 |
Re: US "average" loss is indeed lesss?
Author: BOB2
Date: 06-03-2014 - 21:34
This 6.5% figure is the US average, because so much power is still actually produced very close to use, especially in the south and east.
On lines like from the Owens Valley or from Utah and Hoover Dam to LA the losses are much greater. At these much longer transmission distances a lot more is lost, in some cases up to 60%. This is were low temperature transmission schemes make sense. While only about half of the loss is fully recoverable due to the electricity used for cooling needs, this is now considered an increasingly commercially viable option, and is being tested at a number of existing locations.
As others have noted, distributed production make sense for many applications too, but many utilities have failed to prepare for a distributed network. My utility actually makes payments to those with solar installations, despite the fact that they can't feed it back into the grid (no investment in distributed network)and no one can actually use it.
Meanwhile, it's time for trains.
On lines like from the Owens Valley or from Utah and Hoover Dam to LA the losses are much greater. At these much longer transmission distances a lot more is lost, in some cases up to 60%. This is were low temperature transmission schemes make sense. While only about half of the loss is fully recoverable due to the electricity used for cooling needs, this is now considered an increasingly commercially viable option, and is being tested at a number of existing locations.
As others have noted, distributed production make sense for many applications too, but many utilities have failed to prepare for a distributed network. My utility actually makes payments to those with solar installations, despite the fact that they can't feed it back into the grid (no investment in distributed network)and no one can actually use it.
Meanwhile, it's time for trains.
