The Argument for Why Utilities Should Give Up Operational Control of the Distribution Grid | Energy Central
The proposed body, referred to as an Independent Distribution System Operator (IDSO), would function just like an independent system operator which manages the flow of electricity across regional transmission networks. Utilities would still own assets on the grid — they just wouldn’t be responsible for balancing all the disparate systems to meet demand.
Photo Credit: Control of the Grid/shutterstock
Mandates? Really. I’m totally against such social (and monetary) inefficiency… If there are any mandates, they should be in the use of molten salt reactors (or other meltdown proof nuclear) because they don’t need fossil fueled bakup, don’t need people to “conserve in this already highly effieicnt age and can charge many billions of electric cars and trucks (much less power ten billion people at high standards).
Grid operaters manage the flow of electrons over vast wires. I think that’s cool.
As technology continues to progress, there is less need for clean energy to be expensive.
I hear of RE people promoting wind and solar (and now, expensive but trivial amounts of storage) as a jobs creation program, well… same goes with actual good ole fashioned grid expansion, right? Besides, a beefed up grid consisting of thicker wires and stronger poles is the only way “everybody” could charge electric cars and trucks at home. Again, (since charging would mostly be done at night) the power should be from molten salt or other meltdown proof nuclear reactors. This is the quickest way to fossil free (without RE’s required fossil fueled backup)!
Bas Gresnigt on Aug 22, 2014
“… taking distribution system operations out of the hands of the power company and putting them fully in the control of an independent body. … “
In NW-Europe (NL, Germany, etc) also ownership was taking out of the hands of the power companies in the nineties. So the grid is now owned and operated by fully separated entities, closely controlled by government as the grid is a natural monopoly.
It took some years, but the situation delivers now benefits for the citizen. Sharp competition between electricity suppliers now.
I can now choose between many different electricity suppliers: cheapest, 100% wind generated electricity, 100% renewable, 100% nuclear generated, local supplier, major big supplier, (local) cooperation, supplier that pays a good price for my rooftop solar, etc.
Even supply reliabiltiy (which was already quite good here) has been improved, though less than in Germany (here total customer outage time is ~30min/a, Germany ~15min/a, UK and France ~60min/a)..
The 100% wind implies that the supplier generates via wind turbines at least the same amount of electricity (MWh) as I consume during the year (supplier may also buy wind electricity). Most of this type of suppliers are cooperations.
I must add that renewable energy has the potential to continue its exponential growth past the quoted “requirement” of fossil fueled backup. It is a shame that RE advocates continually insist that they need NG and (intrinsically limited) biofuels as major back up (instead of insisting that we need to reduce clean energy’s storage costs by furthering the advancements of machine automation).
“…RE advocates continually insist that they need NG and … biofuels as major back up…”
All RE advocates insist they do not need natural gas.
The majority also insist they do not need biofuel as major backup.
The share of biomass (wood) in the German Energiewende was recently scaled down strongly (nearly no expansion now). Considering the high costs of biomass, I expect Germany will scale down much further after next elections (replace it with more solar+storage).
In many countries flexible hydro & pumped storage can act as backup (even Denmark, using neighouring countries). Furthermore batteries, with their strong price decreases, are scheduled (flow batteries, etc).
For the long term power2gas is in development (8MW pilot plant in Germany) as well as power2fuel.