While I too find it distasteful and distracting, the inclination to expunge politics from conversation may have played a role in getting us (at least in the US) where we are: 1) where people have forgotten to talk about politics politely, and 2) where politics have been weaponized by tuning to especially divisive issues specifically for high-engagement.
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.
I don’t think something like that would ever fly in the US. In fact, the opposite is more likely. The drill-baby-drill mantra is going to push everything in exactly the opposite direction.
I think any solution will have to come from industry, not government.
This is because PG&E retail is about 2.5x the national average.
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.
> Most of the energy used accelerating is recovered at the next stop, so the fast acceleration does not consume much energy.
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
"The President might not sign the bill, however. If he specifically rejects
the bill, called a veto, the bill returns to Congress. There it is voted on
again, and if both houses of Congress pass the bill again, but this time by a
two-thirds majority, then the bill becomes law without the President’s
signature. This is called “overriding a veto,” and is difficult to do because
of the two-thirds majority requirement."
Increased weight makes reconductoring much more difficult as the structures are designed to carry specific weight. Increased size can also impact structure loading from ice or wind. So, generally, reconductoring does not materially increase weight.
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.
Anywhere that icing is possible during the winter, the static weight of the conductors is not generally the dominant design constraint; it is the diameter of the cable and the resulting additional load when icing occurs. Weight really only increases sag, which constrains attachment height, but wind gusts with increased wind resistance increase horizontal load. In areas that don't get ice, diameter drives wind loading, again making wind gusts the dominant failure mode for pole lines. This comes about as most poles and/or other support structures for overhead conductors have far greater strength vertically than horizontally.
I've spent far too much time over the last couple of years learning pole line design using QuickPole. The other factor that keeps cropping up in my designs are grading and/or positioning issues. Putting a pole even 50cm out of line with other poles can result in it failing loading due to the added horizontal load on the pole. On a recent design I had to add downguys and anchors to 2 poles because they were out of line, a mistake during installation that nobody paid attention to. The same thing happens when a pole that is too tall is installed in an existing pole line. The wires to adjacent poles add horizontal force to the top of the pole. On one design I had a pole failing because of that, but it was fine if all the conductors were lowered 5 feet.
All I wanted to do was put fibre optic cables on poles to serve my home...
You may be referring to either 1) the real-time line ratings (directionally required by FERC order 881, or 2) technology like the "SmartValve" from Smart Wires which dynamically adjusts impedance to keep conductors within their operating envelope.
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.
As the new conductors will have lower impedance, some breakers may need to be replaced to interrupt higher fault current. Otherwise, it's likely the only substation equipment needing to upgrade would be series compensation stations which may have lower normal and emergency ratings than the upgraded conductors.
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.
Have you seen a lot of phase-shifting transformers in the U.S.? In my experience they've mostly been in Europe with a few specialized applications in the States.
I would think a utility would want to reconductor the other circuits otherwise they're leaving benefits on the table right?
I only know the western US. And my experience is consistant with your own -- specialized applications.
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.
Fair enough. I had a conversation with one utility that was fine with transformers popping (even if preventable) because a popped transformer becomes a capitalizable expense.
The algae, forest, and other capture projects do not appear to sequester, on a geologic time scale, the atmospheric carbon. Even the sequestering of carbon through enhanced oil recovery is of uncertain time scale.
I do not believe that this is accurate. California Investor Owned Utilities (IOUs) have had their profit decoupled from revenue since 1981. [0]
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.
I believe there is a distinction between profits for "transmission" specifically and for electric utilities more broadly. The FERC ruling that you reference is for PG&E's transmission assets, i.e. high voltage lines and transformers and such. I assume that their retail electric business is regulated by CPUC and has a different profit/revenue/whatever arrangement.
And that is where many of us have played a role: increasing engagement.