Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I found an interesting article regarding the power grid:
"According to one analysis, the United States has more power outages than any other developed country. Research by Massoud Amin, an electrical and computer engineer at the University of Minnesota, found that while people living in the upper Midwest lose power annually for an average of 92 minutes, those in Japan experience only 4 minutes of blackouts per year. In a comparison by the Galvin Electricity Initiative, the average utility customer in the U.S. spent more time with their lights out than eight other industrial countries.
[...]
Putting wires underground, in so-called grid “hardening,” can go a long way in places prone to high winds and fire. Some utilities are putting in work toward the goal; in Southern California, San Diego Gas & Electric has started burying wires in areas at high risk of fires. But it’s not cheap. Per PG&E’s estimate, converting overhead lines to underground lines costs $3 million per mile in urban settings, and $1 million in less densely populated areas. “Undergrounding an electrical system is extremely cost intensive, and that’s why the utilities don’t want to do that,” says Mukherjee. Implementing such an upgrade may therefore require governments to partner with companies and develop ways to offset those high up-front costs." Popular Science: The US has more power outages than any other developed country. Here’s why.
Solution: Shrinking the grid size per capita by promoting dense development.
Probably more efficacious: reduce the role of long-distance transmission lines, by generating electricity
as close as possible to where it's used - to do that in a clean way, generate with wind and solar.
I agree that we won't go back to 80 percent of workers showing up at the office, but I don't think the 20 percent figure will last a long time, either.
There are some things that just don't happen via Zoom meeting. Professionally, the chance encounter — the "secret sauce" of the city wealth-generating machine that I call "serendipity" — is completely impossible when everything is atomized and scheduled, and that actually reduces creativity. Ditto socially — you can't "work the room" when everyone's in their own room.
We need the sort of Brownian motion that only occurs when more than a handful of people are gathered together in the same space, or when various people are making their way between spaces in a city on foot, in order for us and our business(es) to be at our best. We won't get it working from home on the suburban (or urban) fringe.
Some sort of hybrid arrangement will become the norm, IMO — people working part-time at home and part-time at an office. Some of the office space will become co-working facilities and some will become residences.
Probably more efficacious: reduce the role of long-distance transmission lines, by generating electricity
as close as possible to where it's used - to do that in a clean way, generate with wind and solar.
I agree that decentralized renewable energy production should be the future, but still it will not replace an energy grid, because renewable energy has strong regional variations depending on the weather. To compensate, energy has to be fed into a grid, so we tend to need more and stronger transmission grids.
Probably more efficacious: reduce the role of long-distance transmission lines, by generating electricity
as close as possible to where it's used - to do that in a clean way, generate with wind and solar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stadthaus
I agree that decentralized renewable energy production should be the future, but still it will not replace an energy grid, because renewable energy has strong regional variations depending on the weather. To compensate, energy has to be fed into a grid, so we tend to need more and stronger transmission grids.
The thing is, we will also still need a mix of sources, and at least I don't rule out a role for nuclear power, which I'll explain below.
One renewable/sustainable source that I think has lots of untapped potential: rooftop solar. Combine this distributed power source with local storage batteries (sort of like the setup SEPTA has with a former power substation along the Market-Frankford Line; it now contains a storage battery that receives power fed to the third rail by trains with regenerative braking) and you can reduce the need for long-distance transmission lines as well as set up local grids that could continue to function in the event of outages elsewhere on the main grid (much as PJM Interconnection, the nation's oldest and Northeast's largest power pool, unplugged the "PJM" part of its system from the East Coast grid once it began failing around the Great Lakes in a major blackout about 10 to 15 years ago).
The reason I'm not sour on nukes is because new, smaller reactor designs are currently being tested with some promise. It's the scale at which the technology was deployed as much as the instability of the fuel that causes problems with nuclear fission, and a small reactor, I suspect, will be easier to shield against shocks as well as easier to defend against meltdown. (Actually, I think the system for cooling these small reactors differs from the water- or graphite-cooled designs that have proven problematic.). I also heard this morning that a fusion experiment in the UK actually produced several microjoules of heat. We're still a long way off from making that practical or usable, but the news shows that it may be possible for us to not just harness the energy produced by the sun but produce it ourselves.
The thing is, we will also still need a mix of sources, and at least I don't rule out a role for nuclear power, which I'll explain below.
One renewable/sustainable source that I think has lots of untapped potential: rooftop solar. Combine this distributed power source with local storage batteries (sort of like the setup SEPTA has with a former power substation along the Market-Frankford Line; it now contains a storage battery that receives power fed to the third rail by trains with regenerative braking) and you can reduce the need for long-distance transmission lines as well as set up local grids that could continue to function in the event of outages elsewhere on the main grid (much as PJM Interconnection, the nation's oldest and Northeast's largest power pool, unplugged the "PJM" part of its system from the East Coast grid once it began failing around the Great Lakes in a major blackout about 10 to 15 years ago).
The reason I'm not sour on nukes is because new, smaller reactor designs are currently being tested with some promise. It's the scale at which the technology was deployed as much as the instability of the fuel that causes problems with nuclear fission, and a small reactor, I suspect, will be easier to shield against shocks as well as easier to defend against meltdown. (Actually, I think the system for cooling these small reactors differs from the water- or graphite-cooled designs that have proven problematic.). I also heard this morning that a fusion experiment in the UK actually produced several microjoules of heat. We're still a long way off from making that practical or usable, but the news shows that it may be possible for us to not just harness the energy produced by the sun but produce it ourselves.
Not any kind of disagreement. Just solar still has its issues especially with cost. Even Elon Musk has his hands in it where he envisioned shingle-like solar roofs for America. A plant in Buffalo, NY that was not as promised. Competing with Chinese cheap labor to the shingle panels not fully realized. Still even the regular solar panels issues and cost not there for average Americans.
Lots of food for thought in the video on Tesla panels not profitable and with issues. The idea of solar fueling Tesla cars never realized. Walmart sueing Tesla for fires on solar panels on its stores where it has a couple hundred with them it seems.
* Still, I would get in a point, in how suburban homes are well-suited for solar if and when more practical. with its vast stretches of roofs.
I considered solar on my home seeing all the TV gov monies available. Seems they are not there now for a reason. My roof being a sloping flat roof my Bother and I and helper put a new rubber-roof on my current live-in home. 8-yrs ago. What a job taking off layers of old roofs, but a success in the end saving me $$$.
Anyway, we see few homes with solar for multiple reasons. One would think homes in the southwest sunny US almost all year, would be mostly solar roofs and not so.
This 21-min news video just on Musk and solar shows how it did not become a dream enterprise and make money and become a solar revolution. Perhaps one day.
* I in no way mean to mock Elon Musk. No one wins them all and he is into so much.
Title: Why Tesla Solar hasn't worked out as Elon Musk promised.
The thing is, we will also still need a mix of sources, and at least I don't rule out a role for nuclear power, which I'll explain below.
One renewable/sustainable source that I think has lots of untapped potential: rooftop solar. Combine this distributed power source with local storage batteries (sort of like the setup SEPTA has with a former power substation along the Market-Frankford Line; it now contains a storage battery that receives power fed to the third rail by trains with regenerative braking) and you can reduce the need for long-distance transmission lines as well as set up local grids that could continue to function in the event of outages elsewhere on the main grid (much as PJM Interconnection, the nation's oldest and Northeast's largest power pool, unplugged the "PJM" part of its system from the East Coast grid once it began failing around the Great Lakes in a major blackout about 10 to 15 years ago).
The reason I'm not sour on nukes is because new, smaller reactor designs are currently being tested with some promise. It's the scale at which the technology was deployed as much as the instability of the fuel that causes problems with nuclear fission, and a small reactor, I suspect, will be easier to shield against shocks as well as easier to defend against meltdown. (Actually, I think the system for cooling these small reactors differs from the water- or graphite-cooled designs that have proven problematic.). I also heard this morning that a fusion experiment in the UK actually produced several microjoules of heat. We're still a long way off from making that practical or usable, but the news shows that it may be possible for us to not just harness the energy produced by the sun but produce it ourselves.
I am no expert on this, but I have seen a documentary about it and they said that nuclear energy is pretty expensive compared to renewables and while wind turbines and solar do work for decades now with dramatically decreasing costs, fusion energy is still science-fiction and it would be expensive as well. But let's see if it works. As far as I know Germany is the only major industrial country that abandons coal and nuclear energy. This will be interesting to see if it can actually work. Other countries here in Europe like France and Sweden are still convinced that nuclear energy is the best solution and they can not understand why Germans are so against it. On the other side you have countries like Poland, which like their coal. My prediction is that renewables will become so cheap, that nuclear will be a total waste of money, but we will see.
Not any kind of disagreement. Just solar still has its issues especially with cost. Even Elon Musk has his hands in it where he envisioned shingle-like solar roofs for America. A plant in Buffalo, NY that was not as promised. Competing with Chinese cheap labor to the shingle panels not fully realized. Still even the regular solar panels issues and cost not there for average Americans.
Lots of food for thought in the video on Tesla panels not profitable and with issues. The idea of solar fueling Tesla cars never realized. Walmart sueing Tesla for fires on solar panels on its stores where it has a couple hundred with them it seems.
* Still, I would get in a point, in how suburban homes are well-suited for solar if and when more practical. with its vast stretches of roofs.
I considered solar on my home seeing all the TV gov monies available. Seems they are not there now for a reason. My roof being a sloping flat roof my Bother and I and helper put a new rubber-roof on my current live-in home. 8-yrs ago. What a job taking off layers of old roofs, but a success in the end saving me $$$.
Anyway, we see few homes with solar for multiple reasons. One would think homes in the southwest sunny US almost all year, would be mostly solar roofs and not so.
This 21-min news video just on Musk and solar shows how it did not become a dream enterprise and make money and become a solar revolution. Perhaps one day.
* I in no way mean to mock Elon Musk. No one wins them all and he is into so much.
Title: Why Tesla Solar hasn't worked out as Elon Musk promised.
In Germany solar panels are becoming mandatory for new buildings. Solar panels are pretty common for new constructions for at least two decades here (in a country without much sunlight). Like here in this newer Cologne suburb. If Elon would succeed in making these invisible solar panel roofs it would be great. You are right, that SFH are better suited for solar roofs, but at the same time SFH need more energy and the SFH related car-dependency consumes most energy, so it's more like a zero sum game I would say.
In Germany solar panels are becoming mandatory for new buildings. Solar panels are pretty common for new constructions for at least two decades here (in a country without much sunlight). Like here in this newer Cologne suburb. If Elon would succeed in making these invisible solar panel roofs it would be great. You are right, that SFH are better suited for solar roofs, but at the same time SFH need more energy and the SFH related car-dependency consumes most energy, so it's more like a zero sum game I would say.
Higher urban density means far less transport energy consumption.
I deal with more realistic expectations. I do not pit America vs the world. Throwing out charts especially those in German my translate did not do. Had me search for one in English (I took Spanish in school vs German offered too). I had a long post and state charts and stats also on forest coverage etc for some states. I then chose then not to post it. Just felt it was futile. America would loose or so that is the gameplan of one.
Now again, the aim to show in a chart the USA is worst in the world. Most of us deal with our own Nation, our lives in it , lifestyles and what is realistic to expect we accomplish given current political climate and fighting and per our needs that is not based on other continents unless we get energy from them.
Americans really do not pit ourselves vs other societies. We are not a Island Nation of high density by need as a Japan or Taiwan. We can see and to a degree, admire their dense clean cities as a necessity there. They are in a one culture nation where no immigration even really occurs. Seeing huge crowds on streets like constantly. Is not appealing. A NYC density in its key parts, also are not for most either. Some do enjoy the lifestyle as they must pay for it and to many, just not worth the cost and fore many other reasons.
That is why most post on a personal level in responses in this forum. Preferences WE prefer over what we are told by a we need to do like yesterday. We do address certain powers that can surpass us in areas of true concern and push those priorities.
I merely commented on Solar power and current practical use still has a long way to go to be practical in cost. Takes many many years to recoup cost of installing solar on a average home. Technology improves it, yet cost do not come down. Point on using Tesla was that not all practical dreams fully are realized. Just as not all inventions invested in, become a profitable success or commonly accepted into popular culture.
I have huge windmills on top of some mountains near me. Actually part of I believe some government project a few decades ago. To this day they produce power into the grid. Still many fight defaming these mountain tops and are around the Nation. Still my state is low ranking in Wind power vs some other states at less than 2%.
Still in the USA in 2019, wind power surpassed hydroelectric power as the largest renewable energy source generated in the U.S. As of January 2021, the total installed wind power nameplate generating capacity in the United States was 122,478 megawatts. This capacity is exceeded only by China and the European Union.
By September 2019, 19 states had over 1,000 MW of installed capacity with 5 states (Texas, Iowa, Oklahoma, Kansas, and California) generating over half of all wind energy in the nation.Texas, with 28,843 MW of capacity, about 16.8% of the state's electricity usage, Texas also had more under construction than any other state currently has installed. The state generating the highest percentage of energy from wind power is Iowa at over 57% of total energy production, while North Dakota has the most per capita wind generation.
There are currently over 1300 megawatts of wind power generation installed in Pennsylvania on 27 wind farms. These wind farms provide enough electricity, on average, to power nearly 350,000 Pennsylvania homes. NONE are currently under construction.
PA energy production as wind is a fraction vs say a Texas and Iowa. A mountainous state much more then them.
Breakdown of just my state size and pop. vs Germany.
Germany is about 3.1 times bigger than Pennsylvania.
Pennsylvania is approximately 116,075 sq km, while Germany is approximately 357,022 sq km, making Germany 208% larger than Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, the population of Pennsylvania is ~12.7 million people (67.5 million more people live in Germany).
My states % power from few sources. A huge change past 10 yrs to Natural Gas from Coal. My state now is a gas producer from fracking a controversial process. Still that method is not expanding because of that here. By far, most wind-power is done at a state level not National. No mandate to build as a Nation more windmills.
On Nuclear. Two multi-billionaires, are building a New kind of Nuclear Power plant. Not the government. They do need state and Fed approvals and got it by both parties as a rare event.
Billionaires Warren Buffett and Bill Gates have chosen a remote town in Wyoming to build a new small nuclear power plant intended to help replace the coal-fired plants dotting the state. Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway owns the coal-fired Naughton plant next door and is shutting it down as part of the company's efforts to transition to cleaner fuels such as wind and solar. Building next to the Coal land can then utilize infrastructure in place.
The standard plot is still the USA waaaay behind the world, especially the EU and Germany. Still, nothing said here as "messengers", will change a thing. Agendas though continue and WE NEED TO CONCEDE DEFEAT I GUESS. But that could end the thread.
The US still follows its own course as it always has by its needs and own priorities, with each state differing in choices. The passed 1.2 trillion $$$ infrastructure bill also has money for green energy though political debating decreased that in cuts to green fundings for even small businesses till it passed. Each state gets its chunk to disperse per its need and political chosing in what projects it finances. Money's even for reclaiming more Coal blemished lands, has a share for my state.
For the US it is a massive bill that has occurs decades apart. Last was the 1970s. The current bill is just a big help and not filling all gaps in total needs the states still need to address with their own raised $$$ in taxes, or privately funded projects in incentives helping them.
The US power-grid will get upgrades to prevent massive failures to sabotage. Still not about hiding power-lines whatsoever. Upgrading its Broadband capability also where some European Nations current can surpass the US.
Justs seems not exactly Germany. Oh well, I am sure it will. Hope it is not fighting words and claims of fixed will be claimed as now superior.
While US internet speeds are improving, they fall in the same 30-ish mbps bracket as the UK, Germany, Poland, and France, at the bottom half of our EU speed rankings. While Italy's median speed - 12.71mbps - is an improvement on its 2019 speed of 8.94mbps, this is still barely 40% of the US median. Denmark tops out the chart with a median speed of 123.96mbps, followed by Switzerland with 110.77mbps.
Last edited by Chi-town; 02-10-2022 at 03:43 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
with its vast stretches of roofs.
