Talk:IPS/UPS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Proposed merge[edit]

I oppose the merge. There are several notable Interconnections that have separate articles, such as the Eastern Interconnection & Western Interconnection. The article Unified power system of Russia‎ was created yesterday with a wrong name and the subject matter is about about a Wide area synchronous grid of which it is a part. The article shall be expanded to include a discussion of IPS as well and be renamed IPS/UPS Interconnection. It would be ill advised to merge the UPS interconnect with FGC UES, as FGC is not involved in the other members of this synchronous grid. In any case, electricity grids are distinct from the companies that operate them, especially given the musical chairs that are played with their governing bodies. After all, FGC UES has only been in charge of the UPS since July. -J JMesserly (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • No problems, lets separate the company and the grid. The information about the Grid goes to UPS/IES and about the company to FGC UES. Both articles should obviously refer each other Alex Bakharev (talk) 13:15, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with Alex. Both – IPS/UPS and FGC UES – are worth their own article. Also, if we talk about IPS/UPS and not only about UPS of Russia, there are more TSOs that only FGC UES, as every country has its own TSO. Beagel (talk) 17:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops- this is a subpage[edit]

When I named the new link ips/ups, I did so to reflect the way it is commonly refered to in the literature. Something seemed unorthodox about the punctuation in the name, but it hit me today. I unintentionally created a subpage of the IPS article. Does this create any problems? If so, perhaps a move to IPSUPS? -J JMesserly (talk) 17:31, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any practical problem, but showing this page as a subpage is probably not correct, of course. Advise to post a question on the Wikipedia:Help desk. Moving page to IPSUPS is not a solution because this is not the usual way referring this system.
Apparently this is unusual, but not unheard of. Unless you decide to use a synonym, you should add this page to Wikipedia:Articles with slashes in title. Mike Serfas (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it does occasionally appear as IPSUPS, sometimes prominently in titles of studies. But "IPS/UPS" is by far the dominant form in the body of text of articles I am seeing. No one has said there is any overriding reason to change it so let's not at this time. -J JMesserly (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Research topic for politicos in the audience[edit]

As I researched this article, it occured to me that there might be EU political interests at play when promoting sychronization with the baltic states, but coolness in establishing a dependency on the Putin controlled grid. I can see how Russia would really like to export electricity to the EU. Now, Natural gas is a good source of hard currency, but if electricity is exportable, then by cracky, that's a game changer for Russia. For example, Russia can build generation and export as much coal energy they can dig up and burn. Bonuse feature: Besides getting hard currency, it also gets political leverage. Putin gets a finger on the lightswitch of europe. -J JMesserly (talk) 05:15, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we should keep this article about technical side and avoid speculations about political side. In general, I agree with your interpretation; however, the technical side of synchronization is very crucial. Creating synchronous grid from Vladivostok to Lisbon (or vice versa) is technically very challenging (and costly). In the case of Baltic states I think that as the EU wants to create a well functioning internal market, it is quite complicated in he Baltic area if these countries with very limited market size are not connected to the rest of the EU, but at the same time they are very well connected through IPS/UPS with third countries having different market rules and regulations. But as I said, this is just a speculation and doesn't belong in this article (if there are reliable sources, some information could be added to the BALTSO article). Beagel (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Besides technically challenging, it's not clear that it's the right way to do it. That is, if there were huge HVDC superfreeways spanning such distances, why would anyone want to move energy via HVAC side streets? I haven't read enough to understand whether an HVDC supergrid would make such an extended grid pointless. Re politics, my point was that it was a subject to research- to find out if there is any political friction going on, and if so indicate it in the article. Certainly, speculation has no place in the body of articles. Without question, I am with you on that. I am not with you regarding keeping the article devoid of anything but technical subjects. There are documented problems regarding significant differences in legal, regulatory, and operational standards that have to be worked out, besides whatever the potential realpolitik issues there may or may not be. I don't think I would be adding this sort of material anytime soon though as I am more interested in Chinese and North American GW issues at this time. -J JMesserly (talk) 08:40, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
About your first question, I think there are different reasons, not least the cost of converter stations. Concerning the synchronization of IPS/UPS with UCTE, this project is certainly worth for mentioning, particularly as the new report wa published recently. There are also two separate projects moving from the IPS/UPS system to the UCTE. First one concerns Ukraine and Moldova (western part of Ukraine is already part of the UCTE), second one concerns Baltic countries. Of course, there could be also political aspects, but as you mentioned, differences in legal, regulatory, and operational standards are also crucial arguments.Beagel (talk) 18:06, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Map request[edit]

An internal map would be nifty; I've linked an external one. -- Beland (talk) 08:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on IPS/UPS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPS/UPS&oldid=1199325746"