Monday, August 18, 2003
Not in the dark
It's fun watching the aftermath of the power outage in the Northeast. All of the clamor about preventing this from happening in the future. While the power distribution system could be somewhat more robust, there's no practical way to prevent all power outages of this kind.
(Treatise on power distribution follows. You may skip to "later" if you choose.)
There are two sides to power distribution - generation and load. Generation is the power plants. Load is the customers. When a plant unexpectedly goes off the grid (because the plant shuts down or a line fails) and extra power is not available elsewhere on the grid, then load must be shed - i.e., a lot of customers lose power.
Then what can happen is that too much load is shed, and a plant can be generating TOO MUCH power, and start getting out of sync with the rest of the system. If it can't slow itself down quickly enough, then it takes itself offline.
This would be easy to handle if each utility had its own generating capacity sufficient for its own customers. If a plant went offline, that plant's customers would lose power. However, this isn't how it works. Power is "transported" to where it is needed. This is done through the power "grid" which is made up of the generating plants and utilities in a large area.
The grid interconnections improve system's resiliency. A plant shutdown can be handled by increasing the generation at other plants, especially if there is advance notice. Also, small plant outages, or short-term increases in load, can be absorbed by small shifts in the grid.
However, because of the links between plants and utilties, generation disruptions and load shedding can cascade through the grid. While the triggering event in the latest outage may have occurred in Ohio, similar patterns occurred in 1977 and 1965, with the trigger occurring elsewhere. (In 1965, the trigger was the shutdown of a Canadian plant.)
I'm sure this is more than anyone wants to read about this. Especially the seminarians who are most likely to be reading this blog. But hey, this is the first time I've gotten to use the power engineering course I took in college.
(Later)
If you got this far, or skipped to here...
The press focuses on the most contentious part of an issue, without really understanding what is happening. The media coverage of the power outage reminds me of the coverage of the Gene Robinson decision. Find the bluster, play up the controversy. That's what makes it "newsworthy" isn't it?
(Treatise on power distribution follows. You may skip to "later" if you choose.)
There are two sides to power distribution - generation and load. Generation is the power plants. Load is the customers. When a plant unexpectedly goes off the grid (because the plant shuts down or a line fails) and extra power is not available elsewhere on the grid, then load must be shed - i.e., a lot of customers lose power.
Then what can happen is that too much load is shed, and a plant can be generating TOO MUCH power, and start getting out of sync with the rest of the system. If it can't slow itself down quickly enough, then it takes itself offline.
This would be easy to handle if each utility had its own generating capacity sufficient for its own customers. If a plant went offline, that plant's customers would lose power. However, this isn't how it works. Power is "transported" to where it is needed. This is done through the power "grid" which is made up of the generating plants and utilities in a large area.
The grid interconnections improve system's resiliency. A plant shutdown can be handled by increasing the generation at other plants, especially if there is advance notice. Also, small plant outages, or short-term increases in load, can be absorbed by small shifts in the grid.
However, because of the links between plants and utilties, generation disruptions and load shedding can cascade through the grid. While the triggering event in the latest outage may have occurred in Ohio, similar patterns occurred in 1977 and 1965, with the trigger occurring elsewhere. (In 1965, the trigger was the shutdown of a Canadian plant.)
I'm sure this is more than anyone wants to read about this. Especially the seminarians who are most likely to be reading this blog. But hey, this is the first time I've gotten to use the power engineering course I took in college.
(Later)
If you got this far, or skipped to here...
The press focuses on the most contentious part of an issue, without really understanding what is happening. The media coverage of the power outage reminds me of the coverage of the Gene Robinson decision. Find the bluster, play up the controversy. That's what makes it "newsworthy" isn't it?
Comments:
Post a Comment
