[tlb]

Absolutely. In normal times power projects are planned years in advance so there's no reason for short lead times. But if the system was down, people would wind transformers by hand if they had to. It's not that hard.

It does seem lame that the power grid is so close to capacity. Instead of all this smart grid stuff that lets us get from 97% to 98%, let's just add 50% more capacity and have no worries.

[blogimus]

I'm pretty sure that the capacity problem is due in no small part to pollution control regulations, like the EPA effectively stopping new Coal power plants: http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1859049,00.ht...

"The board's decision will force the EPA to consider CO2 when issuing permits for new power plants, potentially making it at least in the short-term all but impossible to certify new coal power plants. That's because the EPA will need to reconfigure its rules on dealing with CO2, which is found in greater concentrations in coal than any other fossil fuel"

About half of the U.S.'s electric power comes from coal:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes1.html

I'd love a cleaner world, we need it, but there are trade-offs we need to face.

Ask a Las Vegas area resident what he thinks of all the fresh water demands that the solar cells require because of cooling needs.

http://current.com/items/89979048_solar-power-and-water-issu...

And this is just the tip of the iceberg. Want a nuke plants? where are you going to put them? and how long is it going to take to build?

So yeah, it's lame that the power grid is close to capacity. And yeah there are potential new and evolving energy supplies but the solution isn't so simple as "add 50% more capacity and have no worries."

To paraphrase Steve Yegge, "Have you increased the energy grid significantly and simultaneously reduced greenhouse gases ?"

[ubernostrum]

Of course, it's not all environmental.

I live in Kansas. There's a long-running feud going (several years now) over permits to build several coal-fired power plants in the western part of the state; the legislature keeps passing bills ordering the permits to be granted, and the governor keeps vetoing them (thus far the legislature's been unable to get enough votes to override her).

While various folks here love to complain that it's just some sort of environmental agenda being pushed by our (liberal) governor, there's a powerful economic reason to say no to these plants: although they'll be built in Kansas, although they'll use resources from Kansas, although they'll dump pollution into the air and water of Kansas, not one single watt of power from them will go to homes or businesses in Kansas (the plants, if they're built, will be built by out-of-state power companies to produce electricity which will be used elsewhere, mostly in Colorado).

Which raises a valid question: if Kansas is going to bear the cost of having these plants, why shouldn't Kansas get any of the benefits? They won't generate nearly enough jobs to cover the impact they'll have on the state in other ways, so I don't see how any sound economic argument can be made in their favor.

From what reading I've been able to do on the subject of power-plant construction, it seems Kansas isn't alone in facing this sort of situation. Though it may feel like a variation on NIMBY, I think it's entirely reasonable for one state to ask why it should bear costs while another reaps benefits, and to refuse to enter such an obviously one-sided deal.

[tlb]

I actually just meant increasing transmission lines & transformer capacity, since that's what's on the edge. But we should increase generating capacity too.

Increasing capacity doesn't increase usage. We should increase capacity to a comfortable margin, and separately think about reducing usage.