On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 20:15:34 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 11:16:47 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 18:36:36 -0700 (PDT), Its Me
wrote:

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 8:41:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:28:35 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 17:01:36 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 16:08:55 -0400,
wrote:

On Tue, 23 Apr 2019 14:11:32 -0400, wrote:

They are assuming coal fired electric plants but I agree all electric
cars do is move the smoke stack down the road a ways.

===

In my opinion that's an over simplification. For one it ignores the
fact that stationary, large-scale power plants are much more efficient
than the average internal combusion engine used in vehicles. Secondly,
the charging is usually done at off peak hours when there is typically
excess grid capacity. Last but not least, the trend is pointing in
the direction of renewable energy such as wind and solar. If we live
long enough (doubtful), we might even see clean nuclear fusion some
day. As an additional benefit, electric cars have done quite a bit to
advance the state-of-the-art for light weight, high efficiency
batteries. Those gains will eventually prove useful for the storage
of wind and solar energy.
That all assumes a clean power plant in the first place. The article
was talking about coal plants and we still have plenty of them.
Your solar power is not going to do much if the cars are charged at
night.


===

At least in this country, coal plants are rapidly going away.

Solar power at night is not going to happen of course. New battery
technology, and other energy storage devices, will eventually help
with that issue however. If every south facing roof in Florida was
covered with high efficiency solar panels, there would be plenty of
energy to spare for battery charging. I think that will eventually
happen as the price of solar panels steadily decreases.

My problem is drilling holes in a roof that isn't leaking now. My
roofer neighbor says solar is great for his business. I also only have
about 3kw worth of south facing roof.
Solar is getting a lot cheaper tho. I was looking the other day and
there are lots of collectors in the 75 cents a watt neighborhood.
I wonder how FPL would feel if I built an array on their property ;-)

Running those cables to/from that array near their power lines may be the biggest problem.You may create a transformer that neither of you want.

That is way overstated. I have tried to scavenge power from those
lines for 35 years with absolutely zero success. If you believe what
you see on you tube I should be able to hold an F40 tube in the air
and have it light up ... nope. I should be able to string a wire
parallel to the line and generate something ... nope.
Coil of wire ... nope.
I really wanted a light in my boat house under those lines without
stringing another wire but no joy.
If you really look at these lines it is easy to see why. They are a
twisted triplex. They just have a twist about every half mile or so
but that is still way smaller than the wave length. (roughly from here
to California)

Besides, my wires would be running at 90 degrees to the power line and
underground.

You aren't trying hard enough.

It would take a fairly long run parallel to those lines to get any induced power. That a *very* inefficient transformer.

The twist has nothing to do with it. It's not RF (wavelength) they are concerned with, it's a expanding and collapsing magnetic field at 60hz. Twisted pair is used primarily to greatly reduce *induced* interference, not to reduce radiated interference. Those conductors you are seeing aren't twisted pairs, but rather an efficient way to run a conductor of a specific CMA. Easier and more efficient to run a lazy spiral of three smaller conductors sharing the load than to run one that is their equal. That doesn't change their radiated magnetic footprint.

You still haven't explained why they twist them. It would be easier to
just run them straight but it is obvious that they roll them about
every half mile.
I also believe the fields from 3 phases tend to cancel each other out.
If I put my clamp on ammeter around a cable carrying the current down
and back, I get zero and that is a lot closer coupled transformer than
anything I could do by stringing a wire along the ground.

You're right about the 90 degree rule. I'd be more worried about the induced noise in the panels and their conductors, which may not be at 90 degrees.

Since the whole grid is in sync, what "noise"? I lived my whole
computer career looking for noise and for the most part when we found
the enemy, it was us, RF from our switching power supplies (along with
some other PS schemes that were even noisier).