An ambitious and optimistic idea.

Let’s Build a Global Power Grid
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-...bal-power-grid


… “To be sure, a global supergrid would require quite a bit more infrastructure: by my estimate, roughly 100,000 km of HVDC lines and 115 converter stations, based on planned projects and assuming redundancy in some areas. A few of these stations would be “superstations,” such as the one envisioned by the developers of the Tres Amigas project in New Mexico. Tres Amigas is intended to connect North America’s three primary grids (west, east, and Texas) and also provide some energy storage. The global grid will need something similar wherever large regional grids come together. (See “First Steps to a Global Supergrid” for a list of proposed super grid projects in Asia, Europe, and other parts of the world.)”…

You will never be able to sell the climate-change agenda either to African-Americans or to Latinos.

If it were not for the Industrial Revolution - which the eco-sissies are now actively seeking to reverse - blacks would still be sharecroppers, if not outright slaves (and every time immigration has been cut off, either legislatively or through the sheer force of events, African-Americans have been the vastly inordinate beneficiaries).

And Latinos will never embrace a movement that is considered as effeminate as environmentalism is. When my older brother was in (Catholic) high school, they had this "Ecology Club" - and not one of its members was a "jock" type, if you get where I'm coming from; not only that, but at least three of its members were seen in a photo of a gay bar on Staten Island that the Staten Island Advance ran circa 1980 (and the vast majority of black people are turned off by this tendency on the part of the enviros as well).

Industrial hot water for industry from solar power dishes
http://tek-think.com/2014/08/19/indu...sh-technology/

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

You will never be able to sell the climate-change agenda either to African-Americans or to Latinos.

Don't African-Americans and Latinos have brains too?

And they use them too, so that they recognize how many of their group are being screwed over by climate change and pollution.

If it were not for the Industrial Revolution - which the eco-sissies are now actively seeking to reverse - blacks would still be sharecroppers, if not outright slaves (and every time immigration has been cut off, either legislatively or through the sheer force of events, African-Americans have been the vastly inordinate beneficiaries).

Eco-sissies is an unfair slogan. Green energy is the next (post) industrial revolution, which will power the new economic boom in the 2020s. Solar power creates more new jobs than any industry today. Read through this thread and other sources like the Climate Change: Science, Mitigation & Adaptation group on facebook. It helps your view of the world to be informed on what's going on.

The industrialization of southern plantations vastly increased the market for slaves. Africans were doing fine in their own land before being forcibly transported for slavery in the New World.

An ambitious and optimistic idea.


Let’s Build a Global Power Grid
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-...bal-power-grid


… “To be sure, a global supergrid would require quite a bit more infrastructure: by my estimate, roughly 100,000 km of HVDC lines and 115 converter stations, based on planned projects and assuming redundancy in some areas. A few of these stations would be “superstations,” such as the one envisioned by the developers of the Tres Amigas project in New Mexico. Tres Amigas is intended to connect North America’s three primary grids (west, east, and Texas) and also provide some energy storage. The global grid will need something similar wherever large regional grids come together. (See “First Steps to a Global Supergrid” for a list of proposed super grid projects in Asia, Europe, and other parts of the world.)”…

To my mind a terrible idea. We need redundancy and firewalls between nations. The more decentralised energy is and the greater the quantity of energy generated onsite the less vulnerable energy is to monopoly, let alone malware, terrorism and sabotage. The last thing humanity needs is to be under one economic or political roof. Humans are simply too diverse in culture to be citizens of one polity.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

You will never be able to sell the climate-change agenda either to African-Americans or to Latinos.

Oh, really?

Toward the end of his life, Martin Luther King latched onto environmentalism.

If it were not for the Industrial Revolution - which the eco-sissies are now actively seeking to reverse - blacks would still be sharecroppers, if not outright slaves (and every time immigration has been cut off, either legislatively or through the sheer force of events, African-Americans have been the vastly inordinate beneficiaries).

The Industrial Revolution at its start may have given slavery a new life by creating a market for cotton and pushing the western frontier in the South, with slaves pulled along as far west as Texas.

What has happened isn't the reversal of the Industrial Revolution; it is instead that creation of wealth through the manufacture of more stuff has become impossible. The computing power in a cell phone (which has little material in it -- probably less than an 1883 pocket watch in my possession) is greater than that of some early mainframe computers for which the punch cards for an unremarkable program weighed about as much as a hardcover best-seller. Quality and function now matter far more than does output.

And Latinos will never embrace a movement that is considered as effeminate as environmentalism is. When my older brother was in (Catholic) high school, they had this "Ecology Club" - and not one of its members was a "jock" type, if you get where I'm coming from; not only that, but at least three of its members were seen in a photo of a gay bar on Staten Island that the Staten Island Advance ran circa 1980 (and the vast majority of black people are turned off by this tendency on the part of the enviros as well).

Latinos are assimilating, '58 Flat. It is arguable that poor people of all kinds experience environmental degradation at its worst.

Just think of Flint, Michigan!

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

To my mind a terrible idea. We need redundancy and firewalls between nations. The more decentralised energy is and the greater the quantity of energy generated onsite the less vulnerable energy is to monopoly, let alone malware, terrorism and sabotage. The last thing humanity needs is to be under one economic or political roof. Humans are simply too diverse in culture to be citizens of one polity.

I thought that a global supergrid could help in the management of power availability . This would be a difficult political problem and test nations willingness to cooperate.
I agree that a decentralized approach has less risk and this actually fits better with my natural inclinations.

Recent article in Physics Today.

Is a US “renewables revolution” really “toppling” fossil fuels?


http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip...E1PA8Z,EMYGZ,1


"“It is turning out to be less challenging than expected to incorporate more and more renewables into the electric grid—and to handle periods of time when demand is high but the wind isn’t blowing and/or the sun isn’t shining.” So declared MIT-educated physicist and former Energy Department official Joe Romm in his 1 February blog post “Why the renewables revolution is now unstoppable.””…


… "“decade may well be remembered as one in which the clean energy transition reached critical mass”—qualified its reporting with quantification. Renewables “still have a long way to go to match the dominance of fossil fuels,” that article stipulated. “The usual caveats remain: Wind and solar remain a small fraction of the broader US electricity mix (6.3 percent and 1.2 percent, respectively).””…

Originally Posted by radind

I thought that a global supergrid could help in the management of power availability . This would be a difficult political problem and test nations willingness to cooperate.

I agree that a decentralized approach has less risk and this actually fits better with my natural inclinations.

I really don't anticipate a true global super grid. The nearest examples of places not apt to get on a grid are Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket, islands not all that far off the coast of Cape Cod. The cost - benefit trade off just isn't there. Connecting North America to Europe or Australia to Asia seem even more unattractive.

The other thing you have to watch is cutting areas off as a black out starts. A larger more inclusive grid can provide protection against an area overloading, but once an overload starts you have to be able to isolate it to prevent the whole net from going down. Current technology is pretty good at this, but there are still occasional big blackouts. The ability to manage such cut outs has to be balanced against the ability to move reserve power around.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

To my mind a terrible idea. We need redundancy and firewalls between nations. The more decentralised energy is and the greater the quantity of energy generated onsite the less vulnerable energy is to monopoly, let alone malware, terrorism and sabotage. The last thing humanity needs is to be under one economic or political roof. Humans are simply too diverse in culture to be citizens of one polity.

You don't seem to be a big fan of war, or at least of intervention. You might consider the virtues of balance, in this case between international linkage and unity, with diversity and local control. The United States has worked pretty well under such a balance, and now it's being tried in the EU, which the Europeans are hanging onto despite current stresses. Nationalism on the other hand breeds war, rivalry and imperialism.

Same with energy. Decentralized approaches are good, but larger grids are good too. A balance of both will meet our needs. It's possible that as efficiency improves, grids won't be needed. How far into the future that is, is not clear. But what IS clear is that we need to transition to clean energy now, and not wait for total decentralization.

Originally Posted by radind

I thought that a global supergrid could help in the management of power availability . This would be a difficult political problem and test nations willingness to cooperate.
I agree that a decentralized approach has less risk and this actually fits better with my natural inclinations.

I doubt this is feasible. If the idea involves long-haul movement of intermittent energy, then I²R losses will eat that away to nothing. If the idea is a massive self-healing grid, then the complexity will exceed the ability of the management system to actually provide coherent and real-time control. Lag times alone will create ineffective control (too little too late) or oscillations (anticipating things that don't happen).

Unseen effects of climate change.

The Nature Daily News Alert
"Beneath the waves. Human-induced climate change is triggering changes beneath the waves that could have a long-term effect on marine food webs. (BBC; PNAS paper)”


Climate stirring change beneath the waves


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-35631223


… ""The main results of the study were that we found that when the climate changes it was not just the temperature that was changing and impacting phytoplankton but it was also all the ocean circulation and the conditions in the ocean surface, such as nutrients and light, that have an ecological impact," Dr Barton observed.
“Generally, the whole physical environment is altered; in some cases, quite substantially.””…

Back on topic.

AGW can be thought of as a low frequency saw tooth. Yes, there will be a peak and a decline. Forcing will peak then decline.

As for what governs the peak, that is a matter of great speculation. In the scenario of MADD, the peak will result from peak population and would be late this century.

However, it could be much sooner.

I personally think MADD is a crock of shit.

There is nothing to stop eventual usage.

Once that happens, then WW3 and perhaps additional wars of mass destruction will ensue.

Scared of AGW?

It's nothing compared with sudden cooling.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doubt this is feasible. If the idea involves long-haul movement of intermittent energy, then I²R losses will eat that away to nothing. If the idea is a massive self-healing grid, then the complexity will exceed the ability of the management system to actually provide coherent and real-time control.

At some point, the system will be chaotic.

I don't know if this is feasible, but was banking on the IEEE to know enough( lots more than me) to assess losses and feasibility. I see the bigger challenge as political
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-...bal-power-grid

More bad news.

New Data Reveal Stunning Acceleration of Sea Level Rise


http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ea-level-rise/
“The oceans have heaved up and down as world temperatures have waxed and waned, but as new research tracking the past 2,800 years shows, never during that time did the seas rise as sharply or as suddenly as has been the case during the last century.”…


… “Even If humans quickly stop polluting the atmosphere, potentially keeping a global temperature rise to well below 2°C (3.8°F) compared with preindustrial times — a major goal of the Paris climate agreement — seas may still rise by an additional 9 inches to 2 feet this century, the study concluded. “…

Originally Posted by radind

I don't know if this is feasible, but was banking on the IEEE to know enough( lots more than me) to assess losses and feasibility. I see the bigger challenge as political
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-...bal-power-grid

A few more notes from the article.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-...bal-power-grid


… “But the technology now exists to transmit massive amounts of electricity over long distances without significant losses, thereby allowing operators to balance consumption and generation across an entire continent—or, potentially, the globe.”…


… "But power engineers also knew that a DC system operating at high voltage would be superior to AC for the same task, because the amount of electricity lost during DC transmission would be far less than with AC.
How much less? Let’s say you’re transmitting a given amount of power by high-voltage DC: When you double the voltage, you need only half the current of a comparable AC system, thus reducing your line losses by a factor of four. You also need a lot less wire, because DC current penetrates the entire conductor of a power line, whereas AC current remains largely near the surface. Put another way, for the same conductor size, the effective resistance is greater with AC, and more power is lost as heat. In practice, that means the overall transmission infrastructure for AC far exceeds that for DC. To transmit 6,000 megawatts using a 765-kilovolt AC system, for instance, you’d need three separate single-circuit transmission lines, which would cut a right-of-way path about 180 meters wide. Compare that with an 800-kV DC system, which would require just one 80-meter-wide path.”..

Originally Posted by radind

I don't know if this is feasible, but was banking on the IEEE to know enough( lots more than me) to assess losses and feasibility. I see the bigger challenge as political
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-...bal-power-grid

I agree that anything involving the entire world is 99.99% political, and the rest is in the noise. The IEEE is notorious for throwing wild ideas around, and waiting for reactions (or DARPA-like solutions) to emerge. I suspect we won't see global energy anytime soon, if for no other reason than the lack of standards: 100-240VAC at 50 or 60 Hz. Messy.

The comments section covered a lot of more conventional and, to be honest, sensible alternatives. Baseload by worldwide load sharing is a dream. A few modern nukes, with fusion coming in the not-to-distant future, is vastly more sensible, cheaper and more reliable.

Originally Posted by radind

A few more notes from the article.

As noted, I²R is the issue, so the solution is extremely high voltage (hence lower current). 800kV is not a trivial solution to lowering current (I). What happens in a torrential rainstorm or very high winds? Can the lines support 1 inch of radial ice, which is not uncommon? If the transmission line crashes from arcing or just a mechanical failure, then what?

I'm still in the local-supply camp.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

As noted, I²R is the issue, so the solution is extremely high voltage (hence lower current). 800kV is not a trivial solution to lowering current (I). What happens in a torrential rainstorm or very high winds? Can the lines support 1 inch of radial ice, which is not uncommon? If the transmission line crashes from arcing or just a mechanical failure, then what?

I'm still in the local-supply camp.

The more things change...

Roughly a century ago, Edison and his local supply DC system lost out to Telsa's AC system that could transmit with much less loss over long distance...

I haven't looked into the current current problem, but it would be amusing if Edison ends up on top after all...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I agree that anything involving the entire world is 99.99% political, and the rest is in the noise. The IEEE is notorious for throwing wild ideas around, and waiting for reactions (or DARPA-like solutions) to emerge. I suspect we won't see global energy anytime soon, if for no other reason than the lack of standards: 100-240VAC at 50 or 60 Hz. Messy.

The comments section covered a lot of more conventional and, to be honest, sensible alternatives. Baseload by worldwide load sharing is a dream. A few modern nukes, with fusion coming in the not-to-distant future, is vastly more sensible, cheaper and more reliable.

I am fan of nuclear power, but the US has lost the initiative in that arena since Pres Carter. There are still international efforts in nuclear fusion, with the solution always 20 years away.
My preference would be for an aggressive, concerted US effort on energy research and development. So far there is no national consensus on how to proceed.
In the long, long run my expectation is that we will rely primarily on solar power.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

As noted, I²R is the issue, so the solution is extremely high voltage (hence lower current). 800kV is not a trivial solution to lowering current (I). What happens in a torrential rainstorm or very high winds? Can the lines support 1 inch of radial ice, which is not uncommon? If the transmission line crashes from arcing or just a mechanical failure, then what?

I'm still in the local-supply camp.

We can just wait and watch other countries try this out. My take is still that the international issues are primarily political and not technical.

China’s supergrid: To deliver solar and wind resources from the north and hydropower from the south to cities in the southeast, China has installed the most extensive network of high-voltage AC and HVDC in the world. It’s now expanding its transmission grid with 13 to 20 new HVDC lines.

Originally Posted by radind

I am fan of nuclear power, but the US has lost the initiative in that arena since Pres Carter. There are still international efforts in nuclear fusion, with the solution always 20 years away.

My preference would be for an aggressive, concerted US effort on energy research and development. So far there is no national consensus on how to proceed.
In the long, long run my expectation is that we will rely primarily on solar power.

Solar will never be baseload, but it is the least offensive power source there is. Wind has the issue of these huge spinning propellers eating birds. Nuclear is still a bugaboo. I doubt a worldwide grid would be a suitable choice for solving the off-hour problem, but I'm sure I won't be around to see what wins. The current Chinese success is based on newly installed infrastructure. Check back in 10 to 15 years.

... and I don't fault Carter for the nuclear panic. The TMI accident happened just 12 days after The China Syndrome was released, and the panic set in immediately. I didn't help that the movie was a huge success.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Solar will never be baseload, but it is the least offensive power source there is. Wind has the issue of these huge spinning propellers eating birds. Nuclear is still a bugaboo. I doubt a worldwide grid would be a suitable choice for solving the off-hour problem, but I'm sure I won't be around to see what wins. The current Chinese success is based on newly installed infrastructure. Check back in 10 to 15 years.

... and I don't fault Carter for the nuclear panic. The TMI accident happened just 12 days after The China Syndrome was released, and the panic set in immediately. I didn't help that the movie was a huge success.

I probably won't be around to see it, but I do expect solar to eventually become the basis for most power and new storage technology should be able to solve the baseload problem.

Originally Posted by radind

I probably won't be around to see it, but I do expect solar to eventually become the basis for most power and new storage technology should be able to solve the baseload problem.

Yes, especially the molten salt batteries at solar plants that are available now. Staying on the grid makes home batteries unnecessary for storage until better ones are developed. And the off-hours problem has been shown to be overblown. The law of numbers is used to explain how the power generated at different times from the panels and windmills all averages out.

I suspect we won't reach zero carbon in our lifetimes as boomers, but we could go a very long way toward it, which would mean a lot toward reducing future harm and lowering our energy bills. It all depends on the political will. Election of a Republican as president in 2016 will halt all progress at the most critical time.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, especially the molten salt batteries at solar plants that are available now. Staying on the grid makes home batteries unnecessary for storage until better ones are developed. And the off-hours problem has been shown to be overblown. The law of numbers is used to explain how the power generated at different times from the panels and windmills all averages out.

I suspect we won't reach zero carbon in our lifetimes as boomers, but we could go a very long way toward it, which would mean a lot toward reducing future harm and lowering our energy bills. It all depends on the political will. Election of a Republican as president in 2016 will halt all progress at the most critical time.

I don't see Trump winning but if he does win, I would not expect him to stop progress on new energy development.