Replies

"Your first premise did not include major new construction" - ok, I can see where your comments would arise.

As for the money - yes it would be expensive. The cost of which would need to be evaluated against the %of annual failure times the average cost of failure both in terms of lost revenue and in terms of financial risk from inheritance (loss of life, cost of repair, lawsuits or insurance to cover, etc.). This is standard risk analysis stuff. Lastly, the % of failure or uptime should be compaired to public policy. If the grid requires 99.90% uptime and that is already being met, then no changes would be required.

Initial capital can be raised in any number of ways - including traditional bonds, with cost recovery coming from rate increases. In short, the final person to foot the bill would be the consumer.

However, in my prior analysis the build out cost were not as extreame as you propose. Perhaps that was a unique situation. The sample "grid" did not have any single leg substations. I will admit that such may have tainted my cost model and distorted the final costs.

I would find it very concerning though to have a single leg substation. There would be a very high failure risk due to the lack of redundancy. If multiple such stations existed in the grid, the overall risk factor would be, relatively speaking, very high.

You mention that a large grid has the ability to switch power. I agree. My comments would not reduce the geographic foot print of the grid, but it would reduce the amount of power per grid.

Given my test case, it would have been possible to create Grid A and Grid B, each with 1/2 the lines. In a redundantly connected substation, you end up with 4 possible paths.

Grid A: path 1 & 2
Grid B: path 1 & 2

What I'm hearing you say is that this is not typical of most substations??? That would be very concerning.

The cost of which would need to be evaluated against the %of annual failure times the average cost of failure both in terms of lost revenue and in terms of financial risk from inheritance

It sounds like you think that is not done now. It is.

However, in my prior analysis the build out cost were not as extreame as you propose. Perhaps that was a unique situation. The sample "grid" did not have any single leg substations.

In terms of square miles, the majority of the US is rural. Most of it, does not have a dense load center. I do not have documentation, but based upon my construction experience across the United States, I believe that the majority of transmission line corridor miles would be single circuit. Please note, this comparison treats a corridor the same, regardless if it is a single circuit 69kV on 2/0 AWG or 7 circuits of 345kV. Power generation and loads are often dense, the electrification of the entire United States require the creation of REA's just to meet this demand. These are little 10~20 MVA stations spread all over, but they cover the majority of the USA. They are not the type that would require your service and may therefore be outside your experience.

My comments would not reduce the geographic foot print of the grid, but it would reduce the amount of power per grid.

Then you either suggestion immense construction projects, or a major reduction in the spare capacity in each system. And I am assume you do not recognize the great cost of transmission line construction. You are also requiring creating of new control centers, and a huge increase in the relaying.