THE FUTURE OF ENERGY

The Case for Brainy Power

Google's Dan Reicher says we need to make our electricity grid a whole lot smarter.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: ajka @ 12/14/2008 12:00:57 AM

    This system is already working in Toeonto

  • Posted By: jufemaiz @ 11/25/2008 6:53:07 AM

    @ectreece: I'm sorry but it is not at all "unfair" for those you claim to have no choice. The very fact that you are contributing to a collective usage that drives investment means that there should be a price signal to ensure that the usage during those periods are peak. Further, the notion that 7-10pm would be peak is ludicrous and implies little understanding of the system loads that would be the key driver behind prices.

    @daviddurant: one of the benefits of a grid is that the feeding of electricity comes from more than one source - particularly at the transmission level. While it would be possible to coordinate an attack on multiple towers on multiple feeders a far more effective way to cripple infrastructure would be nodes (large substations) where cleanup costs would be much higher and take far longer than the replacement of overhead lines and towers. Part of the design of the network is to meet contingencies, and while I wouldn't want to speak for the transmission authorities in California I wouldn't be surprised if an n-1 or n-2 scenario was the design criteria.

  • Posted By: daviddurant @ 11/23/2008 2:06:48 AM

    ELECTRIC GRID & SECURITY NEEDS

    When involved with the clinical trials as UCLA, monthly I traveled along I-15 and kept on looking at the steel towers that held the cables through which electricity flowed from Boulder Dam to Los Angeles. There are thousands of these towers that run over the desert and mountains.

    In my mind, I felt that it would be so easy as a terrorist, to drive into the desert and plant explosives at a number of these towers, timed to go off in 24 hours.

    I have no idea of what percentage of LA???s electricity comes from those cables and towers, but it must at the least be disruptive for LA.

    Today (Newsweek, 24Nov08, p44) they are discussing of adding to the electric grid (which is needed just for today???s electrical output) so that new sources generating electricity can be connected to the national grid.

    It was not too long ago when 50 million people found themselves without electricity when part of the grid failed. As a matter of national security, I believe that this grid is very vulnerable, as it is so extended above our country, and so open to destruction.

    I have no solution to this foreseeable problem, except perhaps we ought to think of alternative ways to transmit electricity. With the new green sources of electricity in our future, perhaps the way the electricity reaches the public should also be explored.

  • Posted By: ectreece @ 11/19/2008 12:48:22 PM

    The so called smart meters that monitor usage per hour and allow the power company to charge more at peak periods is unfair to shift workers and others who have little or no choice as to when we do laundry. Peak period times are not defined in the article. I do laundry between 7-10 pm. Am I going to have to stay up until 2-4 am to save money? This only benefits the power company and punishes workers that have little time to do household chores. As Americans we work 8-12 hours a day and should sleep 6-8 hours. This plan does not help the situation for workers at all. We need to stnad up and say find a plan that helps working people not one that punishes us for being lower middle class.

  • Posted By: RO in Reno @ 11/16/2008 5:05:46 PM

    Well the subject of power is an interesting one to be sure, but what I don't understand is why alternative methods of power generation is not more the subject rather than "getting power from point A to B"

    Nuclear power is one of course and no power plants have been built in the last 40 years and the disposal problem is still a "bug" to be worked out.
    But the lack of interest in Nuclear is two fold. One the public grew fearful because of the word "Nuclear" they are little more than tea kettles but with the inherent danger of radiation.
    The second reason is the power companies fell into the trap of "Best Value" bids or the same cost plus we see in Iraq with Halliburton and Bechtel.
    No bid contracts are a contractors dream, guanteed profit and the profit is based on cost, the higher the cost the higher the profit. And these folks are expert in running up cost and not so expert in construction.
    But here's a suggestion. If you have ever been on an offshore oil platform you know how huge these things are. And you may have also noticed they do not have an extension cord running to shore.
    The reason? The power is generated by small turbines usually two housed in a room not much larger than 25 x 25. These turbines are powered by Natural gas that is a generally unwanted by product of the crude. The large flares seen in oil fields are simply burning the gas away to get rid of it.
    It seems to me if turbines burning natural gas (T Boone Pickens would love that). Or better yet any alternative fuel, Alcohol anyone? And placed into community based power generation and could be part of the larger power grid or not.
    A community based power company could be no larger than a normal home and run by a minimum of personnel.

    The closer you bring the generation of power to the user the more likely it could be converted to a DC system a much more cost effective and in these times when all our power cords have these funny little black plugs just to convert the AC to a low voltage DC The use of DC systems is an idea whose time has come as well.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse