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
<mailto:anon195714@sbcglobal.net>> 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-non-rival-goods-vs-rival-goods.html>,
"localize production, virtualize everything else"
<http://www.miiu.org/wiki/Resilient_Things_by_Top-Level_Category> and
the acronym STEMI <http://www.accelerationwatch.com/mest.html>
compression
<http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/11/stemi.html>.
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Romy Ilano <romy(a)snowyla.com
<mailto:romy@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
<mailto:hol@gaskill.com>> wrote:
this talk about imports and exports always reminds me of
energy flow
compare 2011
https://www.llnl.gov/news/newsreleases/2012/Oct/images/25306_LLNLUSEnergy20…
with 2002
http://www.hubbertpeak.com/us/images/us_energyflow2002.jpg
fascinating
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
<mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>
http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss