Smarter Electric Grid Could Be Key To Saving Power

[Dav]

Actually its where the voltage is stepped down for houses where most of the losses are made.

 

Even in europe at 220v this is the case so I dont see how altering the voltage by 100v will really make a difference considering that the voltage is being reduced from 1000s of volts.

 

The real solution is more energy efficent devices and less wreckless waste.

 

If you are away for 3 days your air con doesnt need to be on.

 

In winter heating should only be on minimum if the pipes are at risk of being frozen, otherwise it should be off.

[Dr Brain]

Actually its where the voltage is stepped down for houses where most of the losses are made.

 

Err... No. Transformers are pretty good.

[rootbear75]

In winter heating should only be on minimum if the pipes are at risk of being frozen, otherwise it should be off.

uh, no? i dont want to freeze my !@#$%^&* off

[FMBI]

I think you're all missing the point here..

 

The US infrastructure is dated, decaying, and underequipped, and the citizens of the US are the most wasteful in the developed world (besides Australians; however, there's a population difference of 280 million people) - we dodged the bullet for 30 years, but now the same experience we're having with gas is finally going to extend to other parts of our lives. I'm personally very much against this sort of thing, because I'm a conscientious person (I don't use air conditioning, keep heater at 56-60 in winter, etc), but think about something for a minute.

 

Confess and darkhosis basically said "I don't give a !@#$%^&*, just charge me more" - which is exactly why they do need to do this in the first place.

 

When you have enough electricity and people waste it, you can overcome the deficit and boost prices - when you actually experience shortfalls and fewer people have enough, it isn't possible to just "charge more", you have to actually take action.

 

It's finally time for the paradigm shift people have been talking about for 30 years, and basically you can either shift yourself, or else you can be shifted by the government, and throw away some of your civil liberties at the same time. I know which way I'm going.

Edited May 8, 2008 by Finland My BorgInvasion

[Dav]

Actually its where the voltage is stepped down for houses where most of the losses are made.

 

Err... No. Transformers are pretty good.

 

It isn't the transformers, It is the high current travailing between the transformer stations and the end point at the appliance.

 

Lower voltage means higher current.

 

High current means more loss due to conversion to heat.

[Samapico]

This conversation is going in circle guys...

 

Yes the current goes up out of the transformer to your home... but as Brain said already, since the currents in a single home is very (relatively) low, you don't get much loss.

And

That's because resistive losses go up with the square of the current,

 

so...

Negliaglbe on the house scale yes, But on the country scale it makes a difference of a few power plants

not really

[Aileron]

Actually, Finland, I think the UAE is higher than the US in per capita energy consumption.

 

So, you essentially claim that the entire field of economics is wrong and that raising prices can't lower demand. Wow, your wisdom must shine like a beacon in these dark times, or atleast like a night light.

 

 

 

Well, depends on the locale. The two big energy suckers are refrigerators and air conditioners. If we are talking Arizona, household energy consumption can add up enough to be significant. If we are talking Ontario, not so much. The big consumers of electricity are the large industrial machines.

[FMBI]

Actually, Finland, I think the UAE is higher than the US in per capita energy consumption.

 

So, you essentially claim that the entire field of economics is wrong and that raising prices can't lower demand. Wow, your wisdom must shine like a beacon in these dark times, or atleast like a night light.

 

How am I "claiming that the entire field of economics is wrong"?

 

I'm simply stating that, while you can rely on higher prices to counter higher demand in a situation where there is enough, you cannot rely on it in a permanent shortage situation. Raising prices on it isn't going to change the situation permanently, you ultimately need to cut consumption and increase supply. In this topic the limited resource is power, because the US has both been laggy in upgrading its infrastructure and very wasteful in using power. You can temporarily lower demand by raising prices, but people are going to stupidly soldier on anyway. People cried about gas when it was at $2.50 recently, now it's close to $4.00 throughout most of the US and, despite all the media coverage on it, the average person has not significantly cut back their usage.

 

That leaves the second option, increase supply artificially. The only way to do that, until newer power sources are built and put into action, is to force people to stop using power.

 

If you don't intervene, then you're going to see skyrocketing costs for power, brownouts, panicked lawmakers, lawsuits, abandonment (rather than simply lessening the appeal of) southwest areas, and a desperate (albeit belated) attempt to expand the power supply. However, because of your friend, supply and demand, it's unlikely the supply will be expanded unless it can be done in such a way as to ensure profitability - after the first undercuts of the new boosted prices, there will be a lessened appeal for expansion, and you'll just start off at the "next tier", rather than gradually working to improve the grid and control prices. Think of it inflationary terms - do you want a huge mess, or "counterproductive" price controls which help keep people alive?

 

 

And also - the gulf states are higher per capita consumers of energy than the US (roughly 1.5x), and Iceland also beats us narrowly, but as I pointed out in my post, there's quite a population difference between those countries and the US. Using the amount of resources we do, on a large-nation scale, is unheard of even in Europe. France and Germany get by on roughly half the power per capita of the US, even though large portions of those countries are in similar climate zones to the mid-Atlantic states.

 

 

 

Supply and demand apply to a lot of situations, but it is not the end-all-be-all of life, simply because humans can alter the game at will - if supply and demand can safely be relied on to solve all our problems on its own, then why has stock, currency, and goods speculation led the world into disasters again and again? Sometimes intervention is necessary, as in this case.

[Aileron]

Okay, how about you assume that there are intelligent people other than yourself, and then try to analyze the issue based upon that !@#$%^&*umption.

 

 

The reason why gas prices can rise so much is because gas is a need. People 'stupidly' realize that without gas, they can't drive to work. Electricity is similar, people need it to function and will pay a high price for it. Still, people won't pay any price for neither gas nor electricity, so eventually rising prices will curb demand and curb consumption.

 

 

The better argument on your end would focus on the consequences of that though.

 

 

Forcing people to stop use electricity is a nice plan if one is running a dictatorship. Doesn't work to well in civilization though. Also, it would artificially reduce demand, not supply.

 

 

The good news is new nuke plants are beginning to get built, pending the result of this election. Believe it or not, Bush was very nuclear power friendly, so nuclear power plant manufacturers are rooting for McCain.

[darkhosis]

Okay, how about you assume that there are intelligent people other than yourself, and then try to analyze the issue based upon that !@#$%^&*umption.

 

 

The reason why gas prices can rise so much is because gas is a need. People 'stupidly' realize that without gas, they can't drive to work. Electricity is similar, people need it to function and will pay a high price for it. Still, people won't pay any price for neither gas nor electricity, so eventually rising prices will curb demand and curb consumption.

 

 

The better argument on your end would focus on the consequences of that though.

 

 

Forcing people to stop use electricity is a nice plan if one is running a dictatorship. Doesn't work to well in civilization though. Also, it would artificially reduce demand, not supply.

 

 

The good news is new nuke plants are beginning to get built, pending the result of this election. Believe it or not, Bush was very nuclear power friendly, so nuclear power plant manufacturers are rooting for McCain.

Really? Well, that's a huge bonus for McCain anyway.. didn't realize he was pro-nuclear power. Well, I guess it's to be !@#$%^&*umed... but pro enough to actually campaign for some plants to be built?

Edited May 9, 2008 by darkhosis