Talk:NV Energy

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Nevada, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.NevadaWikipedia:WikiProject NevadaTemplate:WikiProject NevadaNevada articles

Energy Low‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Business Stub‑class

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Stub	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

National security

I locked the article for 7 days so the issue of the national security can be discussed here rather then having an edit war in the article. I also don't want to block anyone for violation the WP:3RR guide. So please go ahead and discuss. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The two issues are:

Mention the item at all. (Seems to be a bigger issue for the base than the utility.)
And if the title alone is the problem, then call it what? Just give the name of the base for the subsection title?

Hcobb (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2012 (UTC) Apologies for not following protocol. A couple of thoughts:[reply]

If you want to leave the subsection in the NV article, how about just mentioning both parties' positions on the matter to make it more neutral and objective?
Using the name of base for the subsection title is a good idea. "National security" seems to overstate the severity of the issue just a bit.

Reliathon (talk) 16:26, 4 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

So tack this on to the end of the CSR section.

In order to protect its line workers, NV Energy has insisted on contract terms that prohibit customers from operating units such as solar power units that would send power into their network when it is down. Most customers, including Nellis Air Force Base have not invested in the special switches required to automatically switch to off-grid operation.^[1]

Reasonable? Hcobb (talk) 05:17, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK by me. Peace,Reliathon (talk) 19:31, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Seems Hcobb never got around to making his proposed edit. Since it seemed interesting I was going to add the following to the CSR section.

NV Energy's customers include two large military bases with extensive solar installations that lack the switches needed to disconnect them from NV Energy's grid when it goes down. For line worker safety those installations must therefore be disabled during such outages, rendering them useless as supplementary backup to their diesel generators. It has been suggested that this could compromise national security.^[2]

But then I got to wondering what this had to do with NV Energy. First, no electric utility allows connecting anything live or potentially live to a dead grid, which can wreak all manner of havoc. Second, supposedly the only point of "supplementary backup to their diesel generators" is to double the number of weeks before the diesel fuel runs out by powering the base with solar during the day. For a 10 MW installation this could be fixed relatively cheaply with about $1M worth of ordinary manual double-throw switches to switch the inverters manually, one at a time, from the grid to the generators.

Ah, but there is one thing NV Energy could help with, namely not to charge the two bases extra for the right to disconnect from the grid when it goes down, which allegedly the bases couldn't afford. The Greenwire article mentioned this and I don't see any safety or economic justification for it since it's to the bases' financial advantage to get back onto the grid as soon as it's back up---maybe someone should complain to Warren Buffett. So perhaps that point could go in the article, though I don't see anything else specific to NV Energy. Vaughan Pratt (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Snider, Annie. "Clean energy doesn't always bring security for military." Greenwire, January 27, 2012.
^ Snider, Annie. "Clean energy doesn't always bring security for military." Greenwire, January 27, 2012.

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on NV Energy. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140203211437/http://www.emera.com/en/home/mediacentre/archivedpr/2011/newsreleasedetails.aspx?SourceParams=reqid-1557442 to http://www.emera.com/en/home/mediacentre/archivedpr/2011/newsreleasedetails.aspx?SourceParams=reqid-1557442

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Non active high voltage wires left in yard for 3 weeks?

Contractor left old thick copper wires in yard 3 weeks ago. They cover my neighbors yards as well. I’am sure the copper has value. will you be picking it up? 2600:6C4E:A00:E65:CDE1:7BF0:BEA0:F668 (talk) 03:18, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tedk4@hotmail,com

1041 University Terr Reno, nv 2600:6C4E:A00:E65:CDE1:7BF0:BEA0:F668 (talk) 03:21, 30 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Snider, Annie. "Clean energy doesn't always bring security for military." Greenwire, January 27, 2012.

[2] Snider, Annie. "Clean energy doesn't always bring security for military." Greenwire, January 27, 2012.

[1]

[2]