Quote:
Originally Posted by OldManOnFire
Thought you might be interested is all...next time I'll know better.
|
Okay I was a little snarky, I apologize. The topic is interesting, I thought since you had brought it up that maybe you had investigated it beyond Kennedy's speech. Businesses are interested in new HVDC lines but that's more for general transmission while Kennedy was being specific in targetting the problems of remote green generation.
Quote:
|
You haven't corrected my confusion at all. It remains unclear what he is talking about.
|
Now come on oldman, if you had read the larger passage of Kennedy's speech which I posted it would be clear as to what he is talking about. After your initial question about Kennedy proposing a DC electrical grid which I then said was not a distribution grid but a long distance transmission system from remote areas to the existing AC grids of major population centers, you posted this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by OldManOnFire
It's not clear what he is envisioning since he talks about "too much of that wind farmer's energy would dissipate before it crossed the country." In this statement he is talking about a national grid or a primary grid.
|
I then said it was clear what he is talking about and I cut and pasted a much larger chunk of Kennedy's speech and bolded the more significant phrases:
Quote:
|
First, our regional power grids are overstressed and misaligned. The biggest renewable-energy opportunities—for instance, Southwest solar and Midwest wind—are outside the grids’ reach. Furthermore, traveling via alternating-current (A.C.) lines, too much of that wind farmer’s energy would dissipate before it crossed the country. The nation urgently needs more investment in its backbone transmission grid, including new direct-current (D.C.) power lines for efficient long-haul transmission.
|
Note that the exact line you quoted is right in the middle of the segment I quoted. Now read the line that immediatley follows it. He explicitly states "including new direct-current (D.C.) power lines for efficient long-haul transmission." It is very clear what he is talking about, the latter statement would make no sense whatsoever if you were going to build a wide scale DC power grid.
Quote:
|
Even if you run one line down the center of the USA, this serves no purpose whatsoever.
|
That's not what he is talking about though. New DC lines would go from point to point, just like most of the existing HVDC lines that are in operation. For instance you might have a group of wind farms in North Dakota and Montana. The closest major markets would be places like Minneapolis, Chicago, Seattle. Those wind farms could be connected in the existing regional AC grid and then power from that transmitted to the West coast or Mid-west via HVDC lines. Similar with solar arrays in places like Arizona, Nevada, Utah etc. supplying power to Southern California.
Quote:
|
If he's worried about connecting remote solar and wind installations, then his HVDC line will need to run to every single remote area in the USA, and if this is the case, then he is talking about an HVDC grid that is as large and convoluted as the current AC grid.
|
That's also not what he is talking about. Same as above. It is possible to connect individual wind farms or solar arrays using underground HVDC Light systems but those are usually used for offshore generation that require new transmission lines anyway. The details and cost analysis of such are well beyond what I can comment on. Regardless the system wouldn't be anything like the existing convoluted AC distribution grid which takes power to local districts and individual consumers, it would be for mass transmission only.
Quote:
|
Coal-fired power companies must either be satisfied with zero growth, or they must make capital investments to scrub 99% of the CO2 emissions, and/or they can invest in alternatives to the status quo.
|
Well they should be, but that doesn't mean they will be. Although we are seeing a good sign in various states rejecting new coal-fired plants, some states aren't. One of the dangers that I can see happening is coal plants being authorized with CO2 sequestoring plans that turn out to be ineffective but once they are online it will be difficult shutting them down. Politicians will write loopholes that allow them to keep operating while pretending they are for green power.
Quote:
|
If you think about 120 million homes and 7 million or so businesses, who all can greatly reduce their power needs by using solar and wind technologies, and within very short distances to a majority of towns in the US there are solar and wind farms, this would be considered at least by me to be one gigantic step for mankind!
|
Yes it would be a big step but there will still have to be a bunch more. We can't start phasing out coal while adding new demand via plug-in hybrids and electric vehicles with just the additional power from onsite solar and wind, we will also need a substanial amount of new bulk generation capacity.
Quote:
|
And...millions of people do have these issues.
|
Sure, I'm not arguing that they don't. But the cost for solutions that only a minority of people experience are going to be greater so we need incentives beyond grid reliablilty for everyone to lower the cost.
Quote:
|
Homes are being built every single day which are off the grid! There are two homes on adjacent properties to me which are off the grid. The homes are properly designed, they use solar and battery storage, and both have back-up propane generators. Used homes are being converted every day as well. This is not a new or obscure concept.
|
Yes but you are talking about a very small minority of homes and the reason for most of them is because they don't have cheap and/or reliable access to grid power (like you). Most consumers do. And for millions of people living in high density regions especially in multi-family dwellings, substantial off grid power isn't viable. You live in California, try using solar cells to power your house in a Northern state during the winter even if you heat with gas.