http://www.npr.org/2012/08/07/158275818/growing-pains-nations-balance-growth-power-needs
I found it interesting for a number of reasons.
First, our power infrastructure is in pretty sad shape. This is important not only in third world countries where the costs can be prohibitive, but even in our country, where the size of the infrastructure alone is daunting. The cost of rehabilitating the lines, transformers, towers, etc is astronomical.
Interestingly, and by way of a little history, when commercial electricity became something people wanted in their homes, there were two competing ideas about how to do it. Thomas Edison - of light bulb fame - was a proponent of direct current. This had (has) a number of advantages, including a more localized approach to power generation and distribution (the generators had to be close to the end users, because the power could only efficiently be conducted about a mile or two). Alternating current - the ultimate winner in the war of currents - was promoted by Westinghouse and Tesla. Their scheme was the familiar far-flung power plants - located at places of easy access to coal, hydro-electric or geothermal sources, or just generally out of the way of development. Electricity generation on that scale is a messy thing, and no one wanted to be near it. That's not a problem for alternating current - it travels (somewhat) readily over long distances. In fact, the higher the voltage, the easier it is to transmit. So you see what we have now - the long series of pylons carrying electricity for miles and miles, marching off into the horizon. Good for companies - centralized operations means convenience and increased profit; but bad for the environment. More on that in a second.
Mont Belvieu is an energy-thirsty place. The industrial complex in our City uses a significant amount of power - particularly when based on population. Fractionators and storage facilities use electricity to power their activities. This is very good and very essential. But it places us at the nexus of the need to improve/maintain power infrastructure and the needs of a growing community.
The next interesting point is that if Edison had won out in the war of currents, our model and mindset regarding energy production and transmission would have been radically different. Alternating current power production is what led to the mercury poisoning of our streams and waterways, the acid rain in the north east, significant amounts of CO2 emissions, and sulfur and other particulates in the air. While relatively cheap, the costs of the environmental impacts of these facilities is incalculable.
It is interesting to consider, then, that if Edison had won we would have a system that is ideally suited for renewable energy production, transmission, and use. Alternating current is produced in plants that generate power specifically designed to send that power over long distances at high voltages (at voltages in excess of 700,000 volts). Direct current systems are not capable of producing that same kind of voltage, so the systems would have to stay small and local. This is ideal for renewable energy use - if not for large scale commercial production.
And therein lies the largest paradigm shift that needs to take place in the way we think about power generation. Looking to the future - where renewable energy is more practical and in greater/more wide spread use - it is conceivable that each community - each neighborhood, even - would have it's own array of windmills, photovoltaics, etc. that would generate energy needed in that area. These local power supply points would be much more resilient to natural disasters, less susceptible to outages, and would reduce the cost/need for infrastructure improvements. They would also mean that there would be less CO2 emissions and less pollution in the air/water supply. Further, we could take down the marching pylons of energy, returning our landscape vistas to what they once were.
In our City, the industrial work that is done is largely automated. The ground - at the surface - is generally open and bare. It is possible that this ground could be utilized for photovoltaic energy production that would be used on site. Then, in the event of a hurricane or other natural disaster, or even the rolling black outs we experienced in the recent past, the power supply necessary for the continued safety and operation of these industrial areas could continue unhampered.
Interestingly, and by way of a little history, when commercial electricity became something people wanted in their homes, there were two competing ideas about how to do it. Thomas Edison - of light bulb fame - was a proponent of direct current. This had (has) a number of advantages, including a more localized approach to power generation and distribution (the generators had to be close to the end users, because the power could only efficiently be conducted about a mile or two). Alternating current - the ultimate winner in the war of currents - was promoted by Westinghouse and Tesla. Their scheme was the familiar far-flung power plants - located at places of easy access to coal, hydro-electric or geothermal sources, or just generally out of the way of development. Electricity generation on that scale is a messy thing, and no one wanted to be near it. That's not a problem for alternating current - it travels (somewhat) readily over long distances. In fact, the higher the voltage, the easier it is to transmit. So you see what we have now - the long series of pylons carrying electricity for miles and miles, marching off into the horizon. Good for companies - centralized operations means convenience and increased profit; but bad for the environment. More on that in a second.
Mont Belvieu is an energy-thirsty place. The industrial complex in our City uses a significant amount of power - particularly when based on population. Fractionators and storage facilities use electricity to power their activities. This is very good and very essential. But it places us at the nexus of the need to improve/maintain power infrastructure and the needs of a growing community.
The next interesting point is that if Edison had won out in the war of currents, our model and mindset regarding energy production and transmission would have been radically different. Alternating current power production is what led to the mercury poisoning of our streams and waterways, the acid rain in the north east, significant amounts of CO2 emissions, and sulfur and other particulates in the air. While relatively cheap, the costs of the environmental impacts of these facilities is incalculable.
It is interesting to consider, then, that if Edison had won we would have a system that is ideally suited for renewable energy production, transmission, and use. Alternating current is produced in plants that generate power specifically designed to send that power over long distances at high voltages (at voltages in excess of 700,000 volts). Direct current systems are not capable of producing that same kind of voltage, so the systems would have to stay small and local. This is ideal for renewable energy use - if not for large scale commercial production.
And therein lies the largest paradigm shift that needs to take place in the way we think about power generation. Looking to the future - where renewable energy is more practical and in greater/more wide spread use - it is conceivable that each community - each neighborhood, even - would have it's own array of windmills, photovoltaics, etc. that would generate energy needed in that area. These local power supply points would be much more resilient to natural disasters, less susceptible to outages, and would reduce the cost/need for infrastructure improvements. They would also mean that there would be less CO2 emissions and less pollution in the air/water supply. Further, we could take down the marching pylons of energy, returning our landscape vistas to what they once were.
In our City, the industrial work that is done is largely automated. The ground - at the surface - is generally open and bare. It is possible that this ground could be utilized for photovoltaic energy production that would be used on site. Then, in the event of a hurricane or other natural disaster, or even the rolling black outs we experienced in the recent past, the power supply necessary for the continued safety and operation of these industrial areas could continue unhampered.
No comments :
Post a Comment