Hacker News Reader

Comment by pyrale | Hacker News Reader

These ‘grid enhancing technologies’ look like cheap fixes that can only buy some time before real work is needed. Sure, with better monitoring and some overload management systems you may work closer to some limits, but that’s not a solution for long-term usage increases.

Where I work, they are used a lot to adjust for renewables power surges, not to increase transit.

The bit about automaticaly shifting power to other lines in a strained network is interesting, but I wonder how much security analysis is run to make sure it’s safe (or if it’s just an automation system working within bounds the operator deemed safe).

View on HN

Sure, I get there’s only so much that get squeezed out of existing lines without any physical infrastructure changes.

But reconductoring seems like it buys you a lot of extra capacity over the existing physical right of way, and if you use advanced conductors you don’t even have to replace the towers if they’re in good condition. Yes, you have to replace a lot of equipment at substations, but my understanding is that while there is a shortage of some of this physical equipment, getting permits for new transmission lines is a far harder problem.

Getting permit is hard, but not costly. That being said, if the issue is really just red tape, you make a good point.

Is this not just the same question as for decades?

Which is cheaper, a peaker plant after the transmission line hitting peak capacity, or increased transmission line capacity for a small percentage of the time?

Now it's just battery storage instead of natural gas peaker plants. You can still smooth out the transmission line capacity with downstream storage.

Or have we already done that to the max with peaker plants and now transmission lines are running at their capacity 90% of the time? I haven't read the numbers in a while, it used to be really bad!

Here is the thing: planning a grid is always done with cost in mind, we do not build golden pylons for the sake of it.

But on the other hand, reasonable grid planning is done a decade ahead, more for some equipment. Money spent in a hurry is likely to be wasted in that business.

Storage to optimize grid (not production) cost is neither efficient nor resilient as far as I know.

Also having a peaker plant solves production peaks, not transmission limits. And nobody builds a second peaker at the other end of a line to save on grid costs. Redispatching is a thing, but it is a small optimization, not a solution to an underdeveloped grid.

Yeah, although distributed power generation is an actual solution to reduce transmission loads, I agree that it's too soon. It is very complicated (but I think doable!), but even then probably takes too much space for populated areas.

I like the idea of knowing if a transmission line is hot enough to start a fire, but that isn't a substitute for new transmission capacity from remote PV farms or just to be more resilient.

It’s not the complexity of distributed generation that prevents it from being widespread but the cost vs. cost savings

... things can have multiple reasons?

Space, cost, reliability, of course it's complex to integrate new generators that require communications to work together properly alongside planning the real wire infrastructure.

I believe it can be done, sure, but it's still complex and utility companies are not a fan of complexity.

But imagine how much better audio quality we would have if we had gold electrical lines to our houses.

If one day there is a battery for every house or even flat. That is double the capacity of Tesla power wall at half the size while lasting twice as long. Do we still need to upgrade the grid infrastructure?

I assume With that many buffer in place the whole thing should be able to self balance relatively easily. But I wonder if that is also a false assumption.

If EVs are competing with power walls for charge, then presumably you couldn't charge overnight, so a longer-than-normal heat-wave could drain all the household batteries.

The article says they are buying the time. New lines are slow to build, so while they are being built, it is possible to squeeze more from the existing lines.

I get it, I'm just baffled with the hint the article gives that the stuff needed now wasn't planned 10 years ago. I guess this is yet another "US infrastructure disaster" article, but with a positive outlook.

this is talking about grant awards that are happening in the current year, so it's not like they were planned 10 years ago.

hindsight is 20/20 but some things like the growth of data centers was probably not predicted, particularly their location. As a general example, Ireland had to put a moratorium on new data centers until 2028. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/15/power-grab-hid...

They're not being built though. Not at nearly the rate needed.

https://www.canarymedia.com/articles/transmission/the-us-is-...

> not being built though. Not at nearly the rate needed

…according to “consultancy Grid Strategies and commissioned by trade group Americans for a Clean Energy Grid (ACEG).” This is like the civil-engineering society perennially failing our civil-engineering spending.

That doesn’t make them inherently incorrect, in the same way that oil companies are correct that building more pipelines is safer and more environmentally friendly than oil trains.

> doesn’t make them inherently incorrect

Did you see a claim that seems to stand on its own?

You don't need to build new lines, just replace the existing. The new conductor tech is incredible

https://www.2035report.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/GridLa...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com