[Timo]

So, bringing this entire capitalism requires growth meme back to the topic of this thread, does a centralized energy system, in our modern capitalistic society, fundamentally require growth to continue its existence?

In India, do Sacred Cows...............no. Never mind.

[dohboi]

Actually, I do think we should go there.

The whole idea of 'capital' growth came from farmers lending 'sacred' cows to others expecting the have the cow returned with extra 'capital' (>chattel and cattle). It's all connected.

Sacred cows are 'sacred' for a reason. In the context of subsistence farmers, even if your cow is the last thing you own and you are near starvation, as long as you have some hope for a future, it is reasonably rational to see your last cow as 'sacred'--something to be protected at all costs rather than just slaughtered to get a quick hamburger today... because if you can get past this rough spot, your sorry half starved sacred cow could become a 'tractor factory'!

[KaiserJeep]

The answer would be that NO, the power grid does not have to grow. It spans the country now from the N and S borders and the E and W coasts, connecting virtually every residence and structure in between.

The grid already has excess capacity. Grid power consumption peaked in 2007-2009, and has begun a slow decline. We have more electrical gadgets than ever before, but they increasingly are of new and power-efficient design - the impact of 40+ years of government power efficiency standards finally being felt as the more energy-efficient lighting, electronics, and appliances have replaced the older "stuff".



The power grid infrastructure is aging, but plans are already being implemented to freshen it. For example, much is being talked about HVDC transmission replacing HVAC transmission. The losses with AC systems are about 3% on average - and DC transmission could save 1/3rd of that - not a major impact, but as long as you are committed to replace the power lines anyway, might as well. (There is a long and complex discussion comparing AC vs. DC losses - and I deliberately chose not to try to spoon feed it too you, I simply gave the briefest possible summary.) (Look up the topic if you are interested, frankly it bores me.)

Meanwhile the grid has excess capacity, mainly at night - and since HVDC transmission has more capacity than HVAC transmission lines hung on the same towers, the renewal will also increase total grid capacity even more - which becomes an enabler of BEVs for transportation. Sorry to say though, that Elon Musk's dreams of a Powerwall battery in every household are not at all required for grid-attached homes, and there are fewer and fewer places today where building off-the-grid is even desirable.

Now we must address total energy consumption. Simple changes such as insulation, LED lighting, solar PV, and solar thermal space heating retrofits could reduce energy consumption in a residence to 25% of the present value. Similar benefits are possible in manufacturing, although more expensive. But my point is, if we follow a plan with consistent goals, we can replace about 75% of the petroleum vehicle fuels. Admittedly, we need to (figuratively) beat people severely to get them onboard with such a plan.

The power grid can replace much of our gasoline and diesel transportation infrastructure. This seems a worthwhile goal.

[vtsnowedin]

Upgrades and refurbishment of the grid is well underway in my area but that is not what worries me. The closing of old nuclear power plants and coal fired base load generation capacity before new reliable replacements are on line is a much bigger issue. It will do us no good to have state of the art wires if there is insufficient power available to feed into that grid. They are happily going to natural gas plants while the supply is abundant and cheap but I doubt it is wise to put so many eggs in that basket.

[Timo]

The answer would be that NO, the power grid does not have to grow. It spans the country now from the N and S borders and the E and W coasts, connecting virtually every residence and structure in between.

So why do my rates keep going up, even though i've switched every last one of my light bulbs to LED?

Probably because i spend too much time on my computer here at PO, using up precious and increasingly rare kws.

Actually, one reason our rates have gone up is because we've chosen to go 100% wind. Our utility now has the capacity to give their customers that choice, and connecting their current transmission lines to the sources of wind power does takes money. My money. Building the wind farms also takes money. My money.

And of course, i have to spend my money in order to give the utility CEO an annual multi-million dollar bonus for figuring out ways to take more of my money.

That's capitalistic growth, right there, i tell ya!

[vtsnowedin]

The answer would be that NO, the power grid does not have to grow. It spans the country now from the N and S borders and the E and W coasts, connecting virtually every residence and structure in between.

So why do my rates keep going up, even though i've switched every last one of my light bulbs to LED?

Probably because i spend too much time on my computer here at PO, using up precious and increasingly rare kws.

Actually, one reason our rates have gone up is because we've chosen to go 100% wind. Our utility now has the capacity to give their customers that choice, and connecting their current transmission lines to the sources of wind power does takes money. My money. Building the wind farms also takes money. My money.

And of course, i have to spend my money in order to give the utility CEO an annual multi-million dollar bonus for figuring out ways to take more of my money.

That's capitalistic growth, right there, i tell ya!

Now being 100 percent wind sounds fine but if that were truly the case your lights would go out on a calm day. Are you confusing rates with total bill? Are your KWHs per month going up or is it the cost per KWH?
I'm down to 13 KWHs per day at a total all charges and taxes added cost of 19.5 cents per KWH or $2.54 per day. My backup generator wouldn't run three hours on $2.54 of gas.

[ralfy]

No it is not obvious and you saying it does not make it true.
Let us take for example a (choosing between farmer , factory owner, and laborer,) a factory owner. He invests hired labor, purchased material, and the overhead on his factory in the amount of lets say $1000 unit cost . He then sells the product produced for $1500 per unit. He has had a good year.
Why if there is no inflation in his labor costs and cost of raw material not repeat the same thing the next year for the same price and be satisfied with the result?

Because at some point another factory owner will be able to sell a similar unit for less than $1,500 and produce more units thanks to various technologies. He will then be compelled to deal with the competition or face losses.

And unless profits are kept under the mattress, they will either be invested or spent. That might even be one of the reasons why new technologies are developed to increase productivity.

[Timo]

Now being 100 percent wind sounds fine but if that were truly the case your lights would go out on a calm day. Are you confusing rates with total bill? Are your KWHs per month going up or is it the cost per KWH?
I'm down to 13 KWHs per day at a total all charges and taxes added cost of 19.5 cents per KWH or $2.54 per day. My backup generator wouldn't run three hours on $2.54 of gas.

Excellent questions.

I don't know.

[KaiserJeep]

The National Power Grid is by any and all standards that could be applied, a bargain - it produces and delivers power at incredibly low rates per unit. Any off-the-grid alternatives I know about are at least 2X the cost of grid electricity, and - especially in the case of renewable alternative power sources - only available after a substantial capital expenditure to procure and install, and ongoing expenditures of both money and personal labor to operate and maintain.

The cost of energy will inevitably increase slowly with the increased cost of fossil fuels, and perhaps not so slowly if the grid owners and operators are burdened with excessive pollution controls or carbon dioxide abatement expenses.

The upside potential opportunity now is virtually all on the energy conservation front. Like I said, it would be possible to operate our present civilization and our present lifestyles at 1/4th the present power levels, after further investments on the consumer side. With substantial changes - for example the substitution of climate-controlled clothing for residential space heating and cooling, and retrofitted superinsulation for structures, we could literally run a changed version of our present society and lifestyles on 1/20th to 1/10th the current power levels.

Climate-controlled clothing uses nanotech-enhanced fabrics, active fan-forced ventilation, and Peltier solid-state devices, heating and cooling via conduction while in direct contact with the body. But there will be substantial resistance on any and all fronts - for example an actively heated and cooled insulated jacket can keep a person comfortable for hours in -30 degree to +100 degree F ambient temperatures, and while me a 64-year old male does not mind wearing such a garment:


...there is something to be said for conventional warm weather clothing, especially when younger females select it for ornamental effect:

See what I mean? Heated and cooled clothing saves lots of energy, versus heating and cooling entire structures. But it needs to be worn in super-insulated spaces where such clothing is neither bulky nor expensive nor power-hungry, because such spaces maintain temperatures without energy consumption, or with very little.

IMHO, it also has a huge consumer acceptance hurdle as well - especially with younger consumers. Now imagine extensive and significant changes to vehicles and residences, aimed at saving 90% of the power a typical vehicle or residence consumes.

If you already own a vehicle that gets 240 mpg or a home that meets the PassivHaus standard, you are already there. Most of you are probably more conventional with your tastes in vehicles, housing, and clothing.

[vtsnowedin]

Kaiser jeep wrote.

for example the substitution of climate-controlled clothing for residential space heating and cooling

Vermont natives call climate controlled clothing wool. Preferably from the Johnson woolen mill.

[Timo]

This looks promising in decentralizing our energy infrastructure.
http://cleantechnica.com/2016/03/30/anbaric-transmission-microgrid-strategy/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+IM-cleantechnica+%28CleanTechnica%29

The more, the merrier. This actually looks like a good marketing tool for every new subdivision and high rise built in the country. Any country. Take small steps, and eventually you'll get there.

[vtsnowedin]

Kaiser jeep wrote.

for example the substitution of climate-controlled clothing for residential space heating and cooling

Vermont natives call climate controlled clothing wool. Preferably from the Johnson woolen mill.

Edit to add a link
http://johnsonwoolenmills.com/product-category/men/

[Ulenspiegel]

The answer would be that NO, the power grid does not have to grow. It spans the country now from the N and S borders and the E and W coasts, connecting virtually every residence and structure in between.

The grid already has excess capacity. Grid power consumption peaked in 2007-2009, and has begun a slow decline. We have more electrical gadgets than ever before, but they increasingly are of new and power-efficient design - the impact of 40+ years of government power efficiency standards finally being felt as the more energy-efficient lighting, electronics, and appliances have replaced the older "stuff".



The power grid infrastructure is aging, but plans are already being implemented to freshen it. For example, much is being talked about HVDC transmission replacing HVAC transmission. The losses with AC systems are about 3% on average - and DC transmission could save 1/3rd of that - not a major impact, but as long as you are committed to replace the power lines anyway, might as well. (There is a long and complex discussion comparing AC vs. DC losses - and I deliberately chose not to try to spoon feed it too you, I simply gave the briefest possible summary.) (Look up the topic if you are interested, frankly it bores me.)

Meanwhile the grid has excess capacity, mainly at night - and since HVDC transmission has more capacity than HVAC transmission lines hung on the same towers, the renewal will also increase total grid capacity even more - which becomes an enabler of BEVs for transportation. Sorry to say though, that Elon Musk's dreams of a Powerwall battery in every household are not at all required for grid-attached homes, and there are fewer and fewer places today where building off-the-grid is even desirable.

Now we must address total energy consumption. Simple changes such as insulation, LED lighting, solar PV, and solar thermal space heating retrofits could reduce energy consumption in a residence to 25% of the present value. Similar benefits are possible in manufacturing, although more expensive. But my point is, if we follow a plan with consistent goals, we can replace about 75% of the petroleum vehicle fuels. Admittedly, we need to (figuratively) beat people severely to get them onboard with such a plan.

The power grid can replace much of our gasoline and diesel transportation infrastructure. This seems a worthwhile goal.

The only point I disagree with is your statement that "the power grid does not have to grow."

If you have many wind turbines which are located in several regions which provide not correlated electricity generation then each of the region has of course overbuild wind capacity with many days of high production and has of course to be connected to other regions or large storag facilities (pumped hydro) with higher transmission capacity than in case of conventional power plants. This has been evaluated for central Europe and is IMHO not different in America. The same amount of energy requires in case of RE like wind or PV more transmission capacity, the "capacity factor" of the lines decreases.

[Timo]

The only point I disagree with is your statement that "the power grid does not have to grow."

If you have many wind turbines which are located in several regions which provide not correlated electricity generation then each of the region has of course overbuild wind capacity with many days of high production and has of course to be connected to other regions or large storag facilities (pumped hydro) with higher transmission capacity than in case of conventional power plants. This has been evaluated for central Europe and is IMHO not different in America. The same amount of energy requires in case of RE like wind or PV more transmission capacity, the "capacity factor" of the lines decreases.

All valid statements, but i'd just point out that replacing and modernizing the power grid does not necessarily mean "expanding" the electric grid.

This does introduce an interesting question, though. There are qualitative expansions to the grid, and then there are quantitative expansions to the grid. The only reason to quantitatively expand the grid is to accommodate population growth and expansion. However, i don't think that's what the purpose of the transition to HVDC lines is all about. Sure, they could handle more power transmission, but more than anything, HVDC represents a qualitative expansion of the grid. Replacing old and outdated technologies with new, more powerful technologies does not necessarily reflect an expansion of the grid, itself. It might result in increased capacity, but that increased capacity results from qualitative enhancements, rather than quantitative enhancement. There is a difference.

[Ulenspiegel]

@Timo

Without huge storage, the only option, if you replace coal power plants with wind turbines, is to increase transmission capacity, sorry that is IMHO a very basic issue.

In a best case scenario you have several regins which produce not correlated electricity, in each region you overbuild the turbines with 1/(capacity factor) and you connect the regions with sufficient transmission capacity which allows the "export" of excess electricity from a region which runs at higher capacity than its demand to regions without wind. The required transmission capacity is much higher than for conventional plants, but not that expensive, especially when you have to replace the infrastructure anyway.

[dohboi]

The actual solutions are likely to combine a number of strategies--

•some 'smart grid' usage;
•paying people and companies to not use electricity (or to use less) when the generation is low;
•yes, a bigger grid, but also more more interconnected;
•more interactions with hydro as virtual electric storage;
•more storage on site (already starting to happen);
•mega-batteries; electric cars as distributed storage;
•some use of biomass, bio-methane, etc;
•big cut in non-essential night-time usage, including rethinking our compulsion to light up the night so the 'dark' side of the earth looks like another star from space!!
•neighborhood-level storage (as well as generation)
•just doing a lot less stupid and non-essential sh!t...

... and probably lots of other strategies and work-arounds, some which just aren't coming to mind right now, some that probably haven't been imagined yet.

[Timo]

Ulenspiegel, your comment just proved my point. Making the system better does not mean it has to be made bigger. Better means the development of energy storage systems to accommodate new and better technologies in energy production. The grid isn't getting bigger. It's getting better. This is, in fact, totally consistent with the capitalist manifesto. Making the product better increases its market appeal, thus growing its customer base and value.

[dohboi]

I think U's point was that to increase use of intermittent alternatives part of what you almost inevitably will have to do is to have make more connections across a broader geographical scope. Yes, that improves the grid, but it also pretty much inevitably makes it bigger.

I'm not sure why that's controversial or why one would be opposed to having a somewhat bigger grid in this case if it leads to a lot more inter-connectivity. But maybe I missed (or just forgot ) something?

[ralfy]

If the solutions will take place given industrial civilization based on global capitalism, then they are not solutions.

[vtsnowedin]

I think U's point was that to increase use of intermittent alternatives part of what you almost inevitably will have to do is to have make more connections across a broader geographical scope. Yes, that improves the grid, but it also pretty much inevitably makes it bigger.

I'm not sure why that's controversial or why one would be opposed to having a somewhat bigger grid in this case if it leads to a lot more inter-connectivity. But maybe I missed (or just forgot ) something?

One word of caution. If it is big and all interconnected then it becomes possible to all crash at once.