Jump to content

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]

[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: 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) 08:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Recent updates

[edit]

DA_HK: Just a reminder: while many RU sources may be suitable for technical specifications and similar information, they should be used with great caution in other contexts. For example, sources like TASS are explicitly listed as unreliable, see WP:TASS. Please rely on WP:INDEPENDENT and WP:SECONDARY sources where suitable. -- Mindaur (talk) 20:23, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, I'll keep that in mind, I just added an OCED ref, next to the TASS ref on IPS/UPS. DA HK (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Mindaur, hey hey, it'd be nice if you discussed here before constantly linking "occupation" in "BRELL" section. WP:NPOV, that section is about "Belarus, Russia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania" agreement and the history of the infrastructure formation icluding HVDC links, not about occupation or other agendas. Also discuss here before removing IPS/USP connector points, historical and present from the tree chart. Thank you, have a nice day :) DA HK (talk) 12:56, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support with the exception of mixing HVDC and synchronization in the same section. HVDC links and synchronized operations should be in different sections. Countries sections should not be merged. Also Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan are linked, as I understand from the sources. Also, the Kaliningrad Oblast is now isolated. ruASG+1  14:04, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RuASG You're suggesting we move "Armenia and Iran" to "Proposed synchronization"? Let's do it.
IPS Kyrgyzstan, IPS Tajikistan and IPS Uzbekistan - connected with IPS Kazakhstan, so they're in the IPS section and not HVDC links
DA HK (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest to remove both former and proposed links. It's fine to discuss them, but there is no point to visualize them if there is no certainty (e.g. there is no formal agreement signed) that they will ever be implemented (also see WP:NOTCRYSTAL); that might create a false impression that there are legal agreements. -- Mindaur (talk) 16:40, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DA HK: It's not NPOV, especially since there is an entire high-quality article written on the Soviet occupation (and the state continuity). Why it matters in this context? 1) Because it clarifies that the Baltic States didn't join IPS/UPS voluntarily; 2) it provides an important context why these countries did not wish to remain in the grid. -- Mindaur (talk) 14:23, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Mindaur, thanks for the reply here, I'd like to reply to your comments:
Because it clarifies that the Baltic States didn't join IPS/UPS voluntarily = The Baltic states did not have a power system before the Soviet Union to begin with. The power systems of the Baltic states were created in 1960s while they were in the Soviet Union.
regarding occupation: in the the 1960s there existed Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR and Lithuanian SSR. They were Soviet republics. Estonia, Lativa and Lithuania restored their sovereignty and independences from the Soviet Union between 1989-1991. So the Baltic states joined IPS/UPS while there were Soviet republics. As mentioned, this article is about the grid, not political opinions on whether or not were the Baltic states Soviet republics or under occupation.
My edit suggestion: Historically, the IPS/UPS technological integration of the electricity systems of modern BRELL Agreement states were made in the 1960s, when they were the Belarussian SSR, Estonian SSR, Latvian SSR, Lithuanian SSR and the Russian SSR.
DA HK (talk) 15:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@DA HK:
  • FWIW, Russia didn't have uniform electricity grid until after the war either. The power system was fragmented in the Baltics during the Interwar period, just like in many places at that time (but more importantly, the infrastructure was absolutely devastated after the WW2). Europe began building wider synchronous grids after the war.
  • We are not elaborating about the occupation here, merely providing a wikilink to the relevant (and chronological) context. The existence of SSRs didn't make them legitimate. I should note that the disconnection project was just as geopolitical as it was technical; if not more: [1]. That is very much the relevant aspect.
-- Mindaur (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a bit of edit warring going on in the article. I just reverted an editor who had made large non-consensus edits to the article three times.

I suggest that the article improvement be fully discussed and debated here. Then, proposals can be made to improve the article, and see if a consensus might be built amongst the several editors BEFORE repeatedly changing the article space. Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:18, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: I am not sure what "non-consensus edits" you are referring to. The version I restored (just added an additional reference about the 1960s) has been present since 10 Feb and was even added by another editor, here: [2]. Anyway, let's get back to the point: I provided the reasons above why the context matters. Do you have any comments? -- Mindaur (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The article now looks much organised! With sections divided into Background, UPS, IPS, supplies and HVDC links, and each of them having sub sections for current anf former. Thanks you RuASG. DA HK (talk) 08:12, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DA HK: You also added the IPS/UPS#Baltic_states section, which claims that those links were used for energy supply. First, the section is completely unsourced. Second, the links were not used to supply energy further to the IPS/UPS grid (i.e. Russia / Belarus): quote the opposite, most flows were from Nordics (where the prices are low) to Baltics and then Poland (where prices are higher). Moreover, I think you are confusing the technical connections with the commercial trading arrangements. Grids like IPS/UPS do not facilitate trading; Nord Pool and other institutions or agreements do. Unless you can clarify (and back it up with sources), I intend to remove the section. -- Mindaur (talk) 13:21, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Mindaur, Agreed! IPS/UPS#Baltic_states section has been removed. DA HK (talk) 13:35, 18 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:IPS/UPS&oldid=1276371186"