Hybrid Car – More Fun with Less Gas

Good News on Solar - Page 16

register ::  Login Password  :: Lost Password?
Posted by Jeff Thies on December 24, 2005, 4:33 pm
 
Johnny wrote:

Looks like 7.2% in the states.

Feeling snippy today, eh?


That's why they are small, because losses are current related and
current is inversely proportional to voltage.

Not sure how the supeconducting lines are coming along...


Fine, go Amish.

Last I heard, mucho natural gas was still being burned off at the well
rather than being transported.


Actually it looks like most losses are inside the home. Vampire watts,
inefficient appliances. Transmission losses appear to be the lowest
fraction of total loss.


I'm not lobbying. Bigger is more efficient.


It's clear to me that money in the states is going to those that have
the most already. I'm for regulated energy utilities as deregulation
appears to be corporate welfare.


I'm also for pollution controls and by no means (as my government
believes) thinks this should be left to the generosity of big business.

   They do it.

They mostly heat with wood.

No, you just aren't getting what I'm saying. Best bang for the buck at
this point is in conservation and solar heat. I've been saying that all
along.

   But, if you can do PV or some alternate energy method, go for it. For
most of us this is not practical at present.

   Cheers,
Jeff


Posted by Johnny on December 25, 2005, 2:01 am
 


Ok. Thank you.
I misunderstood your perspective it seems.


Yes. The utilities can afford to do it because they have an income stream
which lets them borrow large amounts of money they can pay with interest
only payments. After the term of the bond they see capital investments which
thye deporeciated off their taxable income at often higher valuations, which
means they have more equity than they borrowed and can issue another bond to
retire the old bond, etc.
The small consumer will not realize big savings, imo, with the huge entities
running their businesses for profit, which seems to dampen renewables growth
rates.



Posted by daestrom on December 24, 2005, 5:03 pm
 

Why, to keep the losses that low of course.


For nice 750 Mem ACRS, 100 miles is 7.7 ohms per conductor.  Running 500 MW
over a 3-phase line at 500 kV, the losses run about 7.8 MW.


Maybe you need to put these things in perspective.  Many more people killed
by automobiles and alcohol.  Or other daily risks.  The losses in
transmission are 'acceptable' because to reduce them further would cost more
to implement improvements than the cost of the energy saved by those
improvements.

daestrom



Posted by R.H. Allen on December 26, 2005, 9:15 pm
 Johnny wrote:

According to DOE, line losses were 9% of gross electrical generation in
2003.


So line losses will be small.

Posted by Johnny on December 26, 2005, 10:42 pm
 

Thanks. So, the losses are from resistance only?



This Thread
Bookmark this thread:
 
 
 
 
 
 
  •  
  • Subject
  • Author
  • Date
please rate this thread