Slashdot of all places, posted a good Rochester-relevant question today. Why don't we bury all of our power lines? This query is repeated frequently when we're living like cave dwellers after an ice storm, but we soon forget all about it as soon as our beer is ice-cold rather than piss-warm.
I have to admit that the power company's explanation made some good points. Foremost among them is that underground lines are more expensive, a lot harder to fix when they break, and that they can't be reconfigured to carry more power as quickly as overhead lines.
But the electric company's arguments ultimately don't hold water. Capacity probably isn't a big concern here. Rochester's less-than-stellar growth won't be straining our electrical infrastructure -- buried or above-ground -- anytime soon. Underground power is more expensive from the power company's point of view, but their analysis doesn't factor in the cost of generators, emergency repairs and lost business. And even if underground lines are harder to fix, they all won't break at once the way above-ground lines do.
It's also interesting that the issue of above-ground power lines is completely off the radar screens of our local media and politicians. As a non-native, maybe I'm less willing to accept that the power will go off for days every time we have an ice storm. Or maybe I'm just pickier about the temperature of my beer.
Comments (5)
You know, now and then slashdot actually comes upon something worth reading.
Posted by FarMcKon | June 28, 2006 11:02 PM
Posted on June 28, 2006 23:02
In the end, the problem is centralized power distribution. The biggest problem is that it has attrocious efficiency. Just using transformers to step-up and step-down power is at best 85% efficient or so, so going from a generator to 4,000 volts to high-tension, back to 4,000, to 240 is 4 steps so the overall efficiency is 85%^4=0.52%. That's completely ignoring losses to wire resistance.
Each person should have a wind/solar system on their house that's adequate for their needs. As a side bonus, it fixes another problem: an unlimited supply of power damages people's desire to reduce consumption. A local system can be made at least 70% efficient and there would be no overhead wires to break.
Posted by Jason Olshefsky | June 29, 2006 12:02 PM
Posted on June 29, 2006 12:02
I'm all for individual power generation, or neighborhood generation, or whatever makes sense. There definitely needs to be a more distributed alternative to the current centralized model of power distribution, especially one that maxes out the local contribution during peak periods (e.g., solar).
But don't we still need a reliable grid to feed that power back upstream if it is a sunny or windy day, or to provide backup if it is a cloudy or still day, or if one's generation system is on the fritz? And isn't it more likely that the day that we'll need the grid will be the day after a big storm that takes down everyone's windmill, or breaks or tears the solar off the roof?
In other words, my post-storm beer is still warm in the solar/wind/local utopia, unless the grid is reliable.
Posted by Rottenchester | June 29, 2006 1:52 PM
Posted on June 29, 2006 13:52
Well, a battery backup is a standard part of most home-generation systems, and they're usually plenty to get you through your typical ice/wind storm aftermath of a couple days. But I agree, you want a reliable grid so you can share any excess power you generate once you charge up your batteries.
Posted by bythepeople | July 1, 2006 2:35 PM
Posted on July 1, 2006 14:35
Not to get too down on the "local power" thing, but really, who pays when your solar panel breaks? Given the weather in Rochester, this is not a thing that is likely to be at all rare.
Posted by DragonFlyEye | July 7, 2006 7:50 AM
Posted on July 7, 2006 07:50