A 21st Century Grid

I agree with friend2all. How is making the grid bigger and more complicated part of the solution? Science is a patronage marriage. That makes science fertile ground for intellectual dishonesty. Sure, Tesla invented the primary energy device, which harnesses "the wheelwork of nature." After Maxwell's quaternions were truncated, producing a symmetrical generation model, Tesla designed the rotary generator and everything in the grid, which we still use.

Edison didn't do that, Tesla did. He did it because he had to eat. But, he warned us that the grid model isn't sustainable. Further, it isn't needed, and is probably America's greatest security vulnerability. That situation doesn't get better by building it bigger. There's nothing smart about it.

In one article (I've lost the link), Tom Bearden says they tested a version of the MEG that weighed around 50 pounds and produced 5,500 kilowatts of current. That's 5.5 million watts from a 50 pound device about the size of a breadbox. That's what is possible with the revisions to Maxwell's theories removed. You could produce as much current as a typical coal or gas fired generation facility with MEG technology by piggybacking magnet cores, and the hardware would fit on your kitchen table. It would produce no pollution and the power would be free of cost because it uses no fuel.

See what intellectual honesty can do? How would the world be different if we took the energy cost out of home, business, agriculture, manufacturing and transportation? There would be abundance for all. I think it's very puzzling Planet Forward doesn't want to talk about that. I thought PBS stood for independence and intellectual honesty. Now I know that notion is completely wrong.

When you go to the White House and give your report, which will say something like most people voted for more natural gas power generation and a bigger grid, will you mention that suppression of technology is a crime? Will you tell them every president since 1943 who hasn't declassified MEG technology has deserved impeachment, removal and prosecution? Not in a million years! For whom do you people work? Come on, tell us the truth. Who writes the checks that keep these servers running? You said in the submission guidelines "you write it, we'll post it," but then you say "well, we might not post everything," and the discussion is carefully guided so old guard, smokestack technologies are protected and preserved, as with this Chevron site. It pretends to offer something new, but its real purpose is self preservation.

Our thinking is so deeply conditioned: energy pollutes, using energy costs money, efficiency and conservation are the keys to the future. That thinking is all wrong. Using energy gets work done. It means the darkness is lighted, we have heating and cooling. So, what we need is clean, secure, free energy. That technology exists, and I'm not the only person who knows it. The video is propaganda. A bigger, more expensive grid with expensive grid plug-ins isn't sustainable. Better technology is inevitable. That people are incurious, don't read and are afraid to speak up doesn't change that.

Distributed cogeneration in connection with the Microgrid proposed by Galvin and Yeager in "Perfect Power" would enable far more effective use of fuel than we now are able to accomplish with central power plant systems. Effective cogeneration means that two to three times as much electricity could be produced while burning the same amount of fuel.

The main hardware for this concept could be available in hybrid automobiles where these were parked in proximity to households and the engine-generators in the cars would operate while thus parked. The addition of basic plumbing to enable households to use heat that would otherwise be wasted would make this into a cogeneration system.

A basic description of this concept can be seen at www.miastrada.com

That would enable a very much smarter grid. It would also be an approach much more consistent with available resources in the economy that we should be expecting going forward.

Engineering virtues that have stood the test of time suggest that simpler and cheaper is generally better.

DOE, NIST, and the author of the above video have not been fully forthcoming on exactly what SMART GRID is and how it would work.

Before spending all of the 11 billion allocated in the STIMULUS and OMNIBUS spending bills for smart grid we should fully engineer smart grid and formalize all of the protocols and standards that will be required to allow interactive devices and smart meters to talk to each other on the new grid.

Why is there so much enthusiasm for a SMART GRID that will be massively more complicated to build and much more difficult to keep operating?

Why is it thrilling to consider bringing into existence a large distributed power system that is likely to have multitudes of hidden and difficult to diagnose failure modes and security vulnerabilities?

It is possible that a hastily implemented SMART GRID could constitute a massive security problem to hostile cyber attacks. It is also possible that remote data collection and communication features of SMART GRID could permit unethical spying, invasions of privacy, and compromises of personal freedom. Why are you thrilled to introduce this new worry into your life?

No one in the Department of Energy or Department of Commerce has really explicitly explained to the American people what they will be getting for their 11 billion of funding for SMART GRID. What new features of the grid will most American's actually need or use?

NIST and DOE should explicitly present to the American people a clear statement of the practical benefits citizens can expect to receive from SMART GRID technology.

Traditional centralized power generation and distribution tended to minimize the distance between where power was generated and where it was used. We were able to use the least copper and got the least power distribution losses by taking this traditional approach. Generating wind power in North Dakota and then trying to ship the power across the Country to Miami or Los Angeles will entail tremendous costs and few benefits. It is hard to see how, at the end of the day, the new SMART GRID could deliver remotely generated renewable energy at higher efficiency and with fewer losses than centralized local power generation and local use.

We should not spend the many billions of the authorized funds until we have fully engineered the system including design of all of the layered protocols and standards necessary to create the new interactive SMART GRID. Given the previous performance of government in creating new standards it may take many years (a decade?) to just design the interactive communication protocols and standards to allow smart devices to safely communicate and control one another on the new grid.

What experience of engineering by government committee consensus inclines you to believe that making America's power distribution infrastructure massively more costly and complex will serve you and the Country well?

Why not keep SMART GRID simple and uncomplicated so it can ultimately work reliably and safely.

What was wrong with DUMB GRID where you just plugged in the toaster and it worked?