Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy❤
No. of Recommendations: 5
No. of Recommendations: 3
Camera, sensing and communication technology has come a long ways in recent years. You would think there are solutions installable on high voltage lines and towers to immediately detect and automatically alleviate fire hazard problems implementable at a small fraction of the cost of buried high voltage lines.
With the right incentives and electrical, safety, fire code standard approvals for state level bureaucratic sign off you would think this could be done.
Uwharrie
No. of Recommendations: 14
Camera, sensing and communication technology has come a long ways in recent years. You would think there are solutions installable on high voltage lines and towers to immediately detect and automatically alleviate fire hazard problems implementable at a small fraction of the cost of buried high voltage lines.
It is true that technology can let operators know when wind speeds exceed the tolerances of their equipment. The response to such reports is to turn off the juice. This prevents the lines from starting fires. It also leaves downstream customers without power. This has happened so frequently in California in recent years that it has an acronym -- PSPS, Public Safety Power Shutoffs.
A public policy question is likely to be whether customers are willing to pay significantly higher utility rates for a more resilient power grid or are willing to accept these intentional blackouts, which are projected to increase in frequency, in exchange for lower rates. Burying power lines is not the only means to achieve a more resilient grid, although it's probably the most reliable.
Some communities are looking at microgrid technology, which can incorporate solar-plus-storage battery systems to fill gaps when the macro grid is offline.
The big federal infrastructure spending bill included establishment of something called the Community Energy Resilience Investment (CERI) program, which California is tapping to upgrade its grid infrastructure generally.
Southern California Edison has an initiative called "Reimagining the Grid" which is mostly aimed at supporting California's decarbonization goals but also claims to modernize grid planning, design and operation.
There are also Dynamic Line Rating (DLR) systems designed to optimize transmission by continually adjusting the thermal rating of the lines based on real-time weather readings, including wind speeds. Unfortunately, sudden changes in conditions can leave lines operating above their thermal limits, so these systems may introduce an additional hazard if not monitored expertly.
No. of Recommendations: 5
It would appear the Utility Commission is not opposed to passing the costs on to the consumer, even in the "People's Republic of Oregon".
The Oregon Public Utility Commission (PUC) finalized rate increases for PacifiCorp (dba Pacific Power) customers effective January 1, 2023. The increase is a result of the annual adjustment for power costs, which are markedly higher due to market volatility, and non-energy related costs, including costs to mitigate wildfire risk. The average overall rate increase is 14.8 percent combined for all customer types.
For 2025:
Pacific Power filed a general rate case and a Transition Adjustment Mechanism update with the Oregon Public Utility Commission. The combined rate actions would result in a 16.9% rate adjustment, or roughly $304 million, and would support continued investments in wildfire risk management strategies, transmission infrastructure and renewable generation projects.
No. of Recommendations: 8
No. of Recommendations: 8
It seems very likely that it is INSANE to considering high voltage lines at that cost.
I believe the FUNDAMENTAL problem is that California hardly builds any power plants, and so becomes increasingly reliant on moving electricity long ways from states that do have power plants. If we would build power plants on the other side of the areas that can be lit on fire, we wouldn't have to carry so much electricity across those areas and so would not need to have as many fires and/or blackouts. Its the modern stupidity:
* don't build power plants to save the environment, oops we burned down the environment
* don't build desalinization plants to save the ocean (nuts just on its face) oops none of our rivers actually make it all the way to the ocean anymore
* don't consider geoengineering to address global warming oops just doomed the poor and starving people of the world to be poor and starving for quite a while longer
Somebody wrote:
Some communities are looking at ... solar-plus-storage battery systems to fill gaps
I am amazed that people don't seem to realize you don't need to build solar to put in batteries to use as "peaker plants". You charge the batteries from the existing grid at night when electricity is cheap anyway, then they are available to use when you have an interruption in the ridiculous imports of power because utility companies can't afford to burn down any more mountains.
R:
No. of Recommendations: 13
It seems very likely that it is INSANE to considering high voltage lines at that cost. There is a way to double grid capacity, make it safer, and not have to add a single tower or clear any environmental regulations. It’s called “Reconductoring” the lines.
Most of our existing power lines consist of a steel core surrounded by strands of aluminum.
In reconductoring, advanced conductors replace the steel core with a core made of a composite material, such as carbon fiber that’s not only lighter but stronger. This might seem like a very subtle shift in materials and design; however, it allows power lines to operate at higher temperatures and sag less, significantly increasing their load capacity.
Whereas advanced conductors cost 2-4 times more than conventional power lines, upgrading existing lines using advanced conductors actually costs less than half what a new power line would cost because it does away with much of the construction spending as well as fees from permitting for new rights-of-way, with power companies only needing to apply for a maintenance permit to put new wires, the researchers have found. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/This-Mi...Along with this is would be fairly trivial to add remote monitoring and the ability to shut down high tension wires during significant weather events, especially if a distributed model of conduction was employed to go around lines that had been temporarily shut off. Going underground with all of this is fantasy!
No. of Recommendations: 5
energy draw is going to rise much faster than perviously. a small datacenter for AI = 5 average homes. add in the usage, recharging, semi production and if all else remains the same, we will be totally power hungry.
useful to look elsewhere for examples of grids. Belgium lights all its motorways at night, drawing from nuclesr power stations whilst demand low,and can upproduce quickly for daytime use. they dont bury wires and the dutch have many jokes about it.
holland buries all cables, so maintenennce costs and issues are lower, but dont like nuclear power so much.
Most cables/HV lines are buried in europe. to lower ongoing issues (wind/storms etc) and make more safe for the communities.
I remember being (and still am ) surprised at the uglification of american street wiring. looks like the Favella's to me.
Just my 2 cents worth, you get what you paid for....
No. of Recommendations: 4
Me: It seems very likely that it is INSANE to considering high voltage lines at that cost.
Goofy: There is a way to double grid capacity, make it safer, and not have to add a single tower or clear any environmental regulations. It’s called “Reconductoring” the lines.
Oooops, I left a word out of that sentence. SHould've been:
It seems very likely that it is INSANE to considering burying high voltage lines at that cost.
So yes, I do indeed think we should use high voltage power lines above the ground, figure out how we want to allocate the risk and put that into law. But I would hope what we figured out included using LESS high voltage power lines carrying LESS electricity through flammable area that, apparently, have been frequently lit up.
And my point was that in a state (California) that has a fetish against building things that would actually improve the envioronment and other things humans care about, we are going to wind up with more and longer high voltage lines carrying more electricity than if we simply turned off the STUPID for long enough to build a few more (well probably a lot more) power plants closer to where the demand is than, say, Oregon is.
R:
No. of Recommendations: 12
more electricity than if we simply turned off the STUPID for long enough to build a few more (well probably a lot more) power plants closer to where the demand is than, say, Oregon is.
OK, maybe, but you’re not going to be able to put a power plant close enough to each one of these served communities to make a difference. Yes, you might make it safer “running through the forest” but you’re going to make it unsafer having a nuke or gas or oil or coal plant down the street from Mr. & Mrs. Average American’s home. I mean we’re talking about several hundred communities being served by a relative handful of power sources, at least at present.
More to the point, most power loss doesn’t come from “the transmission”, that’s at most 5%. You lose another 10% stepping the voltage up and then back down, which you have to do even if you’re only going a few tens of miles, and up to another 5% in “local distribution”, running the lines at lower voltages in neighborhoods and splitting again with the transformers on the poles. (“Reconductoring” doesn’t change that 5% transmission loss, it allows you to push twice as much juice through without having to build more towers, EPA hearings, NIMBY objections, etc. That’s worth a lot.)
I’m not saying “nothing can be done”, just that it’s a more complex problem (assuming you want to have some reliability in the grid) than most people think.
No. of Recommendations: 6
If you want to track what’s happening this site is good.
“Chart: Nearly all new US power plants built in 2024 will be clean energy
Renewables, batteries and nuclear will add up to 96% of all new power capacity constructed this year, per federal data.”
[The other 4% is gas.]
https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/clean-energy/...Be sure to check out the articles on batteries.
“The analysts at the federal Energy Information Agency predict that the total battery capacity installed on the U.S. grid will rise from 17.3 gigawatts at the end of 2023 to 31.1 gigawatts by the close of 2024. That scenario represents 80% year-over-year growth.”
Shaun (owner of a small rooftop grid-tied solar array)
