2,192 karma · joined November 1, 2009
If we can have open standards to allow my car to interoperate with my home batteries (Franklin, Enphase, Tesla Powerwall or others), we'll all be better off.
I considered "(is supposed to)" preceding "protect"
And that is where many of us have played a role: increasing engagement.
One approach would be a revenue-neutral carbon tax on extraction of sequestered carbon. And border carbon taxes for imports from countries who don't also have an internal carbon tax.
Also, worth noting in the event the conclusions are extrapolated to diesel over the road transportation: train diesel is much less expensive as it's exempt from fuel (state and federal) taxes.
Not "most," but a lot. From the article: > regenerative braking on the new trains is generating and sending back to the electric grid approximately 23% of the energy consumed by the system
They would love to reconductor the other circuits. In the US, the utilities make a guaranteed rate of return on investments in the transmission system. So, anything they regulators will let them do, they'll do -- not necessarily because it has technical benefits, but because it has economic benefits.
This is one reason why reconductoring isn't that popular with utilities -- it allows the utility to get more capacity with less spend, so less profit.
The primary difference between the traditional conductors and advanced conductors is temperature tolerance. Most transmission lines are aluminum conductors with a steel core for strength (ASCR). As current increases, so does temperature, causing lines to sag (or the steel anneal if too hot).
Advanced conductors use a different composition to operate at higher temperatures, or otherwise carry more current (one example: aluminum conductor, composite reinforced, or ACCR) so as to have similar weight (and profile) to the original, traditional conductor.
Among risks that are managed is ground faults caused by sage (as the line heats, it expands, getting closer to the ground), or 2) annealing which is a permanent expansion of the conductor due to operating too hot for too long. The advanced conductors use composite cores allowing the conductor to carry more current at a higher temperature with reduced risk for annealing.
More likely is that lower impedance on the reconductored circuit will cause increased flows on other, non-upgraded circuits, either requiring those to be reconductored, or installing phase-shifting tranformers or reactors to limit current.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) allows for an equity rate of return on assets of approx 10% (9.3). [1]
As a result, California IOUs don't have an incentive to sell more power, but do have an economic incentive to build more assets. Asset construction is driven by growing peak demand. Or under-investment in O&M.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09571...
[1] https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ferc-lowers-pge-transmissio...
As a society (natural monopoly), we pay to meet peak demand. In fact, most of the cost of electricity (in the US, in most markets...) is not the marginal cost of generation, but the amortization of fixed costs.
My reducing the peak demand, we reduce the need to build new infrastructure that is unnecessary for all but 8755 hours a year.
PG&E has a "revenue requirement" which is the amount it needs to bring in to cover operating, energy procurement, construction, and profit. At the most simplistic level, rates ($/kWh) are set by dividing the revenue requirement by the anticipated quantity of electricity sold.
The amount of profit it is allowed to make it determined primarily by how much it has invested to safely and reliably deliver electricity. Some of that is regulated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). Something like a 9% return on equity for investment.
This creates a misalignment of incentives: PG&E would rather spend CapEx than OpEx. This is the market failure (of the natural monopoly) that the regulator is supposed to address.
However, PG&E's lack of maintainence on a metal hook (over > 80 years) which eventually failed caused the Camp Fire. Instead of replacing all of the hooks (a relatively inexpensive OpEx), PG&E proposed, and the CPUC blessed, an incredibly expensive effort to underground transmission lines. [0] This is a windfall for PG&E's investors and organized labor in California. But a huge headwind to the economy of California, and California's efforts to electrify. As others have noted, PG&E's rates are now so expensive that driving an EV doesn't save materially (or at all) over gasoline (even with California's relatively high gasoline prices).
[0] https://www.wsj.com/us-news/climate-environment/pg-e-wins-ap...
Most of the grid is a fixed cost. The transmission lines, distribution lines and the power plants recover enormous investments whether they are used or not.
The marginal costs are surprisingly low. Marginal costs of fueled (fossil or nuclear) power plants are typically < $0.05/kWh.
Peak load is what drives capacity expansion -- both in wires (transmission and distribution) but also generation. Building all of this capacity to only run for < 1% of the year incurs tremendous cost.
By flattening the (demand) curve (through either generation or load reduction) there are tremendous savings for society.
However, electric utilities are natural monopolies, so investor owned utilities (contrasted with munis or coops) must substantiate investment to their regulators who in turn allow them to make a rate of return on their investments. So, these utilities only increase profit by increasing investment.
It also, IMHO holds on to an outdated concept that all generation must be centrally dispatched. There are plenty of concepts that allow distributed dispatch including voltage (which in turn can be controlled based on local conditions).
Finally (and perhaps most importantly), it implies that only devices that export generation are part of the solution. The supply and demand must be balanced in real-time. And the demand side of the equation is often much less expensive than the supply side.
A pragmatic approach might be to use this information, populate a tax form, send out for signature confirming accuracy and completeness. The balance of the tax payers could continue to use Intuit, H&R Block and others to handle their circumstances.
There is a contingent of Congress that does not want to make tax preparation easier because it aligns with their narrative that taxes are bad. The more painful tax preparation is, the more sympathy they find with this narrative.
And then there is the voltage conversion, which traditionally happened on the AC side (inexpensive and simple AC transformers are generally why the transmission and distribution systems are AC). Modern power supplies allow for buck/boost on the DC side.
USB-C power supplies are above 90% efficient. [1]
[0] https://eepower.com/new-industry-products/huawei-claims-most... [1] https://www.ti.com/lit/ug/tidudw2c/tidudw2c.pdf?ts=168350042...