Electric Grid is a Vast Machine

Guinnessy writes "The latest issues of the Industrial Physicist suggests that 'the vast system of electricity generation, transmission, and distribution that covers the United States and Canada is essentially a single machine-- by many measures, the world's biggest machine.' The article says that because deregulation ignored the physics of the machine, we have blackouts, a fact the industry warned regulators about in 1998. It has some nice hard science data for those interested in why we're going to get some more blackouts in the future unless Congress gets its act together."

Comments

Meanwhile in the land of Oz

[evil_roy]

We are planning deregulation in our most populated state..NSW. And we are using the US as the model for deregulation/privatisation of our energy corporations.

Why isn't this sort of thing in the mainstream press? In Australia there are clear reasons why not..the two richest guys who would undoubtedly cash in on the deregulation own all the media..that's right, Murdoch and Packer own our papers,our magazines, our pay TV, the 'infoportals' for our largest ISP's,our regular tv stations and our sports.

Re:Ice Storm Blackouts

[DaveTheTriffids]

> no one ever died from being too hot.

Lots of people die from being too hot.

15,000 died as a result of a heatwave in France this summer, and 2,000 died in the U.K..

Re:Actually, the world's largest machine...

[Eucaryont]

Where did you get the idea machines have to generate 'net power'?

machine

n 1: any mechanical or electrical device that transmits or modifies energy to perform or assist in the performance of human tasks

The UK National Grid

[Hittite Creosote]

National Grid Company plc is the owner and operator of the high voltage transmission system in England and Wales. The company is a wholly owned subsidiary of National Grid Transco, which is listed on the stock exchange and is one of the UK's FTSE 100 companies.

Transco also own GridAmerica, for their opinion on the blackout, see this press release

Re:The Socialist solution...

[cardpuncher]

The energy supply system here in the UK used to be owned by the government (post-war socialism) and was privatised by the Thatcher government partly as a matter of dogma and partly because it was seen as "over-engineered" and bloated.

It was replaced by a single grid company, local distribution companies and generator companies. Power was bought on a complex "pool" system in which generators bid to provide power in various timeslots and the lowest bids were accepted. This was gradually changed and now consumers choose which company they buy their power from and the "pool" has become considerably more complex as a result.

One of the effects of this is that a large number of power plants have been mothballed or dismantled as they are too inefficient to compete with newer gas-powered stations during the summer months and cannot consequently provide an economic return. Unfortunately, this means that there is a severe danger that there will be insufficient generating capacity in the winter: the National Grid has already issued a warning for 2003-4.

You can have cheap power or reliable power, but not both: to have the latter to need slack, or "bloat" in the system. If you want reliable power, you have to have some sort of central authority exercised either through ownership or through regulation. Either solution is likely to be resisted by politicians (who wants to be responsible for the power going out?) until there's a major calamity.

Re:Armillaria ostoyae

[cerebralsugar]

Article Here

You're sooo wrong about fuel cells.

[caveat]

An orbiting array of solar cells with intense microwave power transmission downlinks to mid-ocean electrolysis plants. Not feasible now, but in the next 10, 20 years it could happen.

Your entire last paragraph is wrong. Fuel cells are not batteries; they do work on the same very basic electrochemical rules, but a fuel cell doesn't have a self-contained store of reactants; also, fuel cells use the much more energetic 2 H2 + 02 -> 2 H2O reaction, instead of a lower-energy ionic redox reaction like batteries (If I'm speaking Greek, get an intro chem text and read up on electrochemistry, then look at the potentials for various half-reactions). AFAIK, it's also impossible to build a "rechargable" cell that will take H2O and electricity and spit out H2 and O2; it is possible to build a rechargable battery. Fuel cells are actually a hell of a lot (potentially an order of magnitude) more efficient than internal-combustion engines; fuel cells go directly from chemical energy -> electrical energy, while an ICE has to go chemicals -> thermal -> mechanical -> electrical energy.
Now for the numbers *hunts down PChem text (PW Atkins, Physical Chemistry, 7th ed.)* OK, the maximum theoretcal efficiency for a Carnot cycle engine is around 80%, depending on the delta-T between the engine and the environment; 80% is reached at around 900-1100C, at less than 100C it's limited to around 20%. Fuel cells are more efficeint at lower T, theoretically greater than 90 percent at less than 100C. Here's a pretty good summary page; the bottom graph is really good. Brush up on your thermodynamics, you're a clearcut case of a little knowledge being a dangerous thing :P