Anthony, I know you didn't mean "no grids," but I was concerned that a
quick skim of this discussion by anyone who didn't know the material in
depth, might lead to the wrong conclusions.
For an example of the danger of over-centralization:
Consider the conversion of the public switched telephone network to VOIP,
in light of the desire on the part of telcos to reap a huge honking
windfall by selling off their vast real estate holdings. AT&T owns about
5,000 central offices, at least one in just about every medium or larger
city in the USA. Comcast has FIVE nationwide, and AT&T would love to do
likewise, and conversion to VOIP will accomplish just that.
I'm sure you know what it's called when you centralize something by a
factor of 1,000 to 1:
"A high-value target."
Something that's just begging to be hit hard and taken out, by a crazed
dictator or an international terrorist group, or perhaps by a few
sociopaths of the same kind who run ID theft rings and bank-card skimmer
rings, or perhaps by someone out for the sheer thrill of smashing and
wrecking.
The plans for the "smart power grid" will produce more high-value targets:
regional power control systems, centrally managed, all internet-connected
and just daring the assholes of the world to hit them.
Already, smart meters provide a tasty treat for predators. I'm aware of a
couple of vulnerabilities that haven't been published, that would enable a
single person with a grudge to black out a neighborhood for a couple of
days. This situation will compound as smart meters, smart grids, and
stupid regulatory officials converge.
All of this over-centralization, and over-reliance on "smart" things, is
causing our entire society to crawl further and further out on a limb that
becomes more and more fragile every day. Sooner than later, something will
break, bigtime.
In a very practical sense, we have to be concerned with resilience.
About which more in my next post.
-G.
=====
On 13-03-26-Tue 5:28 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote:
To be clear, I don't mean to say "no grids!1!!1!!!" but just "use
large-scale grids only for what they're best for in the context of a
broader heterogeneous system, not for almost everything as they are now,
and take into account in a rigorous way overall system efficiency and other
concerns like vulnerability to failures both routine and rare and
corruptibility of the social systems that grow up around the technical
systems."
I remember discussing these points a few times in the past with you,
George, and Hol, and others around sudo room; might we like to get some
documentation together on interesting specifics? A section of the wiki
maybe, where we can throw ideas up about the details and see what sticks?
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 5:06 PM, Anon195714 <anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net>wrote;wrote:
A lot of the arguement against power grids is ultimately rooted in
opposition to having our energy supply controlled by distant corporations
whose decisions are not sustainable and not in our interests.
I agree that over-dependence on greedy corporations for vital
infrastructure, merely for the sake of convenience, is a shortcut to
servitude. Google is the worst offender, with its seductive Gmail and
Google Voice offering "convenience" in exchange for intensive and intrusive
surveillance, not only of those who use the services, but of everyone they
communicate with. (Worst of all, Google Glass: "become a volunteer
surveillance drone!")
The model we should be looking toward, to manage the power grid, is one
of municipally-owned transmission infrastructure (the wires along the
streets), and diversification of power producers (from individual
households to the existing power utilities). Everyone would be paid the
same rate for power they "upload" to the grid, and everyone would pay the
same rate for power they "download." This would immediately level the
playing field and provide an enormous incentive for all manner of renewable
and new-tech power generation.
Further, the municipal ownership model should also apply to the wired
telecoms grid: telephone and internet. (Even your mobile device is only
"wireless" for the last half mile at most; the rest of the way it's as
wired as my antique dial phones.) All of these things are using the public
rights-of-way along the streets; they are arguably public rights-of-way in
themselves, and as such, should be owned by the public.
The municipal internet of electricity would entail each local power
producer (household or larger) having small storage capacity on-site, and a
switching synchronized inverter to connect to the grid. An onboard
microprocessor with an analog voltage sensors would monitor line power to
determine when power should be uploaded to the grid or downloaded from the
grid. Simple "net metering" would keep track of the billing.
The small decentralized battery packs would act primarily as buffers, to
level out power production and consumption among users. Overnight and over
multiple cloudy days, and during peak demand hours, the decentralized solar
would be supplemented by other power sources such as micro-reactors and
natural gas turbines.
The uniform pricing mechanism would prevent predatory "arbitrage" of
electricity, and provide the incentive to install solar panels on every
solar-accessible flat surface, even on bus shelters and other street
kiosks.
The point-of-production microprocessors would be isolated from the
internet to prevent cyber-attacks against the grid: the best kind of "smart
grid" is one that self-regulates locally without being vulnerable
globally.
I should also mention: Yes, electric automobiles can provide household
power storage in the absence of having a grid, but a) not everyone owns or
even wants an automobile, b) if you've drained your car battery pack
overnight to power your house, it's not available the next morning to get
you to work, and c) even if everyone could afford a new electric car, there
are good reasons to reduce car ownership and usage in favor of bicycles,
scooters, motorcycles, buses, and trains.
Beyond that, we should not be destroying our civic infrastructure in
favor of requiring everyone to have their own i-Things or do without.
Public phones, public bathrooms (do you really want to carry an i-Pee
around?), public drinking fountains, public benches for sitting, public
transport, etc.: are all civic goods that make the public sphere more
user-friendly and accessible. A public power grid is another example, as
with public water supply, public sewage treatment, and refuse disposal:
life without those things would be worse than miserable.
Don't destroy it: reclaim it, revision it, and rebuild it.
-G.
=====
On 13-03-26-Tue 3:41 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote:
Production of alternative energy can be and for most reasons probably
should be much less centralized, equivalently, smaller-scale, than
production of energy mostly is now. (Off-grid, as you mention, but very
literally.)
Large-scale up front + large, complex distribution networks is revealed
as an obsolete architecture; large scale distribution networks become
relatively less important, so even if the answer to your question is no,
which it probably isn't given crowdfunding and other disintermediated
finance gaining momentum, it's moot, or at least of much less relative
importance.
Put another way, when the most important goal is maximum efficiency
rather than maximum centralization, large upfront capital investment +
large, complex distribution network is stupid; proper
accounting<https://homebrewindustrialrevolution.wordpress.com/>of all costs and
benefits in a global rather than piecewise local sense
reveals this now for agriculture, manufacturing, energy, ...
Even now, buffering between supply and demand is a constraint on grid
architecture leading to great economic demand within the current paradigm
for distributed storage / production of energy according to someone who
came through sudo room whose name escapes me.
This loosely-drafted email brought to you by the
slogan<http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2010/11/eaas…ml>,
"localize production, virtualize everything
else"<http://www.miiu.org/wiki/Resilient_Things_by_Top-Level_Catego… and
the acronym STEMI <http://www.accelerationwatch.com/mest.html>
compression<http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/11…
.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Romy Ilano <romy(a)snowyla.com> wrote:
Is it possible to create alternative energy
distribution networks
(biofuels/solar/ wind etc) that replace mainstream petrol and natural gas
based energy without a large financial sector?
the vc system that funds these alternative energy start-ups piggy
backs off the investment banks, etc. and big private equity and
institutional investment funds. vcs are like a fly on the @ss of a
financial hippo.
I haven't heard people discuss off-grid that much in the tech talks
I've been to( which are excellent). Is there a conversation here that would
show how off grid is a viable alternative, even if it's not a big money
solution?
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:56 PM, <hol(a)gaskill.com> wrote:
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing
listsudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.orghttp://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss