It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

China unveils proposal for $50 trillion global electricity network

page: 1
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 11:32 AM
link   


The plan envisions linking existing and future solar farms, wind turbines and electricity plants in Asia, Europe, Africa and the Americas, according to the head of State Grid Corporation of China. The proposal is in its initial stages and would require huge investment from around the world. If it goes ahead, it would be the world’s largest infrastructure project. It could be operational by 2050, according to backers.


This is awesome. I believe we need to anything to combat climate change and save our precious world. While I don't have much faith with countries like China, the U.S, etc. to me this could be a turning point in history. Hopefully everything works out. We have to remember we only have this one planet to live on. If we destroy, we destroy ourselves.

News Article




posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 11:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Teddy916

I think the idea of networked electricity production and delivery systems is outmoded. No matter how the energy is being produced, a modular, off grid system, like the system that Elon Musk is proposing, would be preferable.

His Power Wall battery systems, in combination with solar panels (the technology for which is improving all the time, with folk like Musk innovating and ploughing money into research and development for) could mean that every home which has a sky facing surface would be able to produce and store its yearly energy requirements, without the necessity for a link to the grid.

This is especially important, when you realise that most existing power grids would be horrifically damaged by an event like a strong solar flare/CME impact with our planets magnetosphere. The Carrington Event, which occurred in 1859, burned out the telegraph system over a huge area, wrecked it. If the grids we have now existed then, they would have been toasted. Now, back in the 1800s, that was not AS big of a deal. People relied on the telegraph system, but life was a slower thing back then. Communication took time, even with the telegraph system, so the effects were not as pronounced as they would be if, for example, a CME hit the entire North American continent, and burned out every one of the over taxed, elderly elements of which it is made. It would take YEARS, perhaps DECADES to put right, and the effects would be felt more widely than just the area where the CME energy was directly burning things out. It would cause a cascade effect which would widen the damage area.

Can you imagine? Everyone's food would rot in their refrigerators, there would be no light in homes, street lights and traffic signals would be out, electronic payment systems would be down for an extended period, credit, banking, Internet services, everything western persons have come to rely on, including the communications grid (which is in no better a state), would come crashing down, and life would grind to a halt. It would be chaos, and it would be a long, hard slog to fix the knock on effects, let alone the grid itself.

For this reason, a distributed, grid less, modular system, where each household provides and stores its own energy, is preferable, vastly preferable to any system which links energy production and delivery to a greater degree than is currently the case.

The thinking behind the idea, big thinking for a big problem, is great, and I agree wholeheartedly with the intention, but if there is to be a global push for a different solution to energy production, I believe that modular options where connection to an over arching grid structure is not necessary, will prove to be a better choice in the long term.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   
a reply to: Teddy916

This looks great at first look. But on second thought, maybe not so.

This proposal basically implies a worldwide monopole over electricity. Which means, they'll be able to crank the price of electricity higher than ever.

I'm all for clean electricity, but I see a darker outcome for this project.

S&F for sharing nonetheless!



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:05 PM
link   
Not enough copper on the planet.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:08 PM
link   



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:15 PM
link   
I have to agree the system is far too outmoded even in the concept stage.....
Independence is the wave of the future....self sufficiency in hydro needs should be the goal of every household ...
There were two Canadians in Ontario who have developed electricity producing paint too.....
Imagine if your whole house was producing electricity for you....
walls, roof, etc.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:47 PM
link   
Sounds suspiciously that the Chinese want access to the cheapest energy anywhere in the world. With 3D printing taking off, and solar panels improving energy efficiency, we wouldn't need to transport manufactured goods across the world. That competes against their business model.

Thus the Chinese have proposed a high-speed cargo train going across Europe and Asia. Now they want a global energy network.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Teddy916

I think the idea of networked electricity production and delivery systems is outmoded. No matter how the energy is being produced, a modular, off grid system, like the system that Elon Musk is proposing, would be preferable.


It would be immeasurably better to further localise production, down to as small of systems as possible. Houses, buildings or small community groups. This would make it more reliable, and ultimately make us less dependent on the state.

Which, i think is exactly the point here. Globalization under the control of the corrupt folks that currently run things.
edit on 31-3-2016 by pirhanna because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Teddy916

I think the idea of networked electricity production and delivery systems is outmoded. No matter how the energy is being produced, a modular, off grid system, like the system that Elon Musk is proposing, would be preferable.

His Power Wall battery systems, in combination with solar panels (the technology for which is improving all the time, with folk like Musk innovating and ploughing money into research and development for) could mean that every home which has a sky facing surface would be able to produce and store its yearly energy requirements, without the necessity for a link to the grid.

This is especially important, when you realise that most existing power grids would be horrifically damaged by an event like a strong solar flare/CME impact with our planets magnetosphere. The Carrington Event, which occurred in 1859, burned out the telegraph system over a huge area, wrecked it. If the grids we have now existed then, they would have been toasted. Now, back in the 1800s, that was not AS big of a deal. People relied on the telegraph system, but life was a slower thing back then. Communication took time, even with the telegraph system, so the effects were not as pronounced as they would be if, for example, a CME hit the entire North American continent, and burned out every one of the over taxed, elderly elements of which it is made. It would take YEARS, perhaps DECADES to put right, and the effects would be felt more widely than just the area where the CME energy was directly burning things out. It would cause a cascade effect which would widen the damage area.

Can you imagine? Everyone's food would rot in their refrigerators, there would be no light in homes, street lights and traffic signals would be out, electronic payment systems would be down for an extended period, credit, banking, Internet services, everything western persons have come to rely on, including the communications grid (which is in no better a state), would come crashing down, and life would grind to a halt. It would be chaos, and it would be a long, hard slog to fix the knock on effects, let alone the grid itself.

For this reason, a distributed, grid less, modular system, where each household provides and stores its own energy, is preferable, vastly preferable to any system which links energy production and delivery to a greater degree than is currently the case.

The thinking behind the idea, big thinking for a big problem, is great, and I agree wholeheartedly with the intention, but if there is to be a global push for a different solution to energy production, I believe that modular options where connection to an over arching grid structure is not necessary, will prove to be a better choice in the long term.


This. Modular systems where each building is producing it's own power. Personally I think every new highrise built should have something like these grist.org... installed along with solar panels and batteries.


The nautilus shell took time off from fitness-namesake duty to inspire The Liam F1 Urban Wind Turbine, which we are renaming The Not-So-Little Turbine That Could. Dutch firm The Archimedes designed the swirl-shaped windmill to be way quieter and more efficient than others (plus, it’s blue!). The firm says the turbine can generate 80 percent of the maximum possible energy yield, a big jump from the typical 25 to 50 percent. Hot damn.

PSFK thinks it’ll be great for your apartment, but at five feet wide, it might not exactly fit on your Brooklyn fire escape. At least the noise won’t wake you up in the middle of the night, which is one of the big drawbacks of most residential wind turbines/randy apartment neighbors.

Here are the Liam’s specs:

The Liam F1 generates an average of 1,500 kilowatt-hours of energy [per year] at a wind-speed of 5 m/s [16.4 ft/s], which resembles half of the power consumption of a common household.

edit on 31/3/2016 by dug88 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Teddy916

...
For this reason, a distributed, grid less, modular system, where each household provides and stores its own energy, is preferable, vastly preferable to any system which links energy production and delivery to a greater degree than is currently the case.


The idea seems to be a better option but there are other players than Musk. See what the Aussies are doing?

Redflow launches ZCell home energy storage system which is a flow battery system for the home. The charge-discharge is better than Li-ion. A distributed grid is going to be the "next big thing" with grid-level flow batteries (one in the home, one on the grid, and you would not be in the dark unless some doom porn thing happens).

Unfortunately, self-production and self-use will not occur (unless you GOTG) but will enhance what is already delivered.

If the Chinese want a world-wide grid they are going to have to create more efficient high tension wires. If there is a break through in that area then maybe... but even then I would doubt there will be a world wide grid. At least that is my 2 pence!



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:07 PM
link   
and 2050? Thats 34 years. Thats longer than i've been alive. Seems like by the time they get half way into that project there will be something much better available. Do we even have 34 years of civilization left with the way things are going?

edit on 31-3-2016 by booyakasha because: (no reason given)

edit on 31-3-2016 by booyakasha because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 06:30 PM
link   
a reply to: booyakasha

As long as there remains a teabag to infuse, a cup into which to put it, boiled water to pour onto it, and a person to enjoy the result, there will remain civilisation.

If there is only coffee, all is lost.



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 09:57 PM
link   
Sounds like a terrible idea to keep us paying up the ass for outdated technology. Pollutes allot too.

Nope

Modular solar, free sunlight. Buy your own rig.

China can find another cash cow and Hillary can retire selling solar equipment for all I care

Wise to the schemes by now.

This is a continuation of the Clinton-China love fest.


edit on 3 31 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)

edit on 3 31 2016 by tadaman because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 31 2016 @ 10:14 PM
link   
Sounds like China is letting the fact that we have used them as a giant sweat-shop and polution dumping ground over the past 2 decades get to their head. I bet they are trying to figure out a way to tie themselves into the globes future economy. They must see the writing on the wall by now.

Poor bastards .

China! You are not in the club. We dont care about your "ideas".
edit on pThu, 31 Mar 2016 22:17:44 -05002016 144Thu, 31 Mar 2016 22:17:44 -0500pmAmerica/ChicagoThursday by MALBOSIA because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:33 AM
link   
z-cell fully installed cost...

z-cell"We expect the fully installed cost of a 10 kWh ZCell-based energy storage system will start from $17,500 - $19,500 including GST"

Reminds me of "Origin Energy"'s plan to sell the Tesla Powerwall.. Installed for a price of $19,000.

Cost of actual power-wall battery $3000 USD wholesale. Hrmmm.. 10 years, at $1900 per year is like..... About the average cost or more of electricity per household per year....



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 02:40 AM
link   
And how would the planet react if Teslas's free world energy grid had come to fruition? Oh, sorry, both destroyed several decades ago...



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 03:00 AM
link   
a reply to: swanne



a reply to: Nickn3

You don't need copper.


And the powergrid wiring, you expect it to be organic?!



posted on Apr, 1 2016 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Teddy916

I think the idea of networked electricity production and delivery systems is outmoded. No matter how the energy is being produced, a modular, off grid system, like the system that Elon Musk is proposing, would be preferable.
Yes if it works but how good are the batteries and do they make economic sense today? I think that's the weak link right now but striving for that concept is a good idea.


originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Nickn3

You don't need copper.

This thread is about China's suggestion and for that yes you need copper. Even if you use photovoltaic cells to generate electricity, I think part of their idea is that storage tech is terrible so why not transfer the power from where the sun is shining to where it's needed when the sun isn't shining, because the sun is always shining somewhere on Earth. Your link doesn't explain how to do that without copper.


originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
If the Chinese want a world-wide grid they are going to have to create more efficient high tension wires. If there is a break through in that area then maybe... but even then I would doubt there will be a world wide grid. At least that is my 2 pence!
There are limits to the efficiency of high tension wires, and those losses along with the capital outlay and economics are the big issue here. 50 Trillion is a lot to invest and is this the best use of 50 trillion or are there better uses?

I do give them credit for thinking big even if the project never takes off.



posted on Apr, 2 2016 @ 07:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: swanne
a reply to: Nickn3

You don't need copper.


True, if voltage is high enough, you could use carbon fiber, but it doesn't weather well and then there is the problem of terminals.

If that money was dumped into solar and battery's you could power the world.

I think local solar is the answer to power production, but I am not a scientist only a solar panel dealer.







 
13
<<   2 >>

log in

join