Trump Signs Executive Order Converting U.S. Grid from AC to DC
(WASHINGTON, DC) “You know what electrons are, right? They make this thing called electricity, and that can be bad stuff…like lightning strikes and power outages,” said U.S. President Donald Trump as he signed into effect an executive order that will convert the U.S. electrical grid from alternating to direct current over the next five years, at a cost experts put at roughly $35 trillion, or approximately twice the GDP.
Though the Congressional Budget Office did not respond immediately to the announcement, CBO spokesperson Sam Schmidlac explained to Reuters later in the day that his team needed time to evaluate the full impact of the president’s edict. “Of course, any budgetary outlay measured in the tens of trillions of dollars is a considerable commitment, but we will examine the offsetting benefits, presuming we’re able to identify some, and we hope to be able to present our findings by year’s end at the latest.”
Sarah Huckabee Sanders addressed the press corps in a briefing at the White House, who had gathered in hopes of further insight into the Trump’s decision to abandon hopes for peace in the Middle East by acknowledging Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. She began confidently, “The president, acting in concert with the advice of Nobel physics laureate (U.S. Energy Secretary) Rick Perry, is pulling America away from the fake, politically motivated pseudoscience of the Obama era and previous Democratic administrations dating back to the 1880s.”
When asked to name the principal benefit of the massive conversion in infrastructure, Sanders continued, “Remember that this president was elected precisely because he does not subscribe to conventional wisdom. I think his positions on climate change, protection of national monuments, affordable healthcare and women’s reproductive rights have demonstrated that very plainly. Elections have consequences. President Trump will not let the doctrines of liberal Democrats stand in the way of keeping his promise to make America great again.”
S.H.S.’s comment is utterly mystifying, but are we talking about converting the grid to HDVC? Won’t that make for more efficient transmission? Is this an astonishing and exceptional case of wisdom from the current administration?
Actually, this was my first (and, I suppose last) attempt at parody.
I knew it was too good to be true. 🙂
Craig finally you are actually onto something meaningful; Edison and Westinghouse had this same disagreement a little while ago.
Lawrence Coomber
Craig,
If anyone else but Trump was initiating this change, you would be singing his praises ! Because it’s the President, it’s got to the subject of snickering and mocked as being stupid and impractical.
Multi-terminal HVDC networks and hybrid HVDC imbedded into HVAC networks are already commercialized and implemented across Europe.
These hybrid networks are not that costly and will dramatically increase transmission capacity with reduced right-of-way (ROW) requirements.
An HVDC link can transmit power three to five times in the same ROW when compared to HVAC networks.
At the same time, financing these new HVDC links is easier than traditional HVAC lines under merchant line agreements since full control of the power flows can be guaranteed between remote resource and load center.
So it’s not a question of AC or DC, but both. Especially in the high-voltage and ultra-high-voltage transmission networks.
The cost is only a tiny fraction of your $35 trillion estimate !
To digress, I was deeply saddened by the bush fires raging in California. Having lived through several bush fires, I am well aware of the heartbreak involved.
California, my prayers are with you….
This was a joke that I thought was hilarious, but apparently wasn’t recognized as I hoped it would be. Yes, of course, both AC and DC are required.
Thanks for your prayers; we need them…..
Craig,
I’m hesitant to make any comment on the organization of response and management of Californian Wildfires, but to appears to me more preparation, better management and civic planning for potential fire risk zones may prove valuable in mitigating the destructive capacity of these tragic events.
I’d appreciate any insights you may wish to offer.
I’m equally hesitant; in fact, I haven’t studied the issue at all.
I’m reminded of the 2016 presidential elections, where the candidates were asked what they would do about Aleppo–a line of questioning made famous when the Libertarian candidate had never heard of the city nor the humanitarian crisis occurring in it. I recall thinking what I would have said if, in a debate, I had been asked for my suggestion: “I don’t have one. Some people would memorize a few platitudinous soundbites and then professes to have real value to add to this extremely complicated situation on which thousands of honest and very capable people in our State and Defense Departments are doing their level best. They’re called “frauds.” If I’m elected, I’ll take this subject very seriously, and do what I can to ameliorate this horrific situation. But now, I’m not “the man in the arena,” as Teddy Roosevelt would have it, and I’ll refrain from criticizing those who are working so hard on this terrible subject.”