🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <cq6huq$77f$1@reader2.panix.com>, 
EskWIRED@spamblock.panix.com wrote:

> In ne.general HawkCW4 <HawkCW4@cox.net> wrote:
> 
> > I'll bite.  What would you suggest a reasonable source would be? 
> 
> I don't think that the concept of "a" reasonable source is the right 
> mindset.  Given the relatively low output of most of the alternatives, I 
> think that a combination approach makes sense.  Personally, I'm 
> interested in small hydro, but solar and wind are interesting too.

Excellent point that there will be no single solution either to 
generation or conservation. I do wish, here in the DC area, that there 
were a way to harness the wind speed and heat on Capitol Hill, but 
that's an example of a solution that works for only a few localities 
that have such efficient generators of hot air.

> 
> Distributed generation is a concept that makes a lot of sense to me.  
> None of these would eliminate our dependence on imported fossil fuels, 
> but all of them could help.

It's an interesting question whether distributed small generators should 
also be considered a source of cogeneration, or the overhead of 
financial data collection, safety and assurance of the grid, etc., make 
it more of a per-building or even small-tract (office park, etc.) 
solution.  Industrial cogeneration seems to have taken off in some areas 
but not others.

Another major concern is the technology level of the North American 
electrical grid, coupled with regulatory changes.  In many cases, it has 
become more economic for utilities to buy power than generate it. 
There's nothing inherently wrong with that -- if, hypothetically, there 
were a breakthrough in solar, then major power might come from the 
Southwest.

The technical problem is more subtle, in that much of the North American 
grid is not designed for interconnection of utilitiee, as we have seen 
in the technical analysis of regional blackouts. Factors include that 
older regional grids use high-voltage alternating current (AC), with 
often electromechanical switchgear, and the additional requirement to 
match the frequency and phase of AC before interconnecting -- lest there 
be dangerous surges. Newer, extremely high voltage systems are direct 
current (DC) with solid-state switching and no frequency or phase to 
match. DC also lends itself better to computer control.  

Unfortunately, to upgrade the North American grid interconnection system 
will have a cost in the tens of billions, at a time where competitive 
utilities are extremely sensitive to cost.  Incidentally, some upgrades 
will also harden the grid against high-tech terrorism.  So far, we 
haven't seen major deliberate attempts, but there was a warning in one 
of the more recent Northeast blackouts. While the Supervisory Control 
And Data Acquisition (SCADA) networks for the power grid should be 
totally isolated from the Internet, we had at least one incident of a 
bored contractor attaching a SCADA computer to the Internet with 
personal equipment, which allowed a virus to get into the electrical 
SCADA system.  SCADA networks, incidentally, are critical to other 
national resources such as oil & gas pipelines, water, etc., and 
urgently need protection, probably on the order of moderately high 
security military networks.
> 
> In the short run, conservation makes more sense than anything.