PopSci.com welcomes back Dr. Bill Chameides, dean of Duke’s Nicholas School of the Environment. Dr. Chameides blogs at The Green Grok to spark lively discussions about environmental science, keeping you in the know on what the scientific world is discovering and how it affects you – all in plain language and, hopefully, with a bit of fun. Now, PopSci.com partners with The Green Grok to bring you exclusive new blog posts a week before they hit the Grok's blog. Give it a read and get in on the discussion!
First, a recap of last week's post: In the late 19th century Thomas Edison pushed for a distributed system to deliver electrical power. His dream was never fully realized. Instead, George Westinghouse’s system designed circa 1891 took shape and forms the structure of today’s grid: a centralized system.
Today’s Grid: What’s Wrong
While it’s based on his vision, Westinghouse might not recognize our current grid -- a vast system of some 16,000 power plants connected by hundreds of thousands of transmission lines carrying electrons to millions. Collectively, every year we consume more than 4,000 million megawatt-hours of electricity (see figure 1 here for a breakdown of energy sources).
We’re used to electricity on demand. We expect the flip of a light switch to produce instant illumination. To accomplish this, we’ve organized our electric grid into three wide-area, synchronous grids: an East, a West, and a Texas grid (it’s special I guess).
Why synchronous? And why not national? It all has to do with that pesky alternating current (AC), in which electrons move back and forth. Here’s the thing - you can’t just plug different power plants, windmills, or regional grids together. For an AC grid to work, all electrons everywhere on it must switch direction at exactly the same time or else it crashes and everyone loses power. Accomplishing this over the entire country would be a tall order given the technologies currently employed. So we synchronize each of the three grids independently and then connect them together using high-voltage direct current (HVDC) trunk lines.
While it’s been enormously successful, many believe that a computerized, adaptive system (a so-called “smart” or “intelligent” grid) could do better. I see four key issues the smart grid could address.
Why We Need a Smart Grid: Four Big Improvements
1. Reliability - Our complex grid involves untold numbers of switches and substations connecting power plants to households and businesses whose electrical demands rapidly fluctuate in time. Unfortunately, the grid is highly sensitive to small variations in voltages and/or the timing in which the electrons change direction (i.e. phase).
Relatively minor events like snowstorms and thunderstorms, can result in local blackouts – not a foreign experience. But when a local failure triggers a cascade of failures, blackouts can roll across entire states – think August 2003.
To address such problems, the smart grid will be “self-healing,” meaning that problems will be detected, isolated, and fixed in real-time with little or no human intervention.
2. Two-Way Interactivity – Current in the grid itself flows in direction – power is sent from plants. The grid doesn’t monitor consumers’ real-time usage (or even their generating contributions from solar cells or wind turbines). To ensure that there’s enough power to meet all needs, power companies always keep excess capacity on hand; this extra electricity is thrown away except on rare instances when demand peaks. Not very efficient. A smart grid would interact with homes and their smart appliances, adjusting power supply and demand in real-time to maximize efficiency while guarding against system overloads.
3. Flexible Transmission System - The current grid is designed for generating facilities typified by coal-fired plants: always operating at or near capacity. It’s Westinghouse’s system. But it’s predicated on a worldview of plentiful energy resources, where inefficiencies and waste are acceptable. That worldview no longer applies. Dwindling fossil fuel supplies and global warming concerns demand renewable energy sources such as wind and solar, resources that tend to be:
Putting more renewable sources of energy into our current mix (see pie chart) requires a hybrid grid that combines the best features of centralized and distributed systems.
Such a flexible grid would use intelligent systems to handle a wide variety of power sources and storage systems while also maintaining stability.
4. A National Electron Superhighway - Finally, our transmission system must be able to send power efficiently around the nation. Why? Consider wind. The Midwest has much of this potential resource, but people are concentrated on the East and West Coasts. We need a way to get that energy to the people with a minimum of resistive losses. So we must replace outmoded trunk lines (that connect our regional grids) with a single high-voltage transmission line that crosses the nation incorporating nodes along the way that allow individual sub-grids or generating stations to plug in. To minimize resistive losses, this new transmission line will probably be a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) line.
Great Idea but …
It’s easier to talk (or blog) smarter than it is to be (or act) smarter. Building the smart grid poses challenges.
One issue is money. Estimates put smart-grid costs in the ballpark of $65 billion over the next decade or two. The $11 billion from the stimulus package is a start, at best.
Then there’s jurisdiction.
While the need for a smart grid is a national priority, questions of jurisdiction will rise, say, when the installation of a national transmission system is announced and you learn the lines will be strung through you neighborhood.
Ultimately, getting a smart grid is about more than smart technologies; it’s also about figuring out how to be a smart society. The latter might prove to be a lot more difficult.
Bill Chameides
Dean, Duke University
Nicholas School of the Environment|www.TheGreenGrok.com
Stay up to date on the latest news of the future of science and technology from your iPhone with full articles, images and offline viewing
Featuring every article from the magazine and website, plus links from around the Web. Also see our PopSci DIY feed
Share links with friends, comment on stories and more
In our December issue, Popular Science names the 100 best innovations of the year: bombproof wallpaper, self-parking cars, the fastest helicopter, and 97 more. Plus inventor profiles and videos.
Check out the best of what's new here.
There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources.Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. After a brief reprieve gas is inching back up.OPEC will continue to cut production until they achieve their desired 80-100. per barrel.If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trainsthe amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now.
In my opinion: A national energy grid is fine, but it will need safegaurds so we cannot have a national "blackout." The High voltage DC trunk lines are so 20th century tech. A lot is wasted in heat, and massive ground electrocutions are a threat if there's a breach.
Why not use a high powered LASER or intense microwaves instead? Speaking of waste heat, the LASER or micros are pure energy. If optics to send and receive the laser are free of contaminants, that sort of truck-line will not heat...much. To prevent any sort of trunk-line waste, or highly expensive land stations every so many miles, it could be beamed into space and bounced off a stationary satellite, which would slightly spread the beam on its way back down, so as not to destroy structures if it becomes uncalibrated, etc. (What a shame if all that power would suddenly shine on a nearby town.) I KNOW, have a "dead-man" switch setting. If the satellite loses its parallel connecting "communication" beam, it immediately shuts down the ground station until it can reconnect and recalibrate. The protocols would be military grade top-secret.
Microwaves are a 2nd or interim choice until solar power converters can become more efficient. However, land optical lines are much safer UNDERGROUND than high voltage DC. Low voltage is fine underground...but moving past 100,000 vDC underground at high amps is a threat to nearby populations if breached.
Of course, the military would LOVE such a setup, and the beam could be MANUALLY diverted or bounced around the world on a series of reflective satellites, until a target is reached. So, as you see, there are pluses and minuses to every invention. Perhaps, you could tell the military to "make their own," but I still see the redundant possibilities might still get built-in, for possible emergencies...such as a small asteroid, perhaps?
HOW MUCH can be transmitted on a laser??? The limit is only in the technology. The amount of power that can be in a beam is nearly infinite, versus our WIRED technology. Just look at pulsars in space, or from the center of a black hole, to how power beams can be created naturally that dorf anything we can dream up.
Addendum:
A space beam from various power stations on Earth could also better coordinate with a space based power system, thus reducing infrastructure costs in future expansion(s).
I hope this helped get a clearer picture on expanding our technology.
ZipWizard - Interesting ideas.
Dr. Bill Chameides
Dean, Duke University
Nicholas School of the Environment
www.nicholas.duke.edu | www.TheGreenGrok.com
Better battery storage would answer a lot of these problems. The out of phase power can be run through batteries so that generators do not work against each other. High earning times like when the wind is blowing or during the day in Arizona can be stored at large battery stations. Added peak requirements can be almost immediately addressed. If a plant goes down, the batteries can provide some back up.
Better batteries would address so many problems. We're not there yet, but the company that invents them would be a good investment.
Your article reminds me of my one Electrical Engineering class where I asked how far do the electrons travel in AC current? A: Not very far.