racookpe1978
Nuclear
I've been in the power production (mechanical, maintenance and piping though) field for a while, but have not seen this issue addressed from a practical standpoint.
On a political web forum, we were discussing the problems with "alternate energy" and I was challenged to validate my statement that - while voltage can be "sent" over extremely long distances through the regional grids, "power" can't be transmitted for more than 800 to 1100 miles before resistance losses become too high. Thus, while some additional solar power or wind power could be produced (for limited amounts of every day) in AZ or north TX, the power produced could not be transmitted to the users further than about the Missouri or Missi rivers.
I know losses are mainly I^2R, and as voltage increases, current (thus losses) reduce by the square. Easy. But what are actual losses for today's real-world (not AGW-propagandized next world order) transmissions system?
My analogy to these non-engineers was a garden hose: You can string two 50 foot sections together and water your front yard with little problem. Spray the water out at the end, and you could put out a trash fire. String 8 sections together and you can get water to your neighbor's kitchen, but not with a great flow. You'd still have full pressure (voltage) - but only if there was no flow (power = IV). Go further down the street with 12 or 18 sections, and you can't even fill a sink or toilet, much less fill a bathtub or put out his house fire because transmission losses are so high.
They didn't buy it: Claimed that the national grid sends power "completely cross-country all the time" and "all" we need is national money for GE's "smart grid."
On-line sources show links between the regional grids only at a few spots (most apparently with HV DC lines), and that only a few dedicated lines - such as between Hoover Dam and LA/South Ca - are true long distance carriers.
What's the effective limit (or most efficient limit) for transmitting HV power today? Do we expect anything coming up that really make a difference in the next twenty years?
On a political web forum, we were discussing the problems with "alternate energy" and I was challenged to validate my statement that - while voltage can be "sent" over extremely long distances through the regional grids, "power" can't be transmitted for more than 800 to 1100 miles before resistance losses become too high. Thus, while some additional solar power or wind power could be produced (for limited amounts of every day) in AZ or north TX, the power produced could not be transmitted to the users further than about the Missouri or Missi rivers.
I know losses are mainly I^2R, and as voltage increases, current (thus losses) reduce by the square. Easy. But what are actual losses for today's real-world (not AGW-propagandized next world order) transmissions system?
My analogy to these non-engineers was a garden hose: You can string two 50 foot sections together and water your front yard with little problem. Spray the water out at the end, and you could put out a trash fire. String 8 sections together and you can get water to your neighbor's kitchen, but not with a great flow. You'd still have full pressure (voltage) - but only if there was no flow (power = IV). Go further down the street with 12 or 18 sections, and you can't even fill a sink or toilet, much less fill a bathtub or put out his house fire because transmission losses are so high.
They didn't buy it: Claimed that the national grid sends power "completely cross-country all the time" and "all" we need is national money for GE's "smart grid."
On-line sources show links between the regional grids only at a few spots (most apparently with HV DC lines), and that only a few dedicated lines - such as between Hoover Dam and LA/South Ca - are true long distance carriers.
What's the effective limit (or most efficient limit) for transmitting HV power today? Do we expect anything coming up that really make a difference in the next twenty years?
