Posted on 03/26/2009 4:17:34 AM PDT by shove_it
Tenn. lab tests superconductor power cables for Manhattan, part of Homeland Security project
A high-tech power cable designed to prevent rolling blackouts caused by everything from a wayward squirrel to terrorists is being readied for New York City's financial district.
Now undergoing final tests at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the superconductor cable to be installed in Manhattan next year could prove key to the smart, secure, super grid of the future.
Scientists fired 60,000 amps through a cable during a critical test Tuesday -- an electrical jolt comparable to turning on the air conditioning in 2,000 homes at the same time. It was enough juice to lift a 1,000-pound bundle of conventional cable 2 feet off the ground.
But nothing seemed to happen. No sparks, no sound, no movement.
A roomful of invited government and corporate observers waited for an explanation.
"Bottom line is, it worked," said Patrick Murphy, project manager for the Department of Homeland Security. The guests broke into applause.
"It was spectacularly unspectacular, which was exactly what we wanted," said Brad Buswell, Homeland Security's acting undersecretary for science and technology.
Chilled by liquid nitrogen to minus-321 degrees Fahrenheit, this cable becomes super-efficient when cool, carrying up to 10 times more electricity than a copper cable of the same diameter. It also has a unique, built-in surge suppressing capability.
[...]
"The superconductors offer the promise that they can take much more electricity through a much smaller cable," he said. "If it works, it truly is what fiber optics did for telecommunications."
... while the financial district of New York was an obvious spot for an initial installation of resilient superconductors, he's sure "there are dozens of other places around the country that would be interested in being hardened for energy continuity," such as emergency command centers...
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
How to prevent rolling black outs:
Generate more energy through nuclear and clean coal. End utility monopolies.
BTW idiot libs (but I repeat myself); it would also make jobs.
End utility monopolies.
BINGO!
Blackouts are caused by an inbalance of real and reactive power in the power grid.
A conductor with 10 times the crossectional area (about 3 times the diameter) will carry about the same current - without having to be cooled by liquid nitrogen to work... Super conductors require complex systems to maintain them making them much more likely to fail and therefore much easier to damage.
LOL! - yeah, that won't be a maintenance nightmare!
Look at how well they maintain the streets. - Liquid nitrogen containment should be a snap...
Can you expand on that? I am interested in learning more. Thanks.
This might work until the EPA declares Nitrogen a threat to the climate.
10 x what? I didn't see a size given.
60,000 Amps is a LOT of current.
Doubling a cable's cross sectional area does not double the capacity in an underground insulated cable. You still have to dissapate the heat generated. That gets harder and harder to accomplish as the cable gets larger.
http://www.okonite.com/Product_Catalog/section2/sheet18.html
Three phase A/C power calculations requires complex mathematics. Are you familiar with equations like:
Watts + j(VARS) = Real Power
“... carrying up to 10 times more electricity than a copper cable of the same diameter ...”
Hence, the 10 times.
True, 10 times the crossectional area does not translate linearly but it isn't that far off. Just keeping below 75 degrees Celsius will make it happy for most normal insulations - which is about 488 degrees warmer than the superconductor...
Even it if it is 4 times the diameter that is far simpler and therefore less likely to fail than a super conductor that has to maintain minus 321 degrees Fahrenheit to work.
HyungSeon Oh needs an English editor. Terrible writing on that article, although it is interesting.
So the issue is the marginal demand for power drives the design of the grid and its usage such that you can maximize profits by withholding until peak demand?
Or is it government constraints on pricing?
I read the article and get most of the equations, but not as an expert.
Actually, it is. As you can see by the link I provided tripling a conductor size gives less than twice the capacity. As the factor grows, the ratio decreases. 10 would not likely provide 5 times the capacity in large cables.
Just keeping below 75 degrees Celsius
And that becomes a major problem for large insulated power conductors below ground. You have a continuous supply of heat from the conductor and limits to how fast the heat can be carried away.
As the size of the cable grows, the ratio of heat producing volume compared to the surface area dissipating heat continues to diminish.
Here in Houston there are limited underground cables. But I have inspected on 138kV buried system carrying less than 1,000 amps. It requires a circulating oil system around the cable to maintain the insulation and carry away the heat.
The more power transmitted below ground, the greater the cost, complexity and required dissipation of heat.
Huh?
I am awaiting Thackney’s clarification. I am ignorant on this topic.
Shaving down that peak is useally far cheaper than upgrading the system to supply a level of power that is required for less than 20 hours per year, even if you have to pay a couple large industrial customers to shut down for that time.
Or is it government constraints on pricing?
Not some much of that. A public utility is going to be permitted to recover its cost plus "reasonable" profit.
I read the article and get most of the equations
Then you do better than most. I used it not because it was a great and descriptive article, but the first thing I found that showed the type of equations used for real/reactive power equations.
I've been following this issue for a while, but my solution would be to localize the power sources - mini nukes? as a way to mitigate the rarest peak demand issues.
Do you think distributing power generation broadly would resolve the grid issue? Also, why not treat the grid as a “public good”, use eminent domain to create an entity and then allow users to pay a maintenance fee based on power consumed or power transmitted depending on whether it is a user owned or producer owned system?
I am not a big fan of government intervention, but public utilities are up to their necks in it already.
That doesn't solve the problem at all. The peak demand is not reduced. And often the location of the demand centers, say an large city downtown area is not a great or economical location for the power generation, regardless of the technology.
Do you think distributing power generation broadly would resolve the grid issue?
It helps, but understand demand is not even or constant. peak rolls locations and timing often dependent on weather.
why not treat the grid as a “public good”, use eminent domain to create an entity and then allow users to pay a maintenance fee based on power consumed or power transmitted depending on whether it is a user owned or producer owned system?
Is that not what we do already? Eminent domain is used already for this. But it needs to be used sparingly.
I worked the underground (telco) in northern Manhattan all through the 90s. Telco cables carry compressed air to help stop the incursion of water. The concept worked very well in the labs, but cables “losing air” in the real, chaotic and corrosive environment of Manhattan’s underground were a constant problem. I’m thinkin’ there are gonna be a wholebunchalotta bugs that will have to be ironed out before these cables get placed.....and even then there will be all sorts of new bugs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.