Replies

My item 4 was a first step towards this. By requiring that no less than 70% of their power come from within their smaller "local" grid. Perhaps others would like to see even a higher percentage. In truth, I don't think California and NY would be able to meet the 70%.

This also has a net impact in the strategic allocation of resources in war time. Right now, a handfull of conventional missles striking a few select locations could wreck the grid for a long time. Imagine a 1,000 lbs bomb or incendary striking the power station at Hover dam. I think you could see what 15 to 20 such strikes could do to the a grid. Heck, just take out one of the transmission towers on the main N to S line between the North West and California.

Oh, in truth, it does not take a missle. Say 30 terrorists who are willing to kill and be killed to get close to these substations could wreck a lot of havoc. This is the stuff that I look at from a security perspective.

But at the end of the day, it is all opinion. And anyone who things that my comments on this message board are going to change anything needs a solid reality check.

In truth, I don't think California and NY would be able to meet the 70%.

Or RI or Conn. or Delaware or Maryland or Mass. or Eastern PA etc. Also isolation as you suggested requires each grid to have 100% plus the spare capacity to handle planned & unscheduled outages (simultaneously) plus handle growth. Load can grow faster than Power Plants can be built if conservative long range planning is not done. By combining several small grids into larger grids, they can "share" the spare capacity.

a handful of conventional missles striking a few select locations could wreck the grid for a long time

This problem is exasperated in smaller grids. Larger grids have greater capacity to reroute power.