Al Gore group urges Obama to create U.S. power grid

[ducks]

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4A58N620081106

this could get intersting
seeing donkey fights is fun

[MannyIsGod]

Why would they fight? This is the type of thing Obama wants to do as far as improving infrastructure and moving us to a greener energy system. Doing this creates jobs and makes our betters our countries infrastructure and helps save people money because of lower energy costs.

Fuck, what a horrible idea!!!

[The Reckoning]

Donkey punch!

[ducks]

Why would they fight? This is the type of thing Obama wants to do as far as improving infrastructure and moving us to a greener energy system. Doing this creates jobs and makes our betters our countries infrastructure and helps save people money because of lower energy costs.

Fuck, what a horrible idea!!!

use solor

[boutons_]

"use solor [sic]"

One of the obstacles to wide-spread solar and wind energy deployment is the US's run-down, fragile national power grid.

Gore is right that more energy-self-reliance must be preceded by updating the grid.

Note that Pickens plan for N. Tex wind power included his building new grid down to DFW.

Pumping federal 10s of $Bs into upgrading/expanding the grid rather than into Wall St bonuses, corn ethanol, and soy diesel should be an Obama priority. Would actually help The Real Economy by generating construction and mfg jobs for Real Americans. :lol

[DarkReign]

use solor

Do you go out of your way to misspell?

[DarrinS]

Texas already has its own. Time for the rest of the US to catch up.

[baseline bum]

Al Gore group urges Obama to create U.S. power grid
Thu Nov 6, 2008 4:06pm EST

By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Al Gore's Alliance for Climate Protection has some environmental advice for the incoming Obama administration: focus on energy efficiency and renewable resources, and create a unified U.S. power grid.

On Thursday, the group Gore founded rolled out a new media campaign to push for immediate investments in three energy areas it maintains would help meet Gore's previously announced challenge to produce 100 percent clean electricity in the United States in a decade.

Pegged to Obama's election victory on Tuesday, the Gore group's ads on television, in newspapers and online, pose the question, "Now what?"

"Our nation just made history," one video says. "We have an historic opportunity to boost our economy and repower America with 100 percent clean electricity within 10 years. It will create new American jobs, end our addiction to dirty coal and foreign oil and solve the climate crisis."

More information on the campaign is available online at repoweramerica.org.

Gore -- former vice president, Nobel Peace laureate and star of the Oscar-winning documentary "An Inconvenient Truth" -- has said repeatedly he wants to play no official government role in the fight against climate change.

But with environmental activists talking about a possible "climate czar" in President-elect Barack Obama's White House, Gore's name inevitably gets mentioned.

IMMEDIATE ENERGY INVESTMENTS

The plan advocates immediate investment in energy efficiency, renewable power generation -- including public investment in wind, solar and geothermal technology -- and the creation of a unified national smart grid.

"Modernize transmission infrastructure so that clean electricity generated anywhere in America can power homes and businesses across the nation," the alliance said in a statement.

The alliance favors "national electricity 'interstates' that move power quickly and cheaply to where it needs to be (and) local smart grids that buy and sell power from households and support clean plug-in cars."

Gore and his group are in line with most U.S. environmental groups, which see the next administration as a chance to act to stem global warming, after what many see as the Bush administration's stalling on this issue.

R.K. Pachauri, head of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with Gore in 2007, sounded a similar note in a statement issued after the vote.

"The U.S. now has a unique opportunity to assume leadership in meeting the threat of climate change, and it would help greatly if the new president were to announce a coherent and forward looking policy soon after he takes office," Pachauri said on his blog at blog.rkpachauri.org/.

© Thomson Reuters 2008 All rights reserved

[baseline bum]

The article is not AP, so I don't see why ducks didn't post it.

[baseline bum]

I hope Obama was lying out his ass with all his support for "clean" (:lmao) coal.

[boutons_]

clean coal, when looked at end-to-end, is an oxymoron, as is "clean" shale oil and shale gas.

Even natural gas expulsion techniques are not clean because they pollute ground water.

I'm against anybody's position for clean coal.

[MannyIsGod]

"use solor [sic]"

One of the obstacles to wide-spread solar and wind energy deployment is the US's run-down, fragile national power grid.

Gore is right that more energy-self-reliance must be preceded by updating the grid.

Note that Pickens plan for N. Tex wind power included his building new grid down to DFW.

Pumping federal 10s of $Bs into upgrading/expanding the grid rather than into Wall St bonuses, corn ethanol, and soy diesel should be an Obama priority. Would actually help The Real Economy by generating construction and mfg jobs for Real Americans. :lol

Dumbass, its not about a certain form of power production. Its about fixing the grid that transfers the power that's generated so that we don't lose much of it. Its about efficiency.

My god you're a fucking idiot ducks.

[Wild Cobra]

Wow.


"Modernize transmission infrastructure so that clean electricity generated anywhere in America can power homes and businesses across the nation,"

Does Gore even realize what it takes to transfer electricity more than a few hundred miles?

Power is at various voltages, and the higher the voltage the less transmission loss due to resistance of the wires. Transformers are used to step-up or step-down the electricity as needed. It is all done at 60 hertz. The wavelength of 60 hz is 3,100 miles. A distance of 775 miles is effectively a 1/4 wavelength antenna and the power is simply lost, as if the power distribution system was an antenna. Transferring the AC power in three phase with the closely spaced wires does reduce the radiative loss, but there is also a problem concerning the skin effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect).

Point is, it is far more complicated than just connecting grids together. Power is lost through transformers and into the atmosphere. Power transfer is impeded by the skin effect and resistance. This was partially solved creating a DC transmission line for the power from my area to Los Angeles. It is called the Pacific DC Intertie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie). DC lines are the only way to transfer high power long distances without excessive losses of power.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against doing such a thing. However, it is a massive project that will take so much tax money, it's not something to do while we face a possible depression.

[MannyIsGod]

Wow.



Does Gore even realize what it takes to transfer electricity more than a few hundred miles?

Power is at various voltages, and the higher the voltage the less transmission loss due to resistance of the wires. Transformers are used to step-up or step-down the electricity as needed. It is all done at 60 hertz. The wavelength of 60 hz is 3,100 miles. A distance of 775 miles is effectively a 1/4 wavelength antenna and the power is simply lost, as if the power distribution system was an antenna. Transferring the AC power in three phase with the closely spaced wires does reduce the radiative loss, but there is also a problem concerning the skin effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skin_effect).

Point is, it is far more complicated than just connecting grids together. Power is lost through transformers and into the atmosphere. Power transfer is impeded by the skin effect and resistance. This was partially solved creating a DC transmission line for the power from my area to Los Angeles. It is called the Pacific DC Intertie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_DC_Intertie). DC lines are the only way to transfer high power long distances without excessive losses of power.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against doing such a thing. However, it is a massive project that will take so much tax money, it's not something to do while we face a possible depression.

Thats so god damn retarded. You think a program that creates jobs and inputs a good deal of tax payer money into the economy and also gives the tax payers a more efficent energy system allowing them to save money on energy is bad for the economy?

It really is mind boggling how retarded you are.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

Exactly, classical economic doctrine is to spend on things like infrastructure during recession to keep money flowing and people in jobs... how you do that with the US's massive and growing deficit is the question.

The subject of this thread is a good idea, but the first step in any reform should address electricity CONSERVATION - so much is wasted by everyone everywhere! Studies estimate that 8-10% of the grid goes to standby power alone, and that another 30% goes to waste.

As for grid efficiency, on average about 7% is lost in transmission/distribution and reducing that is pretty much physically impossible unless you decentralise (ie. localise) generation and put it closer to where it is consumed (possible with wind and solar, but entirely dependent on where the resources are - eg. best wind assets in US are spread across the NW, nowhere near the big consumption centres).

However, I have read that interstate grid interconnectors are vastly under the capacity they should be in the US (as they are here - we've been investing in more interconnectors for 20 years), and that would be a good start in improving the efficiency of the network overall.

As for 100% renewable within a decade, love to see it, but no way in hell it could happen.

[Wild Cobra]

Exactly, classical economic doctrine is to spend on things like infrastructure during recession to keep money flowing and people in jobs... how you do that with the US's massive and growing deficit is the question.

Real infrastructure projects would be good. Improvements can be made, but the electrical power grid is much harder to make changes like addressed here than easily understood, especially someone not versed in AC mathematics and theory. We already have a pretty extensive intertie system. The question for me is should we change it to state of the art DC transmission to reduce waste. I think not at first thought because we have power generation in all parts of the country. An efficient structure may encourage some states to remove all power generation in favor of putting it in someone else’s back yard. Here is a current map:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d4/UnitedStatesPowerGrid.jpg



The subject of this thread is a good idea, but the first step in any reform should address electricity CONSERVATION - so much is wasted by everyone everywhere! Studies estimate that 8-10% of the grid goes to standby power alone, and that another 30% goes to waste.

The standby is because you simply cannot turn off on an power as needed. It takes time for the equipment to ‘warm up.’ Now most of that 30% is lost by the same reasons I gave about distance. You have heat loss in the power lines, heat loss in the transformers, and power being radiated into space from power lines. A larger grid actually makes for less efficiency, not more.



As for grid efficiency, on average about 7% is lost in transmission/distribution and reducing that is pretty much physically impossible unless you decentralise (ie. localise) generation and put it closer to where it is consumed (possible with wind and solar, but entirely dependent on where the resources are - eg. best wind assets in US are spread across the NW, nowhere near the big consumption centres).

Looks like we disagree here. That 7.2% 1995 number is “transmission and distribution” losses. There are other factors that increase the true value. Again, if you tie grids together for longer power distribution, the efficiency decreased. I didn’t read the report yet, but if it is from supplier to consumer, then remember. The supplier is not the generation source!



However, I have read that interstate grid interconnectors are vastly under the capacity they should be in the US (as they are here - we've been investing in more interconnectors for 20 years), and that would be a good start in improving the efficiency of the network overall.

There are several Interties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertie) and they are under capability because it’s not cost efficient or power efficient to increase them. Again, the power loss is tremendous when you take it long distances.



As for 100% renewable within a decade, love to see it, but no way in hell it could happen.

Agreed. The best we can do is nuclear. Adding wind, solar, geothermal, etc. is great for the short term, but they will never supply enough of our needs. I was thinking we would start having some cold fusion breakthroughs by now. Appears I’m wrong there.

[sabar]

Nuclear fusion would be the holy grail but with each passing year I have the feeling that humanity just cannot create the required pressures and temperatures at any reasonable cost.

I suppose there is a reason you only see fusion in stars and nuclear weapons. I don't think we will see it in our lifetimes.

As for the power grid, you need to make sure you aren't dumping money. How much efficiency can be gained and at what price? Knowing how governments like to spend money, it will probably be a tiny bit for a huge sum.

[RuffnReadyOzStyle]

The standby is because you simply cannot turn off on an power as needed. It takes time for the equipment to ‘warm up.’ Now most of that 30% is lost by the same reasons I gave about distance. You have heat loss in the power lines, heat loss in the transformers, and power being radiated into space from power lines. A larger grid actually makes for less efficiency, not more.


Looks like we disagree here. That 7.2% 1995 number is “transmission and distribution” losses. There are other factors that increase the true value. Again, if you tie grids together for longer power distribution, the efficiency decreased. I didn’t read the report yet, but if it is from supplier to consumer, then remember. The supplier is not the generation source!


There are several Interties (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertie) and they are under capability because it’s not cost efficient or power efficient to increase them. Again, the power loss is tremendous when you take it long distances.


Agreed. The best we can do is nuclear. Adding wind, solar, geothermal, etc. is great for the short term, but they will never supply enough of our needs. I was thinking we would start having some cold fusion breakthroughs by now. Appears I’m wrong there.

I understand the problem of distance and mentioned it in my post.

Are you sure your intertie system is of sufficient capacity for efficiency (ie. I'm thinking of overproduction in one state that can be shunted to another)? That was certainly a problem in Australia that is still being addressed by upgrades because power generation was mostly on state-based grids.

Sorry, we crossed wires on the next point - I was talking appliance standby power, which can be up to 10% of grid baseload consumption, and the 30% I was referring to was possible conservation and efficiency gains across all sectors of consumption.

The 7.2% was trans/distn losses in the Australian grid in 2006 (I think, maybe '07). We have similar problems with distance to the US, although obviously a much smaller grid and generation capacity (47.4GW).

I disagree about renewables. There are huge wind, solar, geothermal, mini-hydro, tidal, and biomass (crop waste) resources out there not being used because of COST, which is why coal needs to start paying for its externalities (ie the cost of its pollution). There is more than enough potential for energy generation out there - it is a matter of investing in it.

But the first thing all our societies must do is arrest spiraling personal energy consumption. Per capita, on average we are each using around 4% more energy each year, which means our personal energy consumption is DOUBLING every 20 years! And that is from an already high base. That is simply unsustainable.

Educate people to use energy more responsibly so as to flatten out demand, price energy according to what it truly costs to support that, invest heavily in renewables (think of the jobs!) - that's the way forward as I see it.

[AZLouis]

http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/factsheet_energy_speech_080308.pdf

[Wild Cobra]

As for the power grid, you need to make sure you aren't dumping money. How much efficiency can be gained and at what price? Knowing how governments like to spend money, it will probably be a tiny bit for a huge sum.

I agree. Connecting power grids are for emergency reasons and stupid political ones. Not for a regular operation. The larger the grid and transmission distance, the lower the efficeincy. Look at how much Califoria and other large cities pay for electricity brought in long didtances rather than places that generate it nearby. Hell, our power in the North Left coast are high because we send so much to Los Angeles. If the Interties didn't exist, my electricity would be dirt cheap. California would be force to build their own power generation. Maybe they would spend the extra duckies to go geothermal solar and wind. Since they don't have to, they are a "Not in My Backyard" state.