Talk:Electric power distribution/Archive 1

The global view[edit]

Lack of info on European and UK systems and terminology--Light current 22:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote most of the bit about network configuration and initially wrote cabinet substation. I changed it to cabinet transformer in the interest of global terminology. In the Australian industry with which I am familiar all installations which transform into LV are termed substations. I am not sure if this is the case elsewhere. In fact the term we use for a cabinet substation is actually a kiosk substation but I felt "cabinet" would be more global.

On another note I would like to do a lot of edits and try to make this more global. The history part needs trimming though the war of currents is relevant but it starts to wander on a US/UK centric path from there which I think can be generalised a bit more.

There is also a fair bit more required on the general concepts of distribution. Lumberjack Steve 07:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that the article needs to be more global, it refers to US and other countries already Frmorrison 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC).[reply]

General[edit]

Help required with formatting !! The text needs wrapping. Tiles

It failed to wrap because the line began with a blank space. Deletion of that one blank space is all that was needed to fix the problem. 131.183.81.100 23:20 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks Tiles 23:28 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)

Re-added some U.S. info that had been deleted, in the interest of specificity. Making the article international is great, but I think we should cover the various distribution systems separately rather than have an overgeneral article that says too little.

It is hard to get a balance, but the more detail is added the more explanation is required. For instance, you refer to "grounded" and "wye", I would use "earthed" and "star" for the same concepts. Should readers come to wikipedia for technical detail or a general overview? The article could be expanded to include sections on the distribution systems of different countries if contributors make the effort. Your changes improve the article and create an opportunity to expand and improve it further, if others take up the challenge. Tiles 20:09, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I agree that a balance is hard to achieve, especially when someone deletes US usages in preference to UK or European usages (or vice- versa). Should not both sets of terms be used, along with a citation of locations for such usage? e.g Earthing (in europe & the UK) also called grounding (in the US). 11 Dec 2006.

I have removed the following: "The skin effect is the tendency of a high-frequency electric current to distribute itself in a conductor so that the current density near the surface of the conductor is greater than that at its core. This means DC power cables can be thinner than AC power cables and still carry the same electrical power. However, transforming DC to high voltages is a difficult process and this offsets the gains from material savings. Use of high voltage DC lines is only now becoming economically interesting for very large distances and with the increased availability of high-temperature superconductors."

It is not relevant to the article, which is about electricity distribution, not transmission, and it contains errors. See high voltage DC for an explanation of the advantages and disadvantages of HVDC and note that it has been used for long distance transmission since 1954. At power system frequencies skin effect is negligible. Tiles 20:09, 1 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Several things are unexplained or unlinked. What do these things mean? (Should they have articles?)

2200 volts to ground
2200 volts corner-grounded delta
2400Y/4160 three-phase systems
220Y/380
earthed/grounded (with respect to distribution)
wye/star

can anyone help? Rmhermen 20:30, Oct 1, 2003 (UTC)

What is meant by 7620/13200Y? As I understand it, the "Y" refers to the voltage difference between any 2 phases, and the number without the "Y" refers to the voltage between any one phase and ground, but the article could make this clearer. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:29, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to know at least the basics of how power is supplied to vastly varying loads, how it is switched from area to area or whatever depending on power needs, how many different generators supply many different loads over the same wires... Maybe that should belong in a different article? - Omegatron 16:40, Jun 21, 2004 (UTC)

"distribution systems were single phase and used a voltage of 2200 volts corner-grounded delta."

this seems like a contrdiction to me... perhaps someone more familiar with US systems could fix it. --Ali@gwc.org.uk 14:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Improvement Drive[edit]

Thomas Edison has been nominated on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for this article and help improve it to featured status. --Fenice 14:02, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Houses per transformer[edit]

The number of services per transformer is more a matter of how many services per mile (km) there are, than a question of US vs UK. 120 vs 230 is not the issue, since the 3-wire system of 120/240 gives practically the same voltage drop limitations. High density areas, with more than say 10 or 20 services per km of distribution feeder, can efficiently use a big transformer - but if you only have a few homes per km you must still have more transformers because even 230 V won't travel far without unacceptable voltage drop. --Wtshymanski 18:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think a major part of this is simply different design philosophy. Many small transormers versus smaller number of larger transformers. I am unfamiliar with the US LV network. Do they run LV interconnected systems of simply run services from the transformer to the connection point of the houses?

"120 vs 230 is not the issue, since the 3-wire system of 120/240 gives practically the same voltage drop limitations.". True 120/240 split phase and 240 single ended single phase have similar volt drop limitations but 240/415 three phase and 240/480 split phase are much better. Plugwash 13:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Initial Definition[edit]

"Electricity distribution is the penultimate process in the delivery of electricity" This statement doesn't quite ring true. Distribution is the last link in the delivery of electricity to the customer not the second last.

I had changed this to read the last stage and it has now been changed back to penultimate. I am interested in other views on this. Traditinally there has been 3 stages of electricity delivery - Generation, transmission and distribution. Retail (in Australia at least) is a relatively new concept , introduced after the privatisation of much of the industry. Retail is simply the billing of customers and at most the retailer (in Austrlia) owns the meter. The electricity from a chunk of coal etc to the point of attachment is delivered by three distinct groups only. Lumberjack Steve 11:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Definitions[edit]

U.S.A. UK !AUS Grounded Earthed Grounded Wye or Y Star Star Transmission line Power line Power line Transmission tower Pylon Power Pole

This isn't right - at least for Australia. The Australian industry is different state by state and different usages are common. In Victoria we would not refer to power lines, we would say transmission lines or distribution feeders. The same for towers, basically any steel lattice structure is referred to as a tower, any wood or concrete pole type strucuture as a pole. Then there are stobie poles in South Australia which are a whole new concept.

I would like to remove the section on different definitions. It is incomplete and inaccurate. If there are any major objections let me know Lumberjack Steve 21:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the section highlighted above and it was reverted. I am assuming the revert was an error as there was another edit the contributer was concentrating on so I am deleting again. Lumberjack Steve 07:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of HVDC transmission lines[edit]

[ There exists in Russia one long high voltage dc line.][Also in Quebec, Canada]

The US Pacific Intertie uses HVDC transmission http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Intertie

also the Furnas Itaipu HVDC transmission line of Brazil http://www.abb.com/cawp/gad02181/C1256D71001E0037C1256833006CB3A4.aspx

68.216.187.22 23:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)Julian Breidenthal, jbreid at integrity.com[reply]

Well, yes, but this article is about distribution, not transmission. The HVDC article has many more examples. --Wtshymanski 17:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested expansion[edit]

This article looks at the energy distribution process primarily from a technical standpoint. In business, the term 'distributor' refers to a specific type of 'middleman' business between the manufacturer and retailer or in this case, the companies that pull together the energy sources and maintain a continuous supply, etc. Since this article is linked from the business definition for distributor, I'd suggest adding a section more like film distributor and record distributor. Antonrojo 17:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Electrical Diagram[edit]

here is a sample electrical distribution layout diagram [[1]] --Billymac00 18:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demand and supply matching[edit]

Hi,

I was looking to have a quick browse about power demand and supply matching information, but this seems to be lacking from this and related articles. Does anyone have a good knowledge of control required to match supply and demand, and how that impacts distribution. I wanted to know a bit more about power plants synching to the network and how the flucutation in demand is met without causing voltage fluctuations etc. Thanks User A1 14:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is nonsense[edit]

There is no such thing as a 'European system' of electricity distribution. The only common defining characteristic of electricity distribution in Moscow, Manchester and Lisbon is how utterly different the systems are. You might as well talk about the 'Northern Hemispherian' system of electricity distribution.

I get the strong impression that this article was written by someone who thinks Europe is some kind of unified cultural or political entity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.9.138.200 (talk) 13:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So fix it! If you know how the systems differ in Moscow, Manchester and Lisbon, tell us about it. That's how the encyclopedia grows. We need your expertise, Mr. 86.9.138.200. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic and large-scale electricity distribution[edit]

Shouldnt there be a section on the distribution within houses aswell (the electrical wiring itself) ?

87.64.193.226 (talk) 15:48, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism[edit]

This statement: "North American and European power distribution systems also differ in that North American systems tend to have a greater number of low-voltage, step-down transformers located close to customers' premises. For example, in the US a pole-mounted transformer in a suburban setting may supply 1-3 houses, whereas in the UK a typical urban or suburban low-voltage substation would normally be rated between 315kVA and 1000kVA (1MVA) and supply a whole neighbourhood. This is because the higher voltage used in Europe (415V vs 230V) may be carried over a greater distance with acceptable power loss. An advantage of the North American setup is that failure or maintenance on a single transformer will only affect a few customers. Advantages of the UK setup are that the transformers may be fewer, larger and more efficient, and due to diversity there need be less spare capacity in the transformers, reducing power wastage. In North American city areas with many customers per unit area, network distribution will be used, with multiple transformers and low-voltage busses interconnected over several city blocks.." is a near exact copy of: "North American and European power distribution systems also differ in that North American power distribution systems tend to have a greater number of low-voltage step-down transformers located closer to customers' premises. For example, in the US a pole-mounted transformer in a suburban area may supply only one or a very few houses or small businesses, whereas in the UK a typical urban or suburban low-voltage substation might be rated at 2MW of power and supply a whole neighborhood. This is because the higher voltage used in Europe (230V vs 120V) may be carried over a greater distance without an unacceptable power loss. An advantage of the North American setup is that failure or maintenance on a single power transformer will only affect a few customers. Advantages of the UK setup are that fewer transformers are required; larger and more efficient transformers are used, and due to diversity there need be less spare capacity in the transformers, reducing power wastage." from [2].

should it be deleted or something? Ilikefood (talk) 02:08, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did they copy wiki, or did wiki copy them? In the latter case, delete it. In the earlier case this is a violation of the GFDL, unless the other website has attributed wiki and added GFDL licences to their page. User A1 (talk)

Looks like (but is not 100%) that they were the ones copying wiki article as of 20 may 2006, which contains the passage concerned; but the internet archive suggests that domain (3phasepower.org) started their page started at June 15 IA page. User A1 (talk) 06:34, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am now certain - the domain was not registered until 19th of june 2005, at which stage the article already had content on it. I have added this to Wikipedia talk:GFDL Compliance, but there currently doesn't appear to be a policy for chasing this down. User A1 (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely this can't be the first instance of plagiarism of Wikipedia. Are you sure there was never a policy for dealing with this? Thanks. Ilikefood (talk) 01:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible there is no policy, I just can't find any. In reality its a legal problem, for either wikimedia or the contributor. Maybe. IANAL. User A1 (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Modern Distribution Systems[edit]

Please define 'primary circuit' and 'secondary service'. A lot of this section is jargonised and means very little. And equations are used by people, not electricity meters :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.45.185.126 (talk) 12:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. — ξ ^xplicit 03:53, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Electricity distribution → Electric power distribution — A clearer name to better match Electric power transmission, which is the part of the system that provides power to the distribution network. Power stations are the beginning of the process so keeping power in all of the titles provides constancy in the article naming. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:39, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Beagel (talk) 19:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Globalization[edit]

I concur with the editor who remarked his concern with US-centricism here I have added examples that are every bit as important as America example to help address this. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wye vs Delta safety[edit]

I understand why Wye should be theoretically safer in terms of a hot phase becoming grounded, but we should either say "theoretically" or point to studies showing there are fewer deaths etc. with Wye. In terms of EMF safety, Delta wins hands down: essentially no ground currents (unless there's a fault) means that the magnetic fields cancel out to first order. In Wye that won't happen unless the loads are perfectly balanced at all times at every panel! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Physicsjock (talk • contribs) 03:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All electrical power transmission systems add to zero. Some take three wires and some take four wires but they always add to zero unless ground fault current is incurred and that happens in delta systems also. I have only seen death stats from electrcial systems but never analysed by supply. Delta systems will cause death to ground also. Capacitive inductance carries enough ground leakage to kill people after a short transmission line or equipment is connected. There is no safety improvement for that. Wye system ground tingle voltage is a problem for farm animals. When a cow gets a poke in the snout from a feeder trough it will never drink there again. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question for the IP editor[edit]

I can not make out what this editor is doing.

Here the editor changed the previously correct statement that resistance is the factor for loss in DC system to "impedance" and states in edit summary inductance is the big part of impedance.

Now, here, their edit summary directly contradicts their earlier edit. I only used the Stanford reference to support I2R loss. You're right corona loss is not applicable to DC line system and claim that its my WP:COMPETENCE issue. So why did you introduce inductive component of impedance in the earlier edit if you're just going to dispute yourself later???? Cantaloupe2 (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot be sure who this editor is addressing.

This section title does not reflect the only DC subject content and I corrected some data, assuming it was discussing AC distribution, as the article title suggests. This was an error, and further supported by your further edits and technically incorrect reference. Seeing your removal of the segue sentence the paragraph beame confused and nonsensical. In my attempt to correct the abrupt subject change, I realised the whole section was about DC only and way too much side-subject detail was being injected into this article. Many edits were casualties in that clean-up. 174.118.142.187 (talk) 15:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dot[edit]

Fountains of Bryn Mawr: The reason you provided for undoing one of my edits is incorrect. Your claim is not supported by the page you quoted. Furthermore, the word “dot” is not mentioned in that page and punctuation is not addressed at all. For the reasons stated, I consider this undo an unintended equivocation and I'm reinstalling my contribution. If I failed to find the relevant part of the manual of style please provide a quote and a specific pointer. Also bear in mind that the manual of style is a guideline, not policy. Regards. QrTTf7fH (talk) 03:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Some guidelines: Manuals of style reflect consensus, you should follow it unless there is a very good reason not to. "See also" is a type of list so you will find the guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lists, namely WP:BULLET---> They should not have final punctuation unless they consist of complete sentences. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 15:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erroneous depiction of grid[edit]

Wtshymanski: Regarding your undo of a removal of an erroneous diagram, please note that:

This diagram is erroneous, see its talk page in the English Wikipedia where I left a note including source. There are also comments regarding it above in this talk page.
The official Wikipedia policy on verifiability is (quoted verbatim, emphasis in original): “The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.”. Since you didn't provide any such source, please undo your edition where you restored the erroneous and unverifiable diagram.

Regards. QrTTf7fH (talk) 14:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Wtshymanski: As stated above, please note that the burden of proof in restoring information lies in the editor who restores it, but you have not done so in more than 17 days since you first restored the diagram. Because of your failure to comply with the relevant policy, and lack of response in this talk page (or my user page) I removed the erroneous diagram again, which you again quickly restored without stating a reason. This is also in violation of Wikipedia policy; from Wikipedia:Edit warring: “When reverting, be sure to indicate your reasons. This can be done in the edit summary and/or talk page.”.

For the reasons already stated, please redo my removal (I.e: undo your undo). Additionally, I have provided a source that supports my claim that the aforesaid diagram is erroneous in its respective talk page since the first time I removed it from this article. Even if you need more than 17 days already elapsed to find a source for this diagram, please also redo my removal, and reinitiate this talk when you have sources to back up the diagram you insist in keeping (Those sources would contradict my sources, where it's implied that the diagram is erroneous) Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 22:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC) (Previously editing under the username “QrTTf7fH”).[reply]

I think you are being unnecessarily picky. The diagram is a 'general layout' of an electrical distribution system and as such is likely to be somewhat simplified. It is unlikely to exactly match the exact configuration of electrical distribution in your country of residence. It certainly doesn't match the exact configuration of mine (between me and the power station, there are at least six transformers and seven different voltages - but that would just overcomplicate a 'general' diagram). For a 'general' diagram which is not trying to be region specific, it has all the necessary basic ingredients. Whether 50nbsp;kV is a low, medium or high voltage is a complete side issue. As for provenance, a similar (though nowhere near identical) diagram can be found in any good text book on electrical distribution systems. I have just turned up one that is even simpler than the diagram under discussion. Although Wikipedia demands references, it is generally accepted that it is not necessary to provide references for material that almost certainly can be easily sourced somewhere.

Incidentally, this image file is hosted on Wikimedia Commons and it is there that the discussion should have been placed and not on the Wikipedia mirror page. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 12:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Being a general layout is not an excuse for asserting incorrect information, like that 50 kV is ~~medium~~ low voltage or implying that distribution transformers are directly feed from 50 kV in a typical system. My complain never has been that the diagram don't matches the voltages in my country. This diagram gives the reader false impressions that are never clarified within the article, and even if it said something like “Low voltage is [...] up to 1 kV” then the diagram and the text would be contradictory, and that's a problem too.

Your assertion that in Wikipedia “it is generally accepted that it is not necessary to provide references for material that almost certainly can be easily sourced somewhere” is false. The whole point of verifiability in Wikipedia is to include references for (emphasis in original) “any material challenged or likely to be challenged”. Note that the policy don't says that the understanding that those references “can be easily sourced somewhere“ is enough, but that they have to actually have those references. I challenged this erroneous diagram. No references have been provided for it (specifically, for the information contained in it) and that's because it is wrong, and that can be verified for instance in the source I have given, among others.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 16:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Mario Castelán Castro: What the exact voltage that feeds the final transformers is beside the point for the purposes of a 'general' diagram. So the voltage may not be exactly 50kV in your part of the world. But I will bet that it is in the magnitude of tens of [insert five digit number] kV (as it is in the UK and many other places) which is the essential point being made. When discussing references, you may care to have a look at WP:BLUE#Pedantry, and other didactic arguments. But if you want to be pedantic, I could add a reference to every electrical distribution text book that contains a similar diagram, if not a good match to your neighbourhood. But no-one would thank me for it.

There is no hard and fast rule over what is designated 'high voltage' and what is designated 'low voltage'. A lot depends on context and geography (though there is much international agreement in the making - particualrly in Europe). The article High voltage contains nothing that insists 50 kV should be designated as high voltage but does state (in the context of power transmission), "... high voltage is usually considered any voltage over approximately 35,000 volts". Well, 35 kV is approximately 50 kV. This goes much further in pointing out that there is no hard and fast definition, and even cites a source that claims that high voltage starts at 100 kV!! But in the context of the diagram, I believe that the point being made is that 50 kV on the distribution grid is a low voltage compared with the 110 kV of the transmission grid. In the UK, the first distribution voltage is 33 kV and is referred to as "low voltage" in that context.

If I wanted to be pedantic, I could argue that the 265-275 kV linking the power stations at the top of the diagram is wrong as we use 400 kV in the UK linking all large power producing stations. But, I wouldn't waste my time. It is a general diagram not an exact one. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

As I have already addressed in my previous comment your concern that I'm challenging the diagram because it don't matches the voltages in my region I don't see a need to answer it again. Likewise, please note that I'm not asking for a citation for something obvious but rather challenging the diagram because it's incorrect according to my sources. Specifically I challenge its assertion that 50 kV is low voltage in the context of electric power distribution. It's medium voltage. This can be verified in the reference I have given in the image talk page. I will take your suggestion to use the Commons talk page in future cases.

If you quote essays, bear in mind that essays are not policy, and wikipedians are not more bound to abide by them than they in general are by other editor's opinions. In the specific case you quoted, there's even an opposite essay (You do need to cite that the sky is blue).

(Added 15:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)) The Graphics Lab has as a goal to improve graphical content and accepts requests. I'm planning to request the following changes (This isn't a definite list):

Change “Low voltage” to “Medium voltage” and “50 kV” to “34.5 kV”.
Add a label to the blue lines saying “Low voltage, 100 to 127 V/220 to 240 V”
Change “200 MW” next to the hydroelectric plant to “Widely variable, up to 22.5 GW”
Change “Medium Sized Power Plant” to “Small Power Plant” (maybe).

Would you like to add something?.

Regards, Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Mario Castelán Castro: The reference you gave on the image talk page to support your assertion that 50 kV was definitively 'high voltage' was one single source. There is no formal definition as to where the boundaries between low, medium and high voltage actually is. That 50 kV is a medium voltage is purely the opinion of the author of the book - there is no formal definition to back him up. Having given this some thought, I now believe that the label could usefully be changed to 'medium voltage', but only because I agree with your suggestion that the blue part of the diagram should be labelled 'low voltage' (context is everything here), but see my further comments below.

The remainder of your proposed changes don't make the diagram practically less general than it already is. Your proposal to change 50 kV to 34.5 kV makes no sense as it far too precise for the purpose of the diagram (it sounds as though you have used the voltage from a specific distribution system). The output and relative sizes of any of the plants is immaterial as they are only showing power levels in general and not some specific installation. Your second point has considerable merit, though it is not universally true. I can show you a fair sized area in the centre of London where the supply to every individual building is taken directly from the green part of the distribution grid (which in this location is 22 kV). Each building is equipped with a transformer to convert down to 400/230 volts. The transformers are officially rated at 331⁄3 Hz (a clue to the sytems origin) but they apparently work quite satisfactorily at 50 Hz. But it is so far from typical that I would not let it get in the way of adding a label to the blue distribution network showing the generally encountered end voltages (though for consistency you should show the line voltages (possibly with the phase volts in parenthesees?) as all the other voltages are line volts). Label could read "Low voltage 170-440 volts 3 phase (100-250 volts single phase)". DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 14:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since typing the above, I have found that the same diagram is used in the article Electrical grid. The caption notes that the voltages and depictions are typical for Europe. I have added such a note to the diagram for this article. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 13:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ascii Diagram[edit]

Before we start a war over this, lets just get a quick consensus...

Remove - I don't think it adds anything. ASCII art cheapens the article.Guyonthesubway (talk) 21:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove It's awful, adds nothing, displays incorrectly. Verbal chat 22:17, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove - it's not 1979 any more (or 1929 - teletype graphics, anyone?), we have *much* better tools for producing illustrations. A good picture would be helpful. --Wtshymanski (talk) 19:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remove I appreciate the extensive work that the editor has used, hoever I feel thta ascii art does not belong in wiki -- one could consider redrawing in SVG., it really is easier than making ascii art! Tools such as inkscape can be used to generate graphics. User A1 (talk) 00:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Meuh! & Reformat. Here is the image for reference purposes. Actually, I clearly remember ASCII graphics being widelly used in the 1990s when BBSs where popular. (That's about 15 years ago not 25). How long have .jpg's been in use? We still use them? But point taken. If I have this correct, you just don't like the format. Asside from our feverent dislike for this type of graphic and aspiration to have this image in some other type of format, I am troubled between the status quo and reformating the image. Reason #1 is because I dissagree with Guyonthesubway, Verbal. The image does add something usefull to article and this is "key words" incorporated within the image such as voltage, power plant, etc. I'm not yet aware of any image formating that allows use to incorporate wikilinked texted... Unless of course we used smaller images for the houses, and the wires, and stuck it all together like a wikitable. (Simply take a look at the high voltage symbol that's already in the image!). Any other suggestions on how we could get an image with links? --CyclePat (talk) 19:21, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portrait of a North American underground Electric Network (ANSII Format)(Best Viewed in Wide Screen)

                                                                                                                    _ _ _ _ _ _ _ █ 
                                                                                                                   /║       ║    ▓█ 
    _  __                                                                                                         / ║       ║    Power plant
   / \ ||                                                                                                        /  ║      
  /   \││               Street Light                                                                           _/_         
 /      │               ð──┐                                                                       High     /║    
/_______\              / \ │        ______              ______            ______                     Voltage  / ║    
│┌┬┐ ┌┬┐│                  │       /      \            /      \          /      \                            /  ║     
│└┴┘ └┴┘│                  │      /________\          /________\        /________\                  _______¥/   ║     
│       │                  │      │┌┬┐ ┌─┐ │          │┌┬┐ ┌─┐ │        │┌┬┐ ┌─┐ │                 ┌¥-----¥┐    ║     
│ ┌─┐   │    __            │      │└┴┘ │¡│ │          │└┴┘ │¡│ │        │└┴┘ │¡│ │           ______│_______│__________
│_│_│___│___|¥ |___________│_____┌┴────┴─┴─┴┐________┌┴────┴─┴─┴┐______┌┴────┴─┴─┴┐________/        ║ 
       ┴-----+╬------------┴---------┴-------------------┴-----------------┴                        ║ Electrical substation/Transformer
     Meter    ║ Local Tranformer    Smart meter          Meter             Meter                    ║
              ╚═════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════╝
                                     Underground Medium/High Voltage

' You might be amused by this [[3]] Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclepat- in answer to your question, any image can have hot regions, as well as help text that popups on mouse roll over. Take a look at the docs on this extension- there is an online tool that makes it easy to create the regions for an image and produces the mumbly wikitext regions.

<imagemap>
Image:Foo.jpg|200px|picture of a foo
poly 131 45 213 41 210 110 127 109 [[Display]]
poly 104 126 105 171 269 162 267 124 [[Keyboard]]
rect 15 95 94 176   [[Foo type A]]
# A comment, this line is ignored
circle 57 57 20    [[Foo type B]]
desc bottom-left
</imagemap>

Produces:

Maybe you could chop off the lower portion of the image (distribution network) I uploaded for the article yesterday so it is distribution only Hope this helps. -J JMesserly (talk) 16:27, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Thank you! Thank you! And quite impressive (if you ask me). I really think this is a brilliant idea. Wow! Thank you JMesserly for noticing this post and coming up with such a brilliant idea. I will be working to implement you suggestions. Question: ~~Do you know if this works with different image formats such as vector images, .gif, etc...?~~ I just noticed this also works with SVG images... is there an SVG format for that image we could use? And, I'm still debating on cutting out the bottom section. But, I'll get back to you on that (after the SVG question. --CyclePat (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much better than ASCII but still needs work. Too cluttered! You don't connect windfarms to a local distribution network (OK, maybe someone's backyard 50 kW machine, but not utility-scale.) Same for solar arrays. 6 or 7 houses does the job (yes, there are network power systems, but this picture is not the place to describe them). 50 kV is not low voltage, it's a subtransmission or distribution voltage. A utility guy calls 1000 volts and down "low voltage". Rural distribution is not at low voltage - when the houses are a km apart, you don't run 120/240 between them. North American houses don't have 3-phase power, usually. Should be a vector format so that it can be scaled without breaking into jaggies. The MW values shown are misleading, since the sizes could be anything - again, you won't have a 150 MW plant feeding into a 50 kV subtransmission system. Show a steel lattice tower for high voltage lines, and a pole for low voltage (33 kV and down). How many wires are supposed to be on that pole? 4? Is that two single-phase circuits (possible?) or a single 4-wire 3-phase circuit (not used for distribution in my part of the world, anyway). --Wtshymanski (talk) 22:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, actually the kitchen sink version was meant as a comprehensive map for the entire grid including transmission and distribution, and I intended it for the more general grid (electricity) article. Feel free to download it and hack it down. It is accurate for some parts of europe (actually it is stolen from de wikipedia). They have distributed generation scenarios for small scale renewables. Certainly the image could be whittled down to show just the distribution side. As for this whole enchilada version, I listed some of the deficiencies on the talk page for the image- Regarding renewables, yeah, there should be an indication of large scale (hundreds of MW) renewable sources connected via GW capacity HVDC. This is common for hydro in Asia, Africa, Europe and North America. Europe is doing some HVDC to Wind in the North Sea.

For a more minimal version, one challenge will be applicability to all countries. In North America it is common to have one transformer for 3 to 5 houses. In UK, I understand a transformer will cover 25 residences. So that limits what you can do with the drawing. And in Germany, it is quite common to have small scale wind and solar farms hitched directly to the distribution grid using low voltage distribution lines. Perhaps distributed generation will grow in the US- there are some cases, but outside of marginal generation of rooftop solar, any small scale generation is rare. There are cases though- my understanding of the Nellis AFB is that although this is the largest PV array, it is hitched up to the AFB's distribution grid directly.

Maybe one idea is to do a "before" and "after" version of Distribution, a classic distribution grid and then the new emerging model with net metering, distributed generation/ Smart grid features.

If someone less lazy than I does this the right way and traces it into an SVG, then please consider creating an international version first with no labels so that all wikis can benefit from your handiwork. I uploaded a label-less verion on Commons. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) If consensus can be achieved on a simple raster image (png, bmp or something) I can convert it into SVG (using inkscape)). It's relatively easy for simple diagrams (don't expect a work of art). User A1 (talk) 12:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Asside: Astonishment!!! I've never experienced such great collaboration here at Wikipedia and I'm quite pleased :D. Thank you everyone) I was really worried about that .svg format because I use windows paint (which does not handle that format). Note: Open Office supposedly handles .svg, I have that installed on another computer which isn't connected to the internet (so a few extra steps with my USB key may be needed). Anyways, I'm glad we have a couple solutions. I think we just need to figure and make a couple draft images. Well... as they say `Piter pater, get a move at her!!!` I trust our team work will be productive and a good learning experience for everyone (even if it's not a work of art!!) --CyclePat (talk) 04:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a simplified grid diagram accurate for North America. Feel free to replace my earlier diagram with it, and or add one with accurate voltages for Europe. It is now in SVG, and so can easily be updated using Inkscape or other application that can do SVGs. -J JMesserly (talk) 01:24, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this image so small and unzoomable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.201.164 (talk) 02:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"AC current is usually used."[edit]

"Isn't the "current" redundant? See also this: "Before that electricity was general generated where it was used." general generated seems to be a mistake. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 22:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Well spotted! Fixed. --Cornellier (talk) 23:55, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comma here: "at a frequency, of 50 or 60 Hz." looks wrong. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 22:24, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. PS I reformeatted this comments to the way it's conventionally done in Wikipedia. It's necessary especially when conversations get long. --Cornellier (talk) 23:39, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Japan section[edit]

"Japan provides 50 Hz or 60 Hz AC power from different power providers." There is a geographical difference. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 21:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Very interesting, Olds, thanks for pointing that out. I had no idea. I've added a some ref'd info about this. I wonder if any other region has a heterogeneous system. --Cornellier (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"when the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami knocked out about a third of the east’s capacity, and power in the west couldn’t be shared with the east, since the country does not have a common frequency" This isn't strictly true, power can be shared via four frequency converters which convert between 60 and 50 hertz located along the border of the regions. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 22:27, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. OK the wording in the souce was a little ambiguous. Couldn't find evidence of their being four conversion stations, but two that talked about three. --Cornellier (talk) 23:37, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your efforts and work in fixing the article at my suggestion. There are four FCs. I don't have English language citations for you but you could look at, for example, Shin Shinano to find these:

Shin Shinano (新信濃変電所 Shin Shinano Hendensho?) is the designation of a back-to-back high-voltage direct current (HVDC) facility in Japan which forms one of four frequency converter stations that link Japan's western and eastern power grids. The other three stations are at Higashi-Shimizu, Minami-Fukumitsu and Sakuma Dam. ::::Or possibly in one of the linked articles. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 01:28, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brought over info from Shin Shinano --Cornellier (talk) 01:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Two phase?[edit]

The article claims

Electricity is delivered to the customer at a nominal voltage with a possible variance, at a frequency of 50 or 60 Hz. Phase configuration can be single-phase, two-phase, or three-phase.

However, clicking on the link to "two phase" it says that system is obsolete. NotYourFathersOldsmobile (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge with Electric distribution network[edit]

The article seems to cover the same topic, although much less developed Ita140188 (talk) 08:15, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Looks more like a redirect to "Electric power distribution" than a merge, the writing at Electric distribution network is pretty bad. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A merge or redirect would make sense. The information and references can be transferred to "Electric power distribution". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.20.24 (talk) 12:13, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that it is a redirect. Did someone do it, and not note it here? Gah4 (talk) 03:16, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mains_electricity_by_country[edit]

There is much discussion in Mains_electricity_by_country about what should and should not be in that article. One that isn't there is the distribution (secondary) voltage by country. Secondary voltage seems a small part of this article. Should it be updated to well describe the secondary voltage, as seen in residential and industrial environments? For one, there should be a table by country. Do all European countries distribute 230/400 to houses? How about other parts of the world? Should much of the table from that article be copied here? Should the secondary section be split to its own article? Gah4 (talk) 03:14, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that some countries run three-phase down streets, with one phase to each house. That would be useful to note here. Also, some countries run two phases of a three-phase 127/220 system to each house. I believe that the table in Mains_electricity_by_country should cover what actually goes into a house, where this one should have a table describing what goes near each house. Gah4 (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the recent edits, I believe that in some European countries it is usual to supply 230V/400V three phase to houses (Germany for one), and in others just one phase and neutral (England). It would be nice to know how other European countries do it. Among others, as I understand it, ovens and stoves in Germany are designed for 230V/400V. Gah4 (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No Mention of NikolaTesla?[edit]

With all due respect, I really don't see how a section(s) of Wikipedia - written solely about the topic of electricity - can contain no mention of Nikola Tesla. I am in no way, shape, or form an expert on this matter, but I think it's almost blasphemous to fail to do so.

Granted, this is only my opinion. But I think it holds merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:2260:9C30:7D1A:A940:18C6:1B7 (talk) 12:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Its a short overview that doesn't mention people in general, not even Edison, except for an aside about the War of Currents. So missing Tesla is not odd. Tesla is not that important in a short summary, he did not invent electrical distribution, he did not develop the first AC systems, we do not use his 2 phase based systems (we use 3-phase developed by other people). His claim to fame is an AC motor, and this article is not about motors. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]