A bunch of stuff today in no particular order processed from 3 days at a conference in Chicago and a 7 hour trip from Windy back to Toronto (isn't flying convenient?... total time in the air about 80 minutes).

On to podcasting and technology. I asked my audience at the PQ conference whether any of them had heard of podcasting. Bear in mind these are mostly electrical engineers and technicians -- ie: people with real jobs. Not one of them knew what I was talking about. Now they know. My point in bringing it up is that in the field of engineering data management, we are not paying attention to what is happening in the wider internet space; the so-called Internet 2.0. Developments in data transport, web services and standards in reporting are changing enormously in other fields but not so much in the electrical and power quality universe. That is changing slowly and new standards at the IEC and IEEE are being discussed. Standards are only part of the solution. The other part is getting geek engineers to feel cool about themselves again. The biggest problem I see is that electrical engineering in the US is under attack from market forces. The U.S. is losing its technical edge and beginning to treat engineering like a commodity. I wish the son could learn from his Dad and remember the whole "thousand points of light" thing. Let innovation flourish and the rest takes care of itself. If we get a few more real geeksters from the electrical engineering world podcasting and blogging then the conversation is going to get really interesting.

Speaking of which, I finally met Jude Russell the only other power quality engineer blogger that I am aware of. Jude runs Power Lines in Newington, Connecticut and blogs semi-regularly. We talked about data aggregation and presenting reports to customers. It's a big problem and we're all using our own tool-sets, tricks and accumulated experience to distill the data down to useful chunks of information.

On the subject of the PQ Conference; an inspired track was the 90 minute session with past John Mungenast Award winners on Thursday morning. I have some interesting take-aways from the session that are not just focused on power quality. More on that later, I haven't downloaded my notes from the Axim yet.

Steve Thomas from the University of Greenwich presented his report to the
Society of Energy Professionals today. Its contents are discussed in the Globe and Mail -- "Flaws seen in Ontario plan to reorganize hydro". Mr. Thomas was also interviewed by CBC's "As it Happens". The response to the paper? He can be safely quoted as saying, "they were defensive". 
No surprise there. The Society is composed of people who run the generation, transmission and distribution system. Many of them never
wanted what has befallen the system. Many of them are not responsible for the structural changes that have occurred.

Where are we with electricity and where are we going? The average consumer wants on-demand, cheap, reliable electrical energy. We are
heading towards something that will be subject to inavailability, cost considerably more and suffer from systemically poor power quality.

I drank my morning coffee and said a silent thank you to William
Thorsell, former publisher of the Globe and Mail, for his op-ed piece
entitled Burn, baby, burn: Why we're back to nuclear power. Loaded with money
quotes, Thorsell suveys the energy field in short order and arrives at
the conclusion held by many in the electrical and energy business. If
you want massive, scalable energy self-sufficiency you have to think
nuclear. Or newqyoular if you prefer.

The essay is short, to the point and full of honest to goodness truths,
rather than half-baked, highschool science class hopes. Thorsell is
unequivocal in voicing not just contempt; but also, complete
bewilderment regarding the public process behind the issue of nuclear
waste:

Regarding a continued reliance on fossil fuels for electricity
generation, he points out:

Some point out that increasing our nuclear reliance increases the possibility
for terrorism and the proliferation of destructive nuke technologies;
but that genie is already out of the bottle and as Thorsell states:

What is the emergency
plan for 30 days without any home heating or water in Toronto in January if the power goes down because of a distribution failure? Maybe there just can't be one, given the certainty of chaos, so a dependable supply of electricity is the closest equation there is these days to peace, order and good government. Lose electricity and we lose the social
order."

Thorsell saves the best for last. No
politician would dare say it but his statement rings truer than any of
the rhetorical crap that has been spouted by any party in any election
of note lately:

"Medicare
gets all the political attention, while the much more
fundamental question of our energy supplies and systems percolates
off-stage. The first duty of the state is the security of the citizen,
not the care of the ill. We got a glimpse of that last August."

One of the things that I do in order to earn a living is related to electrical system reliability
and power quality. This past week has featured a couple of high
profile stories regarding electrical infrastructure failure; one in
Athens
and one in Chicago.

I passed through the American terminal at O'Hare in April and it was
very clearly under-construction at the time. So in some respect the
likelihood of an accident was bound to increase. Reading the original
news dispatches it seemed clear to me that it was unlikely that a
transformer actually exploded in-service in the building; it sounded
more like a cable fault to me. It was reported that workers
inadvertently "moved wires". An updated story does identify that a
cable fault occurred, but that is not how it is referred to. Instead,
they call it a "flash":

I have no personal or first-hand knowledge to relate regarding the
Chicago event, however I can offer the following general professional
observations.



In my experience, a dead shorted cable
packing a few hundred amps does indeed give off quite a
flash and it can be lethal. The loud sound associated with a short circuited
cable is a combination of two things; the sonic component of the EMI
arc (think of it as being the "thunder" part of a mini lightning
strike)  and either (or both) of the operation of  circuit
breakers or fuses opening up to clear the fault. When large fuses blow
they can be really loud.



The pressing question for a forensic engineer on site now would be,
"Why did the cable fault occur?".