Well, there is a campaign going on.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...nts-at-campaign-to-make-pluto-a-planet-again/
Pick one! dwarf planet or ginormous rock!
Electric grid upgrade issues.
- Thread starter loneryder
- Start date
https://www.scientificamerican.com/...nts-at-campaign-to-make-pluto-a-planet-again/
Pick one! dwarf planet or ginormous rock!
dnewton3
Staff member
To summarize, without all the posturing and argument ...
- the power grid is both underfunded, and in a state of decay; this has been known for a long, long time and is NOT "new" info
- the underfunding is both at the hands of government and private sector decisions, from all sides (no one entity wants to tell the taxpayers/customers that it's gonna cost them more money, even if it's for their own good)
- the state of decay is from decisions which are driven by the same forces noted immediately above; upgrades cost money and folks don't wanna pay
- long term decisions such as making material sourcing a big issue are just one of many root causes (EPA and mining regulations for copper, etc)
- long term effects of manufacturing decay also play heavily into this (the cause of the manufacturing degradation is not singular; it's a combo of multiple factors)
- demand, both real and projected, continues to escalate at rates not previously acknowledged, for a variety of reasons
- while not directly discussed, here is another concern of meeting demand ... the transmission wire. We need more of it, and what exists today isn't as good as it could be ( I'm speaking about the power grid inefficiency of the the transmission wire itself; a higher purity of wire would result in more net energy being moved)
NONE of this should be a surprise to anyone. These topics are not new, and have (at one time or another) been discussed on BITOG.
This thread is dangerously close to being locked because some of you cannot play nice with others in the sandbox.
Please, keep an even keel; make your point and don't argue. Let the reader hear your side and make up his/her own mind.
- the power grid is both underfunded, and in a state of decay; this has been known for a long, long time and is NOT "new" info
- the underfunding is both at the hands of government and private sector decisions, from all sides (no one entity wants to tell the taxpayers/customers that it's gonna cost them more money, even if it's for their own good)
- the state of decay is from decisions which are driven by the same forces noted immediately above; upgrades cost money and folks don't wanna pay
- long term decisions such as making material sourcing a big issue are just one of many root causes (EPA and mining regulations for copper, etc)
- long term effects of manufacturing decay also play heavily into this (the cause of the manufacturing degradation is not singular; it's a combo of multiple factors)
- demand, both real and projected, continues to escalate at rates not previously acknowledged, for a variety of reasons
- while not directly discussed, here is another concern of meeting demand ... the transmission wire. We need more of it, and what exists today isn't as good as it could be ( I'm speaking about the power grid inefficiency of the the transmission wire itself; a higher purity of wire would result in more net energy being moved)
NONE of this should be a surprise to anyone. These topics are not new, and have (at one time or another) been discussed on BITOG.
This thread is dangerously close to being locked because some of you cannot play nice with others in the sandbox.
Please, keep an even keel; make your point and don't argue. Let the reader hear your side and make up his/her own mind.
That’s OK, the US media is owned by various billionaires with their own agendas. Wow, just wow.
Or force the needed upgrades.
slo town
$200 Site Donor 2026
You got me on that one, @Snagglefoot! The question is, which is worse? I honestly don't know.That’s OK, the US media is owned by various billionaires with their own agendas. Wow, just wow.
Scott
OVERKILL
$100 Site Donor 2021
Well, I think at least with the billionaires, we aren't forced to give out money to them. We get to pick and choose, and there's at least some diversity of opinion. As we discussed earlier in the thread, we know the political bias of many of these publications. With state-funded, you are forced to fund getting smoke blown up people's rears whether you want to or not. And there's the obvious risk of consensus on messaging; the illusion of diversity because of the number of outlets, but the messaging being the same. I think that's inherently more dangerous.
And let's be honest, the papers have always been owned by the wealthy. Killam (who owned hydro and pulp and paper projects) bought the "Mail and Empire" in the 1920's, which was merged with the Globe in the 1930's, which was owned by a mining magnate, William Wright to become "the Globe and Mail", a well-regarded Canadian publication. It was then sold to Bryan Maheswary (FP Publications), this was then sold to the huge conglomerate Thompson in 1980, which eventually became Thompson-Reuters. There was some hand changing back and forth between TR and Bell (BCE), but TR owns like 85% of it now.
The state funding, with everything save the CBC, isn't about ownership. These companies are all still owned by the wealthy (Toronto Star is owned by private conglomerate Nordstar, but Atkinson got rich owning it originally, and used it for political crusades). The two guys that own Nordstar, one founded the Toronto Raptors and Sirius XM Canada and lives in North Carolina, the other is invested in media, entertainment, aviation, gaming and industrial companies. The state funding is about being beholden to the state for viability, since that same state restricted the ability to share content on social media, which is what prompted the "media bailout" and the subsequent perpetual funding.
slo town
$200 Site Donor 2026
I was thinking about this after posting my reply to @Snagglefoot. I agree that government funded media is a greater risk than privately funded media. As you say, there is the likelihood of more varied viewpoints with privately funded media. Government funded media lends itself to censorship. Also too, just how much more are we willing to burden the taxpayer with endless government controlled programs?
I may be making an assumption here, but I think the ones who are now advocating for government funded media are doing so because of the liberal government leanings over the last 20 or 30 years. It's a case of their side being in power right now. Don't restrict your thinking to a single country in order to get my point.
It seems that we are seeing a shift to the right in countries throughout the world (e.g. Australia, Germany, France, the UK). I wonder if those who are now advocating for government funded media will still support that concept when the political tides shift. History shows that political ideologies shift over time. It's as certain as the sun rising and setting.
Scott
Last edited:
When you look at your power bill you see all kinds of extra fees that can amount to more than the actual power charge. Some of these fees should have gone into updating the grid. Evidently they didn't!
Every nuke going forward in France is the same design.
If we start there the opportunity to select run lengths and standard voltage/input/output and painfully increase grid standardization becomes at least partially possible. (Paralleling *gasp standardized units may also be possible due to new technologies to handle variance in power output)
Just because we’ve always done something a certain way with artisanal custom unicorns doesn’t mean we can continue to support that mindset indefinitely.
Sometimes very hard things also have the largest payback.
And worth noting any level of standardization above what we are doing today pays dividends forever after. Maybe use that AI everyone loves to model a grid that would use the most standardized components.
Last edited:
