Districts...California has
about 20 of them. The biggest the Sacramento Utility Municipal Utility
District (SMUD). ALL MUDs provide power cheaper than privately owned
utilities because there is no need for a 'return on the investment'.

Joe is correct that nationalization is not on the agenda, although it
came VERY close in 2000 during the California energy crisis brought on
by deregulation... but movements for the take over of power companies
is very strong. In Nebraska, it's actually written into the State
constitution, a holdover of the New Deal.

I'm not against distributive generation and storage, but base load is
base load. I see the future where 90% of the power is nuclear
generated; where peaking power and emergency power is powered by
combination of wind, solar, and, mostly, gas turbine.

If, as a society, we decided that in the next 20 years we can replace
*most* fossil plants: coal and gas, with nuclear (closed fuel cycle/
breeder), there will be plenty of very cheap natural gas to use for
peak and emergency power (with close to 60% efficiency now, they are
the 'peakers of choice'). My only real concern is base load
application.

I am in total agreement about the nuclear for baseload, it's
really the only viable choice. I would however suggest wind with
pumped storage for peaking. It's only a little more expensive, and
with the storage it's reliable and non-consuming. Possibly forgo the
wind portion and just build a few extra nuc plants with pumped storage
for the overflow from baseload.

Pump storage is used now but there is not really that many places that
one can do this. The largest in the world is in California at Helms
pump storage facility run by PG&E (it equals the 2200 MWs from Diablo
Canyon Nuclear Power Plant) and can actually run for 14 straight days
at full load in an emergency.

The problem is that there are few good places left for this sort of
peaking/pump storage..and the same environmentalists that push solar
and wind usually oppose pump storage because it means flooding a like
or construction in pristine areas. You can't win sometimes.

There is some suggestion that 'mechanical pump' storage might be
possible, that is, using a large man-made reservoirs with 50 foot head
pressures to store off peak nuclear power (or wind and solar) and then
run the hydro down during peak times or at night.

Those of us who are pro-nuke understand the need for that last 10% can
be make or break for a grid system. Actually, "peak" (which usually
runs around 1700 to 1900 hours in California) is often triple the
lowest offpeak load. So, the ability to 'swing' the generation this
much is critical for any utility.

Pump storage is used now but there is not really that many places that
one can do this....

The problem is that there are few good places left for this sort of
peaking/pump storage.....