Securing the National Grid(s) 2

[GrandpaDave]

I did a search on the subject of this new thread
and did not see any forums on this site... maybe
there is a thread somewhere. Anyway I'm putting
this new thread on top of climate change thread here
under "Where is Engineering Going In The Next 5 Years
Forum".

Are there any thoughts on the subject? Is it a
concern or not? The federal government (US government)
can not seem to move on this issue, in IMHO it is.

I came across the following site:

http://www.securethegrid.org/

G-pa Dave
PS: Hearing the audio book "One Second After" woke me up.

 

[GrandpaDave]

==> Haven't hit $500 yet...

This old house I own needs a serious work over in the areas of insulation, weather stripping, needs Thermopanes, old dirty ducts, etc.
In addition to that the washing machine and dryer are running all the time with the mother-in-law and wife competing with each other.
The $500 bill only happened twice this past winter and it was the first time I've seen them that high. It actually gets pretty cold
in north Florida. The bill usually is between $300 and $400. I'll be interested what this summer's heat will bring. Managing the bills
on a fix income is a balancing act for retired folks... nothing comes down it's this or that that is going up. But not to worry, I am
now joining the Obama nanny state and living off the hard working tax payers. Seems OK to me since I retired after 40+ years in the
rat race. Enough said...

 

[cranky108]

So if the goverment can't secure the border, how can we expect the power grid to be secure?

Affordable energy is a more relistic goal, or even stable energy (which it is so far). Take your pick, you may not be able to achieve them all.

Just look, and we see the desire to bring more people to this country, and lower our consumption of some fuels. What has to happen for this to happen?
Smart grid, or the ability to cut you off if the factory down the street needs more energy. Investment in new energy sources, or assets that aren't already paid for.
Energy storage to be able to use more unschedulable energy (with large storage losses).

What we aren't doing is nucular energy, or coal power, or building new refineries. So what will this add up to? More profits for alternitive energy, and higher energy bills in your mail boxes.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not pushing for anything except relistic balance in an energy market.

 

[TomDOT]

We're certainly re-opening mothballed refineries and otherwise increasing capacity...

"Companies will add 500,000 to 830,000 barrels a day of crude and condensate processing capacity to handle more light oil over the next five years"

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...s-as-shale-spurs-refining-revival-energy.html

 

[cranky108]

I believe it to be enviromental regulation, not that having some regulation is bad, but in some cases it goes too far.
It is cheeper for a company to keep hold of a contimated site, than to midigate it. And with ramping enviromental regulations, few companies want to open new sites.

We should get this right, but any time you handle a large amount of anything, you will spill some. Things that may not be bad in small amounts, can be very bad in large amounts. Oil, coal, sewage sludge, nitrates from meat processing are examples where a little is not a problem, but a large amount over time is a problem.

So there is little desire to open new sites for coal, nucular, refiniries, ect. where additional capacity cam be added.

I still go back to the wind farms, as what will happen when these things become too costly to keep running? Will they be scraped, or abandoned?

 

[TomDOT]

I have to say that I would be a lot less concerned about long-term hazards on my land with a wind farm than "mountaintop removal" style coal mining.