The Infrastructure Thread (formerly BI: America's infrastructure is decaying)

[Jabbyrwock]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Batteries are just chemicals.

 

38 minutes ago, Larry said:

So are you. 

 

So are spacecraft. 

 

[China]

3 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Some of this red madness is overdone.

 

Batteries are just chemicals. The best China could do is provide faulty batteries. I am pretty sure large scale batteries use external charge protection.

 

 

I understanding wanting to build/support a strategic manufacturing base in the US but tearing out existing installations is a bit wasteful, especially since most of the raw materials your gonna buy for American made batteries are going to come from China, Russia, and other states with varying levels of stability.

 

 

2 hours ago, Larry said:

 

So are you. 

 

So are spacecraft. 

 

----

 

Yes, I agree that some times it's Red Scare.

 

I wish I knew whether this is an attempt at stimulating a needed domestic industry. Or protectionism of an industry that did some lobbying. Or just an excuse for some trade war. 

 

Or, is it a legitimate concern (as mentioned in the article) that since the military are using these batteries, we don't want the military dependent on a potential enemy for some of its equipment?

[CousinsCowgirl84]

19 minutes ago, China said:

 

 

Or, is it a legitimate concern (as mentioned in the article) that since the military are using these batteries, we don't want the military dependent on a potential enemy for some of its equipment?

But what is the specific risk in existing installations of batteries which are working to spec?

 

The article didn’t say they were removed because there was some issue with them. They were removed because they were from China.  

Edited March 19 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Larry]

15 minutes ago, China said:

 

 

Or, is it a legitimate concern (as mentioned in the article) that since the military are using these batteries, we don't want the military dependent on a potential enemy for some of its equipment?

 

Well, if your standard is that all military equipment must have no components whatsoever that are made outside the US ......

 

 

[China]

2 minutes ago, Larry said:

 

Well, if your standard is that all military equipment must have no components whatsoever that are made outside the US ......

 

 

 

And all components are equally important?

[Jabbyrwock]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

But what is the specific risk in existing installations of batteries which are working to spec?

 

The article didn’t say they were removed because there was some issue with them. They were removed because they were from China.  

 

Battery storage systems are far more than just the chemical soup that holds the energy.  There is a significant amount of communication and control equipment (SCADA) that is tied into the product.  I suspect the worry is the comms being vulnerable to hacking, possibly destabilizing the battery, or injecting false readings into the control network.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

20 minutes ago, Jabbyrwock said:

 

Battery storage systems are far more than just the chemical soup that holds the energy.  There is a significant amount of communication and control equipment (SCADA) that is tied into the product.  I suspect the worry is the comms being vulnerable to hacking, possibly destabilizing the battery, or injecting false readings into the control network.

I’m aware of that, but they disconnected the batteries from those systems.
 

There should be at least a cost effective way to retrofit new communications and charge control electronics for the existing batteries.

Edited March 19 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Jabbyrwock]

30 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

There should be at least a cost effective way to retrofit new communications and charge control electronics for the existing batteries.

 

Maybe.  I mean you'd have to reverse engineer the charge control for their battery...my bet is the design isnt plug and play COTS type stuff.  Rip out and replace comms seems more viable in  that respect at least (though it might be a little challenging to find stuff not made in China).  Assuming none of that crossed a patent boundary or agreement, you'd then have to submit the retro fitted device for safety and resilience testing.

 

Honestly seems like a lot of trouble and a significant liability to take on.  Someone dies because of one of these retrofitted batteries thats a pretty big risk for whoever assumes the responsibility.  Seems better to just buy from a supplier who are likely already insured against that liability in their business model.

 

But Im just a guy on a website...what do I know.

[Corcaigh]

There’s the battery, then there’s the battery management system, then there’s the charging infrastructure, then there’s the subsystems for managing the electrical and thermal loads, and to manage shutdown etc.

 

In an implementation for demanding applications that you can actually trust they all need to be implemented in an integrated way.
 

If your Tesla breaks down or catches fire on the side of the road it’s good for a laugh and a social media post, but less so in military applications.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 19 by Corcaigh

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Corcaigh said:

There’s the battery, then there’s the battery management system, then there’s the charging infrastructure, then there’s the subsystems for managing the electrical and thermal loads, and to manage shutdown etc.

 

In an implementation for demanding applications that you can actually trust they all need to be implemented in an integrated way.
 

If your Tesla breaks down or catches fire on the side of the road it’s good for a laugh and a social media post, but less so in military applications.

 

 

 

 

yea, that’s my point. They are separate things. It seems to me you could retrofit secure bms with the existing batteries.

the article isn’t clear though, I suppose it is possible that they are only taking out the bms/charging control.

 

Here is a picture of a Tesla megapack:

 

 

each of the grey thing is a battery of batteries. It’s modular. And think about it, it would have to be. You can’t have one bad cell destroy an entire megapack. I’m just tying to figure out why it wouldn’t be economical to retrofit the batteries which have a standard charge voltage/characteristics to a more secure bms. 
 

we don’t know the exact reason they are being removed. “National security concerns” is pretty vague especially when the people yelling about are politicians like Marco Rubio.

[Corcaigh]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

yea, that’s my point. They are separate things. It seems to me you could retrofit secure bms with the existing batteries.

 

 

Not knowing the technical design of the different pieces we have no information to make that assumption.  Anyone in the field would look at the risks and determine when COTS components can be used to build critical systems.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Corcaigh said:

 

Not knowing the technical design of the different pieces we have no information to make that assumption.  Anyone in the field would look at the risks and determine when COTS components can be used to build critical systems.

The physical batteries are definitely modular. Not saying that means it would be a simple retrofit but lithium ion batteries don’t vary in how they need to be charged. And the patent issue is probably a good point. 

Edited March 19 by CousinsCowgirl84

[China]

Many rural areas could soon lose cell service

 

States such as Tennessee, Kansas, and Oklahoma could be affected unless 'rip-and-replace' funding is secured.

 

Rural and Indigenous communities are at risk of losing cell service thanks to a 2019 law intended to strip US telecom networks of Chinese-made equipment. And while local companies were promised reimbursements as part of the “rip-and-replace” program, many of them have so far seen little of the funding, if any at all.

 

The federal push to block Chinese telephone and internet hardware has been years in the making, but gained substantial momentum during the Trump administration. In May 2019 an executive order barred American providers from purchasing telecom supplies manufactured by businesses within a “foreign adversary” nation. Industry and government officials have argued China might use products from companies like Huawei and ZTE to tap into US telecom infrastructure. Chinese company representatives have repeatedly pushed back on these claims and it remains unclear how substantiated these fears are.

 

As The Washington Post explained on Thursday, major network providers like Verizon and Sprint have long banned the use of Huawei and ZTE equipment. But for many smaller companies, Chinese products and software are the most cost-effective routes for maintaining their businesses.

 

Meanwhile, “rip-and-replace” program plans have remained in effect through President Biden’s administration—but little has been done to help smaller US companies handle the intensive transition efforts. In a letter to Congress on Thursday, FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel explained an estimated 40 percent of local network operators currently cannot replace their existing Huawei and ZTE equipment without additional federal funding. Although $1.9 billion is currently appropriated, revised FCC estimates say another $3 billion is required to cover nationwide rip-and-replace costs.

 

Congress directed the FCC to begin a rip-and-replace program through the passage of the 2020 Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act, but it wasn’t long before officials discovered the $3 billion shortfall. At the time, the FCC promised small businesses 39.5 percent reimbursements for their overhauls. Receiving that money subsequently triggered a completion deadline, but that remaining 61.5 percent of funding has yet to materialize for most providers. Last week, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA) announced the Spectrum and National Security Act, which includes a framework to raise the additional $3 billion needed for program participants.

 

In her letter to Congress on Thursday, Rosenworcel said providers currently have between May 29, 2024, and February 4, 2025, to supposedly complete their transitions, depending on when they first received the partial funding. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[The Evil Genius]

After spending 2 weeks in London and Paris...it's startling how much more advanced their transit system is. America really ****ed up in comparison. 

[Bang]

It's as if all our institutions care about here is prolonging profit as opposed to advancing society.

 

~Bang

[China]

FERC Just Finalized the Most Historic Transmission Rule This Century

 

Today, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) passed what might be considered the most significant regulatory milestone concerning interstate power lines in nearly three decades. Like the transformative Order 888 that mandated open access to the power grid in 1996, this new rule promises to redefine the future of America’s energy infrastructure.

 

Over the last several months, Breakthrough Energy has previewed the wide-ranging impacts of this rule, highlighting its potential to accelerate decarbonization alongside substantial economic and societal benefits. Here’s what we know now. Order 1920 requires transmission providers to:

• Engage in proactive, forward-looking regional planning on a five-year basis.
• Evaluate a minimum set of transmission benefits during cost allocation processes, including economic and reliability benefits.
• Consider the use of advanced transmission technologies.

With the rule’s arrival, it is crucial to grasp both its immediate implications and its long-term significance. In recent decades, the U.S. has lacked a proactive, long-term strategy for transmission planning. This has hindered the integration of innovative technologies and delayed the connection of clean energy resources to the grid. This rule changes that by mandating comprehensive future planning, ensuring our infrastructure can meet tomorrow’s energy needs without compromising economic or reliability goals.

 

What the rule will do
The order improves regional transmission planning and cost allocation, which is a multi-step, complex process overseen by FERC and conducted by regional transmission organizations (RTOs), independent system operators (ISOs), or planning authorities in non-RTO markets. These reforms address two of the “Three P’s of Transmission,” i.e. planning and paying. (Note: the Commission has also unanimously passed a rule addressing the “Third P”, i.e. permitting, in a separate order regarding permits to site interstate transmission lines via federal ‘backstop siting’ authority).

 

The rule also introduces a requirement to assess a minimum set of seven transmission benefits, specifically reliability and economic benefits. This holistic approach discourages selective benefit analysis—or planning and building lines for only a narrow set of issues—which has previously led to piecemeal investments in our grid infrastructure. These benefits include things such as upgrading or replacing aging infrastructure, reducing energy losses, improving grid congestion, and mitigating extreme weather events.

 

Additionally, the rule broadens the scope of potential solutions for upgrading our grid. Transmission providers are now required to consider innovative technologies, including grid enhancing technologies (GETs) and new high-capacity wires, also known as advanced or high-performance conductors. 

 

Click on the link for the full article

[EmirOfShmo]

6 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

After spending 2 weeks in London and Paris...it's startling how much more advanced their transit system is. America really ****ed up in comparison. 

I went to work at a railroad in 1984. I remember reading industry mags about 'maglev' trains and the potential it offered. Nah, US will pass on that. No future...

[China]

White House to announce actions to modernize America’s electrical grid, paving the way for clean energy and fewer outages

 

The White House on Tuesday will announce steps to modernize a major roadblock to the clean energy transformation: America’s aging electrical infrastructure.

 

The new initiative between the feds and 21 states aims to make faster fixes and improvements to the grid, committing to build a bigger and more modern grid as part of a larger effort to reduce power outages and increase electrical transmission capacity – a massive hurdle to getting more clean energy on the grid and reducing the planet-warming pollution causing the climate crisis.

 

The announcement comes on the same day that hundreds of thousands of customers lost power in Texas during destructive storms Tuesday morning, following a deadly holiday weekend of severe weather across the South and Midwest. Weather-related power outages are on the rise as stronger storms put more pressure on outdated infrastructure, a recent report from nonprofit research group Climate Central found.

 

The White House and Department of Energy will make the announcement at a summit for states, industry groups and electric regulators.

 

White House national climate adviser Ali Zaidi called the new initiative “unprecedented” and said it will “drive grid adaptation quickly and cost-effectively.”

 

“We are investing tens of billions — the most significant public investment in a generation — to strengthen our grid to prevent power outages in the face of extreme weather, bolster US energy security, and drive innovation,” Zaidi said in a statement.

 

Click on the link for the full article