Against the so-called ‘need’ for new long-distance, high-voltage transmission lines 11

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Calamagrostis Posted 4:14 am
   03 Feb 2009

   Solar PowerRelated to this is the development of huge solar power stations in the desert and transmission lines to bring the power to Los Angeles and other urban areas.  Both developments would destroy wildlands and impact rare species.  It would be much better to base the solar panels in the urban areas, not in the open desert.  

   Permalink

2. 

   tboggia Posted 4:40 am
   03 Feb 2009

   Unanswered questions.... "...and ignore the impacts of transmission on the communities it traverses. "
   
   You spend a lot of time talking about protecting communities from something that is not inherently evil to most people (like me) who don't know much about the impacts. What are they? How do transmission projects affect communities?
   Also, you and Calamagrostis up there seem to assume that everyone lives in areas with large renewable energy potential.   Other than by building transmission lines to bring energy from our deserts and windy areas to population centers, how do you propose to reduce our fossil fuel use which 'would destroy' many more 'wildlands and impact' many more 'rare species' than renewable energy and transmission lines projects would?
   Thanks for addressing these questions.
   
   www.campusprogress.org

   Permalink

3. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 5:18 am
   03 Feb 2009

   What about North Dakota?If North Dakota could be covered with wind turbines, are there enough transmission lines to carry that electricity?

   Permalink

4. 

   Ted Clayton Posted 5:49 am
   03 Feb 2009

   It's exporting pollution & impactCalamagrostis,
   I agree that behind the regulatory 'opportunities' that make it attractive for utilities to 'play transmission games', is the underlying willingness to allow urban regions to 'export their pollution'.
   "We want power for our city, but we don't want the unpleasant side effects of generating it."
   In the case of coal, there is the dirt in the sky (which could be greatly reduced, by paying more for the electricity).  In the case of nuclear power, there is the protest-message that it's sooo dangerous ... you have it in your backyard, so we don't have to.
   The real deal is, cities are the market for most power-generation.  To market to cities, we pollute & damage the country-side so the city can boast of its 'clean power'.
   Exporting pollution, garbage & impact is both unethical, and a large cause of inefficiency - i.e., more CO₂ in the sky.

   Permalink

5. 

   amazingdrx Posted 6:14 am
   03 Feb 2009

   Long distance lossesFrom a Wiki article on HVDC:
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HVDC
   
   
   The advantage of HVDC is the ability to transmit large amounts of power over long distances with lower capital costs and with lower losses than AC. Depending on voltage level and construction details, losses are quoted as about 3% per 1000 km.
   
   
   And unlike AC power lines these HVDC systems can go underground or under water with these low losses.
   
   
   hundreds of HVDC sea-cables have been laid and worked with high reliability, usually better than 96% of the time.
   
   
   You forgot the best argument against a huge grid buildup.  With a distribbuted smart grid and conservation, present transmission capacity would be many times what we would need.
   You could win your battle against a huge grid buildup with a scall for distributed smart grid and renewable energy/conservation technology.  With one exception, a few underground HVDC electrical superhighways, maybe running along a national high speed electric train corridor, should be built as a national renewable energy exchange smart grid.
   Those lines wouldn't create electromagnetic pollution or eyesores.  or excessive NIMBY reaction.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

6. 

   lgcarey Posted 6:17 am
   03 Feb 2009

   Is it about renewables?I'd also appreciate a response to Jon's question above -- if we actually succeeded in financing and building very large amounts of renewable energy generation in suitable locations (e.g., wind generation throughout the Great Plains, solar in the southwest and geothermal in the west), would the current infrastructure be adequate to support getting that energy to the urban areas that need it.  If as noted by the author this line of argument is "a lie", and "The massive transmission infrastructure expansion proposed is not "for renewables" because transmission may not discriminate by generation type," then the better approach would seem to be arguing that the applicable Federal regulations need to be changed, precisely in order to discriminate in favor of generation technologies that will not further accelerate our rush to a planetary disaster, and putting another nail in the coffin of coal fired generation.  

   Permalink

7. 

   Sam Wells Posted 6:34 am
   03 Feb 2009

   Transmission tower failuresI liked some of the arguments regarding renewable sources and such, but I guess my point is that much of our electrical transmission towers and lines are old, some on the verge of falling down.  
   Evidence is mounting that several California wild fires were caused by transmission towers that simply fell down. Also, in hurricane areas near the coast, most are not "hardened" to withstand high winds.
   Perhaps we don't "need" new transmission trunklines as much as fixing the old system and carefully adding for new, clean power generation stations.
   My limited understanding is that the way the system is set up, there is little incentive for the majors to perform much other than rudimentary maintenance - no vision, no discussion of D/C, no fixing of towers that keep falling down.
   
   -sammie
   
   Onward through the fog

   Permalink

8. 

   amazingdrx Posted 6:52 am
   03 Feb 2009

   Further HVDCAlso from Wiki:
   
   
   The development of insulated gate bipolar transistors (IGBT) and gate turn-off thyristors (GTO) has made smaller HVDC systems economical. These may be installed in existing AC grids for their role in stabilizing power flow without the additional short-circuit current that would be produced by an additional AC transmission line. ABB manufacturer calls this concept "HVDC Light" and Siemens manufacturer calls a similar concept "HVDC PLUS" (Power Link Universal System). They have extended the use of HVDC down to blocks as small as a few tens of megawatts and lines as short as a few score kilometres of overhead line. The difference lies in the concept of the Voltage-Sourced Converter (VSC) technology whereas "HVDC Light" uses pulse width modulation and "HVDC PLUS" is based on multilevel switching.
   
   
   With this you could have regional loops with built in capacitive storage (maybe enhanced capacitance power lines) and maybe even superconducting electromagnetic storage.  Large wind and solar systems could feed  HVDC in and out of the grid/storage directly.  It would make smart grid control easier.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

9. 

   Wilderness Terry Posted 1:22 am
   04 Feb 2009

   Missing Adam Smith's pointIn the neo-liberal religious zeal over private-market capitalism, they are ignoring one of the basic tenets of Adam Smith's theory:  decentralization.  A green economic stimulus will only work if it turns the energy system away from the centralized system it has become, thus reducing the need for transmission lines.

   Permalink

10. 

    amazingdrx Posted 2:06 am
    04 Feb 2009

    Decentralized/distributedVery true Terry.  It takes one fifth the grid capacity to run a renewable distributed generation and storage smart grid.
    Multiple interconnected  HVDC loops to exchange power from high wind/wave power regions like the coasts and the great lakes and high solar regions like the southwest and high wind power regions like the great plains and high water power output from rivers and ocean currents; would tend to be a steady source for every region, kind of like a national renewable energy mega battery.
    Add in some storage right into the line itself with supercapacitors, superconducting electromagnetic storage, and/or wind pumped hydro installed at existing dam sites, and we could get a smooth national smart grid virtually invulnerable to weather extremes.
    Existing power plants could power up this national super grid during the transition to renewables.  With coal replaced first, then natural gas, and finally nuclear power winding down over the next 20 years.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink

11. 

    johnilsr Posted 5:20 am
    04 Feb 2009

    Energy Self Reliant StatesTo some of the comments here that argue that there isn't enough renewable energy in each state to satisfy in-state needs, I'd ask you to take a look at a little report we did recently...
    Energy Self-Reliant States: Homegrown Renewable Power
    
    How much energy could be generated by states tapping into internal renewable resources? This November 2008 report presents preliminary data that suggests that at least half of the fifty states could meet all their internal energy needs from renewable energy generated inside their borders, and the vast majority could meet a significant percentage.
    
    Full Report - Executive Summary
    
    John Bailey
    
    http://www.newrules.org/

    Permalink