Comments on: Tom Konrad: We need transmission!

By: Barry Fitzgerald

Barry Fitzgerald — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:08:43 +0000

It is interesting how many A vs. B arguments there are in the renewable space when A+B+C etc is the real answer.I totally agree that we need a massive increase in transmission capacity if only to smooth out the radically erratic patterns of wind and to a lesser degree, solar. However, local generation has significant advantages TODAY.

First, it actually CAN be done now. In California, with it’s VAST solar resources in the desert the Renewable Energy Transmission Initiative (RETI) process will take years ~7-8, before anything is transmitted from centralized solar plants in the desert. Yet the RPS for 2010 states 20% and we are still at about 12%. Wholesale Distributed generation can be built now and integrated into the distribution network TODAY.

Second, distributed sources are more secure. You don’t rely on single points of failure that can bring down the grid.

Third, reduced transmission losses and costs to build.

But I said A + B….in time, we can build out the transmission structure so that we can be overwhelmingly renewables based and able to ship Arizona solar to light NYC. We will be able to use the vast array of EV batteries to soak up charge when excess wind is available etc etc.

So lets not pin one solution against another…it is a complex solution requiring ALL of them.

By: Jim Pray

Jim Pray — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 16:12:23 +0000

I agree with the conclusions you outline, having worked on three regional transmission line projects designed to bring power from N.D. to date. One way to make this happen is to get national legislation passed to preempt state authority over the right to administer transmission line locations. Otherwise, it is very hard to attract the capital investment needed to make this happen. Nobody wants to invest in a project that can be stopped by any jurisdiction along the way. Getting legislation passed at the national level would be difficult given the fact that every utility in each affected state will see no benefit in reducing the cost of electricity by allowing more supply if they don’t control that supply. They will assume that their margins will get hammered and will fund their lobbyists accordingly. This is also true of the utilities on the receiving end of the line. They will make the same assumption. This is akin to the debate back in the ’50s when the interstate was being designed. Local businesses opposed it because the interstate would go by their small towns, and take with it a lot of traffic. Where would we be if they had won that argument? I mention the interstates highways also because you assume that they can be integrated into a regional or national transmission line. That is an intriguing possibility and would also likely require national legislation to smooth over the fact that I believe the USDOT maintains quite a bit of control over much of the interestate.

Another thought is that by going with DC on the transmission line a developer can substantially decrease power loss over long lines but at the cost of the ability to add or subtract power along the line. That completely changes the metrics that you outline — some for the better, others for the worse.

By: Tom Konrad

Tom Konrad — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 03:47:46 +0000

Matt, I just ran some numbers for electricity from cow manure here… there’s more than I thought:
http://cleanenergywonk.com/2009/11/23/national-coutput-or-cows-per-mw/

By: Matt Lemke

Matt Lemke — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 17:33:58 +0000

This is a great article, I think there are more variables to consider as well. More modern transmission lines lose less power than what is currently used by the industry, so with less loss, more power gets to folks to be used. This in turn increases the cost payback, as well as improves the reliability of transmission.

I also wonder about the assertions of Biomass. In Wisconsin, with our cheese production, that comes with lots of cows. Small Biomass plants are starting to gain acceptance, since cow droppings have to go somewhere. Biomass allows power to be generated (With no smell) and the byproducts can then be used for fertilizer. Picture more of this usage in states with Pig, cow, chicken, sheep or any large scale animal production environments. The environmental improvements alone could help more than just reducing power related greenhouse gases. Reduced water supply contamination contamination, fertilizer production closer to the source, less transportation costs, etc…

Great discussion!

By: Tom Konrad

Tom Konrad — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:51:16 +0000

Thanks for hosting this, Marc. I think you effectively picked out the key points with your highlighting.