To: thackney
Actually, the idea is for a two tiered approach. Regional grids (9) would be used to move capacity across the US, while local grids would be used to move capacity within region.
Regions could have anywhere from 2 to ???? number of local grids. Power producers within region would connect to the local grids, perhaps even directly to the regional grid.
Or at least that was the idea.
87 posted on
08/19/2003 4:40:45 PM PDT by
taxcontrol
(People are entitled to their opinion - no matter how wrong it is.)
To: taxcontrol
Interesting discussion..... A couple of things.
No matter what type system that is in place, it in effect is no better than the isolation capability it possesses. Proper isolation will hopefully curtail the cascading effect of what happened last week.
Statewide grids ... Many companies operate over multiple states.... Seems like a method to produce duplicate facilities in many cases..
Anyway you all have a good one.... Just my comments and I'm gone.
89 posted on
08/19/2003 4:51:26 PM PDT by
deport
( Hot out today.... don't kick a cow chip, it might be mushy)
To: taxcontrol
the idea is for a two tiered approach. Regional grids (9) would be used to move capacity across the US, while local grids would be used to move capacity within region. If you connect the local grids to the regional grids, it is one grid. This is not a RS-485 circuit that can be optically isolated. These "switches" require arc-chutes, non-conductive gases, battery charging systems, etc. The act of switching a breaker actually erodes the contacts, power breakers include counter because preventive maintenance must be performed after so many operations.
Also we have not discussed the changes that have to happen in all the different substation to accomplish this. This is just not an improvement.
96 posted on
08/20/2003 4:32:57 AM PDT by
thackney
(Life is Fragile, Handle with Prayer)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson