[DEAD] Efficient Power Transmission Act

[Friday Freshman]

"Your redraft falls into all the same pitfalls I just pointed out, ambassador."

I understand. So just scrap it?

[Separatist Peoples]

"Your redraft falls into all the same pitfalls I just pointed out, ambassador."

I understand. So just scrap it?

"Thus the suggestion of kerosene and open flame. Thats why I make these suggestions, to avoid the explanations that go into it. Serves me right for planning ahead, I guess."

[Friday Freshman]

I understand. So just scrap it?

"Thus the suggestion of kerosene and open flame. Thats why I make these suggestions, to avoid the explanations that go into it. Serves me right for planning ahead, I guess."

Well normally when someone tells you to burn your work you're gonna want a bit of a better explanation. Anyway...

[NoFrellsGiven]

The efficient power transmission act is a great idea as we move to international grids to increase reliability and increase the capacity factors of renewable resources which have lower marginal costs than coal and nuclear.

EIA estimates 6% loss in the USA's grids. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3

DC lines are twice as effecient as AC over 1000 km distances and are commonly used for undersea cables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-volt ... ct_current

Efficiency can mean a lot of things. The efficiency problem also includes transmission capacity, demand management, and phasing out older baseload plants like coal in favor of peaking plants like natural gas and storage. http://www.vox.com/2015/7/23/9020019/en ... -and-solar

This image from the IEA estimates that with 45% wind and solar the capital costs of the grid's power plants will be reduced by 40%. https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/-gBggt ... narios.png

Its misunderstood that baseload plants dont need backup as well. Currently we have massively overbuilt the more expensive baseload which often sits idle: (coal at 45% capacity and nuclear at 62%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

Today its much cheaper to overbuild gas and let it sit idle waiting for peak demand. Gas is cheaper to construct and now with fracking even cheaper to fuel than coal or nuclear and has much quicker response in minutes rather than hours which works well with variable renewables. Supercritical coal and BWR nuclear are better at load following but they are again more expensive to build and a minor mix of the current fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_foll ... ower_plant

I would also add to this resolution:

1. Increasing transmission capacity.

2. Requiring demand management technologies including smart meters and peak pricing.

3. And building national and international capacity markets that encourage investment in reducing demand (heat pumps, insulation, cogeneration, and waste heat recovery), building renewables (wind, solar, and low impact hydro), and transitioning from baseload to peaking plants and storage (hydrogen, battery, and mechanical). http://sustainableferc.org/rethinking-e ... y-markets/

Note: These simple regulations will lower electricity prices. For low tech nations wind and solar are easier to build than coal or nuclear. And there are no major trade secrets in electricity grids giving any country an edge.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Let's ignore the link spam for the moment.

EIA estimates 6% loss in the USA's grids. http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3

'Good sir, what are these USA's you're speaking of? This EIA?'

DC lines are twice as effecient as AC over 1000 km distances and are commonly used for undersea cables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-volt ... ct_current

And we use tachyon energy-beaming technology. I don't see the relevance.

Efficiency can mean a lot of things. The efficiency problem also includes transmission capacity, demand management, and phasing out older baseload plants like coal in favor of peaking plants like natural gas and storage. http://www.vox.com/2015/7/23/9020019/en ... -and-solar

Zero. Point. Energy. Module. Not a problem.

This image from the IEA estimates that with 45% wind and solar the capital costs of the grid's power plants will be reduced by 40%. https://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/-gBggt ... narios.png

What is this IEA you speak of?

Its misunderstood that baseload plants dont need backup as well. Currently we have massively overbuilt the more expensive baseload which often sits idle: (coal at 45% capacity and nuclear at 62%). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

Then deal with it in your nation. We use zero-point energy modules. Not a problem.

Today its much cheaper to overbuild gas and let it sit idle waiting for peak demand. Gas is cheaper to construct and now with fracking even cheaper to fuel than coal or nuclear and has much quicker response in minutes rather than hours which works well with variable renewables. Supercritical coal and BWR nuclear are better at load following but they are again more expensive to build and a minor mix of the current fleet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Load_foll ... ower_plant

GAS?! What kind of gas are you speaking of? What do you want to do to us? Chlorine like the Germans in WWI? Ridiculous. Again, zero-point energy modules.

I would also add to this resolution:

1. Increasing transmission capacity.

2. Requiring demand management technologies including smart meters and peak pricing.

3. And building national and international capacity markets that encourage investment in reducing demand (heat pumps, insulation, cogeneration, and waste heat recovery), building renewables (wind, solar, and low impact hydro), and transitioning from baseload to peaking plants and storage (hydrogen, battery, and mechanical). http://sustainableferc.org/rethinking-e ... y-markets/

Horrid micromanagement by the World Assembly. Many nations don't need more transmission capacity. Many nations don't need 'smart meters'. Many nations don't need more efficiency or 'baseload transitioning'.

Note: These simple regulations will lower electricity prices. For low tech nations wind and solar are easier to build than coal or nuclear. And there are no major trade secrets in electricity grids giving any country an edge.

Or, the extra costs incurred in such a capital stock expenditure will increase expenditures and raise electricity prices. Low tech nations which do not need electricity do not need electricity, so this argument is irrelevant. There are great trade secrets in electricity! First, you don't need a grid. Second, get zero point energy modules.

And this topic is actually dead... Didn't see that one. Apologies, OP.

[NoFrellsGiven]

1. The links are for reference and education. The arguments against this resolution based on costs and reliability is spam.

2. ZPMs dont exist.

3. If they do in a fantasy realm, there could be an exception against technology sharing between different tier civilization. But within the present tier there is not much that can be kept as a trade secret concerning the grid.

[Separatist Peoples]

1. The links are for reference and education. The arguments against this resolution based on costs and reliability is spam.

2. ZPMs dont exist.

3. If they do in a fantasy realm, there could be an exception against technology sharing between different tier civilization. But within the present tier there is not much that can be kept as a trade secret concerning the grid.

"Speak for yourself. We have no desire to share our technology regarding energy transfer, and we are sure nobody else wants to. You can talk all you want about international grids, but those of us with none would rather the rest of the world frell off in regards to our power grid."

[Wrapper]

2. ZPMs dont exist.

(Wad Ahume raises his hand as if to speak, but Wad Ari grabs his hand, lowers it, and shakes his head. Ahume nods.)

[Imperium Anglorum]

1. The links are for reference and education. The arguments against this resolution based on costs and reliability is spam.

2. ZPMs dont exist.

3. If they do in a fantasy realm, there could be an exception against technology sharing between different tier civilization. But within the present tier there is not much that can be kept as a trade secret concerning the grid.

OOC: I truly do not believe that you understand what NationStates is. NationStates is a role-play game. Thus, whatever you conjure up immediately exists. The links are linking to real-world sources, which I can respect. However, put them all in a spoiler at the bottom. It is practically link spam here.

Parsons: (holding up a ZPM he took out of his shuttle) Please tell me this glowing yellow crystal does not exist. Please, tell me that this zetawatt power source for all of our technology does not exist. I'm sure all the people travelling the universe will believe you and suddenly stop travelling because all their ships suddenly stopped moving.

Parsons: (still holding the ZPM) In our 'present tier', we own the planet and have no grid, since such a thing is inefficient compared to distributed power generation networks due to these things. (hefts ZPM)

[Imperium Anglorum]

"Thus the suggestion of kerosene and open flame. Thats why I make these suggestions, to avoid the explanations that go into it. Serves me right for planning ahead, I guess."

Well normally when someone tells you to burn your work you're gonna want a bit of a better explanation. Anyway...

I would say: at least put it on hold. The World Assembly is a mishmash of RP-wank all the time, which means that this legislation will not be relevant for a significant number of FT nations.

(apologies on the double post)

[NoFrellsGiven]

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopi ... 69856f7008

I gave the legislation another try which allows for roleplaying tiers of civilization who may have ZPMs.

[Imperium Anglorum]

It's bad form to use another thread to promote your own legislation.