this post was submitted on 17 Oct 2023
129 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

58092 readers
2941 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Nighed@sffa.community 25 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The bigger the grid the more resilient it is because it can cope with localised issues better.

You only need the transfer switch (expensive!) On your solar installation if you actually get power cuts.

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 4 points 11 months ago (2 children)

But everybody gets power cuts, whether it's from a disaster such as a hurricane, or just a drunk ramming into a pole, people lose power all the time, and it's worth having something of your own that will continue to work. Take Puerto Rico and Hurricane Maria, for example. Most of the power generation was done on, I believe, the south side of the island, and they had one single high tension line running to the north side. And so when that line snapped, everybody on half the island lost power at the same time. Now I know that their power grid was very underfunded and barely staying afloat anyway, but that's still not a good thing.

[–] Nighed@sffa.community 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I think I have only had 1 power cut longer than 5 mins in the last 15 years (SE England), it's not a big problem here. (Bigger issue in Scotland/Wales/Cornwall as they get bigger storms)

The grid already allows some areas to be cut off and others continue when there is a problem or lack of generation (see ZA load shedding for an extreme example).

I think what you are asking for is for the generation to be spread out so that everywhere is almost self sufficient, but can rely on others when they are not?

It's a nice idea, but I don't think it's feasible as the economies of scale make big power plants/big offshore farms more efficient. Generation will almost always be concentrated into a small number of locations. It's also much harder to balance load/demand on a smaller grid - if your street was a grid and had to operate off grid off rooftop solar for example how would it cope when everyone turns on the oven for dinner?

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 4 points 11 months ago

Yeah, that's exactly what I mean is more decentralized generation as you mentioned. Here, our power is not often interrupted, but when it is, it can be for hours at a time or longer depending on how strong the hurricane or whatever that knocked it out was.

[–] Rokk@feddit.uk 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't think the solution to that problem though is having multiple, smaller, unconnected grids.

I think it's to just have a more resilient grid system that doesn't have any areas that are a single point of a failure

[–] shortwavesurfer@monero.town 0 points 11 months ago

Many smaller, unconnected grids would also allow more resilience against something like solar flares as there aren't nearly as long of wires to build up a charge over and fry things.