Grilling the Grid

I have worked in the electric power business for more than 30 years, and I am scared to death that many lives will be lost, and many more billions of dollars will be wasted because of power outages ["Getting a Grip on the Grid," December].

In my experience, the grid is way too fragile. Electricity travels at 186 000 miles (299 460 kilometers) per second, from generation to consumption. New solid-state switches or integrated software won't help. The real show will come with complete deregulation. At that time, we can move the world's best electric system back to the equivalent of the system I lived with in Thailand from June 1969 to January 1970. Every time the system peaked, the power company shut off sections of towns, so industry could have all of the electricity available.

John Richards

IEEE Senior Member

Columbus, Neb.

The authors respond: We support investments to build up the transmission infrastructure and upgrade facilities, as mentioned in our article. The article also points out that the grid was designed and managed for one purpose (reliability) but used for another (economy). In other words, the grid was not designed and built for its present use.

Vahid Madani and Damir Novosel tell a lot about what is missing in the power industry and the universities that feed it engineers. There seems to be no correlation between the two. For example, none of the ads in the back of IEEE Spectrum relative to professors at universities refer to the power industry, nor have they for several years. I would think that American Electric Power, The Southern Company, TVA, or the New England Group would endow a chair at a school with a tradition in the power field, as well as award grants and scholarships.

My old alma mater, Purdue University, says that it will be back in the field in a couple of years, but in my mind, that is too late. The present situation is very scary.

William Lauterbach

IEEE Life Member

Norcross, Ga.

The Standard Way

To understand better the actions of foreign countries with respect to standards, ["The New Standard-Bearer," December] we should consider the following: what would we do under similar circumstances?

Current international standards are essentially set by Europe and the United States. Have issues important to other countries been taken into account? If Europe or the United States is going to be a repository for information, will this information be available to other countries under all circumstances and at all times?

My experience indicates that answers to these pertinent questions provide sufficient reasons for other countries to develop their own standards if they can.

Sumant C. Mehta

IEEE Life Member

East Windsor, N.J.

The article highlights half-truths surrounding the Chinese development of technical standards. Having taken part in the development and standardization of the U.S. digital television system, I noticed these same issues were under the surface in many of our discussions. While timing, economics, and the quest for the best technical solution ostensibly reigned high, the unspoken desire to control royalties and sidestep other international standards was never far behind.

The author describes Chinese standards as "mirroring" international standards; why, then, reinvent the wheel? The underlying intellectual property defines the business and economics of adoption—and the protection of intellectual property is a key element in the widespread adoption of standards. The common thread here is that business interests will drive any company (or country) to ensure that its standards best favor its own economics. Follow the money, and you'll know where the full truth is.

Aldo Cugnini

IEEE Member

Long Valley, N.J.

Clarification

The table of companies in "R&D 100" [December] identified R&D, sales, and employment figures for 2004 and 2003. The figures are culled by Standard & Poor's from each company's most recent fiscal year filing.

For most companies, the figures shown under the 2004 heading are collected from their fiscal year 2004 filings, but a company can choose its fiscal year to end in any month. Consequently, in two cases (Mitsubishi and Toshiba) the data shown under the 2004 heading come from their fiscal year 2003 filing, and in two other cases (Microsoft and Sun Microsystems) the data come from fiscal year 2005.—Ed.

Correction

In "Could Simple Mixed Materials Make Flat Lenses Cheap?" [News, December], the next-to-last paragraph should have said that the spheres need to be smaller than the wavelength of light, and the last paragraph should have made it clear that Mackay's particular technique has not been demonstrated with microwaves.—Ed.