Editor’s Note: This post was written in response to a comment by Gar Lipow in his post on 10/20.
We all agree that a 100 percent renewable energy system is preferable. But we don’t need a new, high-voltage transmission network now to reach that goal, and it’s far from clear that we’ll need it in the future.
We currently get less than 10 percent of our electricity from wind and solar. The industry goal for wind is 20 percent by 2030 and the solar target is likely less given the smaller installed base. Every state can reach the 2030 renewable energy targets without an new, interstate transmission superhighway or significant storage—and that’s 20 years away.
But let’s be more optimistic and assume we’ll exceed these goals significantly (as we must to successfully solve global warming). All else being equal, we have to find the best method to deliver renewable power everywhere on demand, whether that’s a smarter grid (with demand response), storage, or new transmission.
But all else is not equal. I quote Gar Lipow (We Need Transmission to Solve Global Warming):
Another trick here is that [ILSR doesn’t] consider electricity needs if we substitute electricity for a large portion of transportation energy, and possibly for industrial needs.
More electric vehicles means more electricity demand, but it also means storage. In Driving Our Way to Energy Independence, ILSR author David Morris notes that the Sacramento Municipal Utility District studied the impact of plug-in hybrid vehicles and found that the storage in a local PHEV fleet could fill in for 250 MW of wind power for 8 hours. If we electrify transportation nationally, we put millions—billions—of kilo-watt hours into car batteries.
Pursuing a new high-voltage transmission superhighway puts the ($100-200 billion) cart before the horse. Do we really want to build a new, costly transmission network that could be orphaned by a fleet of distributed batteries in cars?
Additionally, pursuing a new high-voltage transmission superhighway by using federal preemption is a tactical error. It risks alienating clean energy allies in states that prefer self-reliance to import-dependence. How will we solve global warming with renewable energy if citizens see wind and solar power as indistinguishable from large, undesirable transmission lines in their backyard?
We must have ambitious renewable energy goals and, ultimately, transform our electricity system to 100 percent renewable. But a new interstate high-voltage transmission network is not a prerequisite. Rather, it may prove a costly financial and political distraction from the clean energy transition.
‘Heretic’ battles straw man
Gore on the Daily Show: extended dance remix
Comments
View as Flat
amazingdrx Posted 10:28 am
22 Oct 2009
How? By burying that HVDC supergrid (under federal highway freeway medians, no right-of-way disputes). That 200 billion dollar "cart" will roll out along with distributed renewable generation and storage and smart grid technology, over 10 to 20 years. That works out to a much smaller 10 to 20 billion per year.
Let me ask you how we are to get trillions of dollars of private investment in renewable energy to power our industrial economy with no way for investors to sell the power their renewable energy installations produce? Right now the regulatory mess is insurmountable, experts like Sean Casten might understand it, but how can they even explain it all to the rest of us?
Rules written into law by status quo utility industry are strangling any attempt to get this new energy economy off the runway. It would be like trying to conduct coast to coast commerce with a different toll highway every few hundred miles, with each owner of each stretch of highway protecting their own regional monopoly.
BTW..Lipow..it's Gar Lipow. Perhaps if you read some of his excellent work here from the past you would know how to spell his name? Hehey.
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 11:38 am
22 Oct 2009
Your local based solutions are a great step in the right direction, but not the panacea. There must be a whole new transformative approach to how we consume electricity.
I believe the answer is education, which itself is considerable slow process, in light of the distractions of modern life. Relatively few directly provide for their necessities in life, which now electricity is perceived to be included as such. Most folks do not realize the the grid is for the most part, a commonwealth, that as a consumer they have bought, and continue to pay for upgrades to whether your provider is publicly owned or a regulated investor owned utility. Yet very small numbers of citizens practice ownership rights, and regulators tend to defer and even proactively support the utilities interests. If you consider the environmental and economic costs of moving this cumbersome system towards "eventual"100% renewable sources, which will take decades if ever achieved, it no longer make sense to remain a participating customer.
Energy Storage is the key, albeit an elusive and slippery one. The grid is not a battery. With greater penetration of intermittent sources of energy, the grid will require ever increasing ancillary support. Spinning reserves alone point out the inherent inefficiencies in current grid operations, add more transmission loses, the projected need for large scale storage with their efficiency factors and the economies of scale start to unravel. Take a look at todays light load grid outlook for the California; http://www.caiso.com/outlook/SystemStatus.html
How much reserve spin will be necessary in future RE operations remains uncertain.
All this may result in a tipping point where it is no longer efficient from an economic and environmental perspective to rely on wired systems to provide our electricity needs. I would suggest that that day has already arrived.
As a self generation owner I know where my energy comes from. I get 100% of my electricity from the same solar power that everyone is blessed with. Being off the grid, I am not subjected to the commodification of this free resource. As you point out, PHEV will provide for additional storage and my transportation needs. In my mind this make the case for self generation and storage the best choice, when monopolies are the perceived only choice. The whole premise of an ever expanding grid is no longer making any sense.
My hope is that the renewable energy industry will realize that that greater opportunity lies in offering more alternatives to utility scale generation, by developing technologies that creates affordable true personal energy independence. Accessibility to all levels of consumers would be crucial. Considering the direction that the energy industry is moving, consumer awareness is the most important component of any meaningful change.
Maybe utility bill "shock" will help too.
Permalink
drfredc Posted 12:48 pm
22 Oct 2009
Furthermore, this opens the potential for developing and offering nuclear plants to other areas around the world needing energy to boot strap struggling 3rd world economies into developing economy status. If the UN were all about offering (US licensed?) nuclear power to the 3rd world, a lot of the world's problem spots might quickly become the world's green growth spots.
Think out of the box...
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 12:29 pm
23 Oct 2009
To reach renewable energy where it is best produced, you have to send transmisison lines. Windy areas are typically not as populated and often don't have the transmission capacity needed to transport the power produced. Wind is enormously efficient at producing power using relatively small amounts of land, especially when compared to solar panels, whether solar thermal or PV.
Moreover, a balanced grid which is inter-tied allows for sending power where it is needed from where there is an excess. The notion that one can isolate, site off-grid, and then have steel, manufacturing, and all of the myriad things which are done using electricity simply misses the point.
Even if you put roof-top solar on millions of roofs, you would still need a way to channel that power off the roofs and to the manufacturing, industrial, and commercial locations elsewhere. Large demand centers cannot possible have enough renewable energy in small localities in order to carry out what is currently done with oil, natural gas, and coal.
I wrote a series of columns on this issue and other related topics. See Daniel Coffey at http://www.sddt.com/commentary/ and the series subtitled "Erect, Connect, Repeat." It is very clear that transmission is fundamentally necessary, and is the life blood for investment and development in the renewable energy sector. To think otherwise simply allows local perspectives to drown out the larger societal need for clean, renewable power. It also places yet another barrier in the way of those who are working very hard to bring renewable power online. I refer to them as the "petite friends of coal."
Permalink
John Farrell Posted 1:16 pm
23 Oct 2009
@AmazingDRX - I think you underestimate the cost of burying HVDC lines. The $100-200 billion for a transmission superhighway would easily exceed $1 trillion. Furthermore, you are operating under the misconception that people can't connect to the grid without new transmission. And that is simply not true.
@DrFredC - All that's need to sell me on nukes is for someone to prove they are renewable (i.e. inexhaustible fuel supply) and that we have a safe place to put the waste.
@Daniel Coffey - Is renewable energy better produced in South Dakota and sent via a new transmission line to New York if it's more expensive than building a wind farm in NY? If New Yorkers don't want to import it? Producing renewables where they are "best produced" means different things to different people.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 1:59 pm
23 Oct 2009
Commercially viable wind is located only in certain areas. Top quality solar is located in certain areas, and not others. The fact that you may be able to build a wind farm in New York does not mean that South or North Dakota is not an equally good place to build. One of the great things about America is the Constitutional barriers to restricting commerce within the states.
An integrated nation working as one whole has tremendous advantages, especially when viewed against the geographical accidents which many states started from. No one thought in 1776 that the borders of one state were ideal for any particular undertaking, and nothing has changed now that we are faced with a variety of renewable energy sources in different areas of the country.
We should spend more time supporting the renewable energy projects instead of piling more duties, obligations, requirements, and burdens on their backs. Every donkey has its limits, and the renewable energy sector is beset by local environmentalists/opponents on one side and coal/oil on the other. We should support the good guys instead of raising the bar at every turn. Demands for perfection has defeated more than one good idea.
Permalink
drfredc Posted 7:19 pm
23 Oct 2009
In France, these spend fuel rods are recycled to produce more fuel rods, or inert spent material. As I understand it, the same process can be 'adjusted' to make material for use in bombs. That's only a problem if making bombs is your intent. Back in the 1970s, a bunch of no-nuke types banned this sort of nuclear reactor for use making public energy because they had silly fears that our energy folks would use their energy plants to make bombs. Foolish, yes, but that's the nature of ignorance and politics sometimes. The end result was the development of US nuclear power plants that create lots and lots of nuclear waste and a new UNNECESSARY problem of what to do with the waste. These rules don't apply to nuclear power plants in military uses, hence the development of a highly successful nuclear navy fleet using reactors more like those of the French and other nations around the world.
This waste problem, at least for spend fuel, is a self made regulatory problem that could be easily fixed by rethinking the regulations to allow for the same sorts of nuclear plants that one finds in France. It's probably also possible to develop technology to recycle much of our existing nuclear waste back into useable resources, if regulations would get out of the way. If you are really curious about details, poke around the net and wikipedia for more.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:28 am
24 Oct 2009
This could be a huge export manufacturing market that would boost US job growth. Other nations will look to us for this technology if we make it part of our national energy policy and get our factories humming.
Consider the years and years of lawsuits and delays involved in overhead transmission too. The right-of-way issues are solved for freeway median buried HVDC.
And once again you pose the false dilemna of either HVDC or local/regional renewable energy. They really are not mutually exclusive, in fact they go hand in hand. Large scale storage along with HVDC and small scale regional storage and even home energy storage all go well together with smart grid technology.
I'm with you on opposing tower transmission lines. But I envision electric commuter rail and HVDC both sited in freeway median space as a major part of our new energy economy.
GM and GE and other US industrial giants would experience major job growth from this sort of long term energy and transportation policy. Just like the growth brought on by the federal interstate highway system when it was constructed in the last century.
Permalink
John Farrell Posted 1:47 pm
23 Oct 2009
Permalink
Gar Lipow Posted 4:09 pm
23 Oct 2009
Your point on V2G (electric cars as grid backup) really misunderstands what V2G can and cannot do. (I will note that the 250 MW wind you site V2G allowing in SMUD represents about 7% of total MWH consumption for that utility district.) More detail on this: http://www.grist.org/article/2-way-connections-between-electric-cars-and-grid-have-amazing-potential-tha
Permalink
normbear Posted 12:51 pm
24 Oct 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 1:56 pm
24 Oct 2009
It's been some time since I made any comments on this topic, but here's my argument from my San Diego Daily Transcript column entitled: "Convenience: The heartbeat of Consumer-land", By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, August 6, 2009. That column offered the following thoughts:
"Thanks and congratulations to SDG&E for making good things happen. On July 15, SDG&E announced that "two years after unveiling San Diego's first state-of-the-art plug-in hybrid vehicle, [...] the third phase of its multi-year study reveals that plug-in hybrids offer significant improvements in gas mileage and reductions in emissions when compared with standard hybrid and gasoline vehicles."
In my Aug. 17, 2006 column, I strongly advocated for pluggable hybrids (PHEV) as the wave of the future. PHEV's present the best hope for transportation using diverse, environmentally friendly chemical and electricity-based fuels. But history teaches that good ideas can easily be derailed by inflexible plans and policies not structured around convenience and human nature."
Indeed, in my August 17, 2006 column entitled "An inconvenient hidden truth" By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, August 17, 2006, I offered the following observations which seem reasonable even now.
"There are many dramatic examples where we have, through political expediency, set physically impossible standards and lost technological advantage by adopting ill-advised or political environmental slogans instead of practical science. For example, hybrid cars could have been an American development but for California's obsession with technologically impossible "zero emission vehicles" (ZEVs) which severely impeded the practical combination of battery and gasoline developed by Californian and Cal Tech graduate Alan Cocconi and his company AC Propulsion in the 1990s. The Japanese brought us commercial hybrids, but Cocconi had all the elements in place yet was blocked because governmental policies forced technology down an impossible path.
As part of our search for answers to global warming, we should be pursuing the "pluggable hybrid" -- a practical technology that could allow transportation to tap into locally generated direct current power, grid power and hydrocarbons, instead of just gasoline used more efficiently, which is the current hybrid model. Pluggable hybrids are the future if we grasp it. Otherwise, we will see other countries develop it and sell it back to us; we will be consumers and not producers of what the world wants.
The environmental movement must return to its practical roots and vigorously support those who wish, through halting and imperfect steps, to take us to a better future, and not merely shift opportunities away to others because of environmental risks, less than perfect outcomes and rigid, legalistic environmental rules."
My printed opinion columns for the last 4 years are available at: http://www.sddt.com/Commentary/ Daniel Coffey
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 4:52 pm
24 Oct 2009
I think all the commenters agree that electrifying the transportation sector will be a benefit to nearly everyone, although I'm sure there are plenty who would oppose such.
Thanks for your thoughts, I too have attempted to "work" with utilities in California. It is probably the case that my interests are too different from theirs to reach solutions that I find equitable for MY needs. I'll leave the greater good decisions to someone worthy to make that call.
Hence MY decision to have full electricity independence, off the grid. Which is limited to buying PV panels and balance of components,produced with grid power,imperfect, yes but the best I can do at the moment. I also see the PHEV or EV symbiosis with my RE system as a vital component in gaining even more energy independence, and increasing return on my investment.I have extra capacity now, Imperfect yes, but by relying on the wired system to provide benefit, the returns would definitely be diminished.
I would like to think that as technology develops, there will be recognition of alternatives to utility dependence.
I've used solar for nearly 20 years now, It has come a long way. I watched the utilities fight it tooth and nail, but now they are getting on board, which is great. But I now recognize there is folly of trying to take what was a simple, beautifully small and modular idea and create centralized generation and all of it's complex appendages. I see real difficulties ahead for this approach, at a time when everyone is asked to hunker down economically. So many competing interests, every piece of the american pie is getting smaller. Even the vast majority of RE products are produced off shore, and I would suspect but do not have documentation, that the utility scale plants would be mostly manufactured overseas. And will there really be beneficial GHG impacts? No one can truly answer that right now. However I'm partial to local solutions and I THINK this should be the first approach, and not brushed aside.
I regret getting off topic here, but energy issues are like tentacles...and nationalizing the grid will be watching the giant squid grow.
It is hard to be optimistic, I'll just try to get my families' energy act together, and sing RE's praises as I see it.
I'll leave the social engineering aspect of it to those who will be judged by the final results.
Best wishes.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:07 am
25 Oct 2009
Plugin electric (ultra-efficient Hypercar carbon fiber body) vehicles for urban and suburban drivers, the same plugin vehicles for rural drivers that need longer range and drivers who use their vehicles for work with no time to recharge, with a simple addition.
Add a backup generator that runs on multiple fuels, gasoline or compressed biogas/methane. Eventually go to much more efficient backup generators of the multi-fuel fuel cell/turbine variety. They can operate at 70% efficiency versus the typical 14 to 20% efficiency of internal combustion backup generators.
This is much easier to explain and understand. Pure electric plugin urban drivers (short range) could even rent a backup generator from their local car dealer for longer drives like vacation car trips.
I see you live in san Diego Dan, did you see the study that estimated that San Diego county could get 53% of its current electric power from rooftop solar PV? I wrote about using much more efficient concentrating solar cogeneration along with ground source copoling/heating to provide 100%+ from solar. Making your county a net power exporter.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2006/11/27/2529627.html
And that's without the floating energy platforms that could be anchored off your coast. Wind plus wave plus underwater current power generation with an underwater cable bringing the power into the grid from the energy "ships".
Southern California is another "Saudi Arabia" of renewable energy, along with the great plains, great lakes region, all our US coastal areas, and the entire southwest. Connect all these regions together with an electron superhighway, buried in freeway medians, and renewable energy will provide a steady grid supply with almost no storage or backup.
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 1:57 pm
24 Oct 2009
It is assumed that PHEV will be part of a Demand Response/ Smart Grid plan. This would probably require a High Wind generation scenario. Currently smart chargers are pretty efficient, approaching 90% round trip.
Currently, utility scale Pumped Storage eff. are around 70% round trip. the conflict that may occur is who is first in line for low cost off peak generation, Consumers or large scale storage owner? How are consumers treated as they potentially enter the ancillary service market? How grid tied self generation customer is currently reimbursed may shed light on how this pans out.It is developing and quite complex.
As with all the comments, the paper is speculative. Maybe decades away and like all the comments and Johns essay, it has merit...depending on your unmovable point of view.
All this points out that the electrical system as it is operated today has and will continue to be encumbered by conflicting interests. These may become very profound in time. Nationalizing the grid may only serve to bring the stew to a boil.
Does it make sense to continue perpetuating a collective endeavor when certain interests will dominate development of the grid?
In my humble opinion whole system resembles a ponzi scheme. Rate payers like taxpayer are the the bottom of this pyramid. And it will get a lot heavier than it is now!
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 2:57 pm
24 Oct 2009
There is no doubt that pluggable hybrid technology is in three parts: transportation, energy-source mix (battery-chemical fuel), and external energy storage, with the latter being the least among the three. However, by deploying the potential storage capacity, we can anticipate a use which may not have broad utilization unless and until the equipment is in place. The chicken and egg seem to always inhabit every challenge somewhere.
As for the grid and its control, I'm not a big fan of changing the rules mid-stream. Things and people can change their way of doing things without restructuring the entire operation - if it isn't really broken, don't scrap it. I see a lot of positive signs for utilities, at least in California where I am located. I think the people who operate utilities are meeting a lot of challenges and the rate-payers need only go a few days without nasty old electricity before they get a little bit jumpy. If we work constructively with utilities we might just find that we can effect good results faster than if we threaten them. Just a thought.
Best regards,
Dan
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 6:21 pm
24 Oct 2009
"Even the vast majority of RE products are produced off shore, and I would suspect but do not have documentation, that the utility scale plants would be mostly manufactured overseas. And will there really be beneficial GHG impacts? No one can truly answer that right now. However I'm partial to local solutions and I THINK this should be the first approach, and not brushed aside."
I agree that too much renewable energy equipment is manufactured off-shore. However, for example in the wind sector, 50% of the value of the total wind turbine installation is manufactured in America: that is nacelle, tower, and blades. The other 50% is primarily European for turbine components. This number is, of course, a bit on the rough side since many different wind turbine manufacturers exist and sell into the US market. Nevertheless, the value of wind to labor in this country cannot be underestimated.
Solar panels are a far more complex topic when it comes to country of manufactureV: China (25%), Japan (43%), Germany (17%), and Mexico (10%). We need more manufacturing in this country in order to gain market purchasing power.
See Table 3.12 Origin of U.S. Photovoltaic Cell and Module Import Shipments by Country, 2006 and 2007
As for the GHG impacts, it is true that complexities will tend to make most things abstract and difficult to tease out. However, we know that CO2 levels will fall if we don't put combustion byproducts in the atmosphere. We know that non-carbon renewable energy produces power without producing CO2. We know how much CO2 has been avoided by use of non-carbon RE. Hence we know its having an effect. That is not to say that increases elsewhere are not offsetting our gains, but that is a separate topic.
I think there is a lot to be optimistic about. I think people can put aside their differences and work together to solve this problem. What does worry me are the nay-sayers and true believers on both sides who are speaking out the loudest, both of which are getting in the way of real progress.
COnsider: recent US Energy Information Agency numbers show CO2 production from coal use dropped 10.1% from 2008.
More importantly, between 2008 and 2009 CO2 production from burning fossil fuel in the US decreased 5.9% overall from 5,790 to 5,446 million metric tons (MMT) or 344 MMT. Changes in the electricity generation mix reduced CO2 emissions by 73 MMT (21%). Reduced petroleum use accounted for 102 MMT (30%). Not good news: recent economic downturns accounted for 169 MMT
(49%) of the reduction.
One of the last things I would like to see are those who believe and have led from the early days drop to the side just when their ideas become important. We need to keep the good guys in place and grow the base for sound environmental ideas, not step aside and let the vacuum be filled with people who merely see an opportunity to make money.
Oddly, when environmentalists oppose relatively small developers, they are usually driving out of business the people who wanted to do the right thing when it wasn't big business. Whose left? Big business, because they have the money to weather the permitting/objecting storm. Funny how we punish those who would do in a big way what we want done - but only in a small way.
Best regards,
Dan
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 1:57 pm
24 Oct 2009
It is assumed that PHEV will be part of a Demand Response/ Smart Grid plan. This would probably require a High Wind generation scenario. Currently smart chargers are pretty efficient, approaching 90% round trip.
Currently, utility scale Pumped Storage eff. are around 70% round trip. the conflict that may occur is who is first in line for low cost off peak generation, Consumers or large scale storage owner? How are consumers treated as they potentially enter the ancillary service market? How grid tied self generation customer is currently reimbursed may shed light on how this pans out.It is developing and quite complex.
As with all the comments, the paper is speculative. Maybe decades away and like all the comments and Johns essay, it has merit...depending on your unmovable point of view.
All this points out that the electrical system as it is operated today has and will continue to be encumbered by conflicting interests. These may become very profound in time. Nationalizing the grid may only serve to bring the stew to a boil.
Does it make sense to continue perpetuating a collective endeavor when certain interests will dominate development of the grid?
In my humble opinion whole system resembles a ponzi scheme. Rate payers like taxpayer are the the bottom of this pyramid. And it will get a lot heavier than it is now!
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 12:53 pm
25 Oct 2009
Consumer acceptance and universality of the PHEV product is far more important than making the public address, plan and accommodate the complexities of our electric grid. One of the great things about civilization is it allows you time off on the weekends. I fear if consumers are required to think too long and hard about new choices, they will opt for the tried and true. Unless you want to force people into a particular vehicle, and I don't, then you must entice them with the advantages.
That is what happened with the Prius and other hybrids - people liked them and they sold.
I have gone so far as to argue that a pluggable hybrid should be based on conventional 110 V wall socket charging, even though I realize there are advantages to higher voltage. In my August 6, 2009 column, I put it out as follows:
"Convenience: The heartbeat of Consumer-land" By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, August 6, 2009
"Thanks and congratulations to SDG&E for making good things happen. On July 15, SDG&E announced that 'two years after unveiling San Diego's first state-of-the-art plug-in hybrid vehicle, [...] the third phase of its multi-year study reveals that plug-in hybrids offer significant improvements in gas mileage and reductions in emissions when compared with standard hybrid and gasoline vehicles.'
...
Again we embark upon a path which, this time, combines utilities, car makers, conventional fuels, and an entirely novel infrastructure, all ostensibly supporting consumer preferences. The coming PHEV question which consumer preference and convenience will answer: should I fill up on natural gas, gasoline, diesel, E-85, ethanol, or wind and solar derived electricity?
If utilities and renewable electric power are to play an important transportation role, every PHEV must be safely rechargeable anywhere, anytime, by anyone using standard 110-volt plugs. Anything less, and chemical fuels and gasoline, not electricity, will remain America's practical and most convenient transportation choice. Convenience is the heartbeat of Consumer-land."
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 8:46 am
27 Oct 2009
The MIT power transfer invention using tuned induction that has been commercialized as a pad to recharge wireless devices is the "convenience" leap for electric vehicles.
This device allows the efficient transfer of electric power up to a few inches away through the air. Placed under parking spots at work, home or school or mounted in a power strip under a special recharge highway lane, it could recharge cars on the move or when parked and bill the credit account of the driver via internet.
As far as convenient "instant" (around 5 min, like filling up with gasoline) recharge at gas stations, it's a few years away in terms of affordable technology. Would it be better to go with this tuned induction system? Consumers wouldn't need to think about this, just park and your car recharges, or on a long trip switch to the recharge lane when your electric "fuel" guage gets low.
The recharge system thayt we have now is plugs into outlets, for faster recharge two cords plugged into two different 110 volt circuits. Or a special 220 cable and plug at home. Not convenient, very slow, hours for a full charge, only suitable for up to 10% of us very commited green drivers.
But it might set enough of a trend to get induction and instant charge R&D going? Meanwhile electric cars, without backup generators that run on regular you can get at any gas station, will only be suitable for urban travel. Will better generators, of the fuel cell variety, better faster charging batteries, and/or induction recharge arrive first..or all at once?
In a commercial wave that sweeps gas guzzlers off the highway over a decade or so, all those devices and more might become ubiquitos. The point is that the physics works already, when will the political will exist so government switches suibsidies from gas guzzling to battery charging.
Connect this up with energy independence, an end to oil wars, a stable economy based on clean, domestic, inflation free energy, or a massive wave of green jobs and manufacturing. It seems possible, but only if people who vote see their neighbors driving electric cars. It's our job to be examples, the commited 10% of US.
Drive electric ASAP! By hook, crook, or do-it-yourself. People need to see to believe it's possible and media won't feature it until it's obvious. We have orgs like Grist and twitter/facebook and youtube to force the media to notice.
The Wright brothers didn't have that, the New york Times took four years to aknowledge their first flight back at the start of the last century. We got it easy compared to them.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 10:31 am
27 Oct 2009
gasoline) recharge at gas stations, it's a few years away in terms of
affordable technology. Would it be better to go with this tuned induction
system? Consumers wouldn't need to think about this, just park and your car
recharges, or on a long trip switch to the recharge lane when your electric
"fuel" guage gets low."
I think that you're missing a more basic point in my piece: we need to use what we have now to make the pluggable hybrid feasible. We have 110 everywhere. We do not, however, have any other specialized technology or rapid fire recharge systems deployed - not one.
It makes no sense to attempt a deployment of technology based on a nonexistent structure, especially when you have viable alternatives. Too often concepts overlook the human factor: people want to feel that wherever they go, they can get fuel and get back. If they think that they won't be able to find an induction system, then they will worry, possibly enough so that they will not purchase a vehicle with that particular vulnerability.
As attractive as any new fangled system may seem, if it needs to be broadly distributed in order to be effective, then it has to be part of a phase in, not the starting point for an already established and relatively well proven technology. Plugging in and fueling up are the major charm of pluggable hybrids. They can use both sources of energy.
By analogy, it would be as if we wait until computing technology was at least capable of Intel P4 performance before we start. That has never been a good model for advancing technology.
Best regards,
Dan
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 6:40 am
28 Oct 2009
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 7:15 am
28 Oct 2009
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:52 am
28 Oct 2009
What is your view of ultra-capacitors as an energy storage medium? Maxwell, here in San Diego, has been making ultra-capacitors for many years, some of which are used by ICE corporation in their hybrid buses. The ultra-capacitor modules are now made in China, a strategic error in my view.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:36 am
28 Oct 2009
But why do solar and wind projects need to be clustered so far away from where the power is used? That's the beauty of rooftop solar and other distributed generation like farm based wind and biogas, it is all over. 20 miles off the southern California coast all the wind, wave, and ocean current power generation to augment rooftop solar cogeneration, is waiting to be tapped.
As far as a national high voltage direct current power grid, this estimate of 1500 mw carrying capacity per overhead power line makes buried cables the obvious alternative. One trench carrying enough conductor cross section and surrounding insulation instead of 50 seperate overhead lines makes more sense.
What is the status of R&D on HVDC buried transmission cable? Could the capacity of 50 overhead lines be buried in a freeway median?
"A number of studies have highlighted the potential benefits of very wide area super grids based on HVDC since they can mitigate the effects of intermittency by averaging and smoothing the outputs of large numbers of geographically dispersed wind farms or solar farms.[19] Czisch's study concludes that a grid covering the fringes of Europe could bring 100% renewable power (70% wind, 30% biomass) at close to today's prices. There has been debate over the technical feasibility of this proposal[20] and the political risks involved in energy transmission across a large number of international borders.[21][21]
The construction of such green power superhighways is advocated in a white paper that was released by the American Wind Energy Association and the Solar Energy Industries Association[22]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
Given the difficulty and expense, superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES) might be used to cut the cost of transmission by acumulating energy from a national grid to backup each particular region.
"SMES is also used in utility applications. In northern Wisconsin, a string of distributed SMES units was deployed to enhance stability of a transmission loop. The transmission line is subject to large, sudden load changes due to the operation of a paper mill, with the potential for uncontrolled fluctuations and voltage collapse. Developers of such devices include American Superconductor."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconducting_magnetic_energy_storage
My computer is running on SMES smoothed power right now. Large scale SMES could greatly reduce the need for transmission capacity, since the main function of transmission for renewable energy is smoothing fluctuations. On the other hand, a study of only 8 windfarms interconnected, showed how diverse sourcing can increase reliability.
Some combination of R&D on long distance buried HVDC and SMES and distributed generation should hold the key to making 100% renewable grid energy the norm over the next 20 years.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 8:11 am
28 Oct 2009
Also, you said "These lines take a very long time to construct." Can you break that down into permitting, pre-construction and construction time frames as an example. In other words, does it take 5 years to permit, 1 year pre-consutruction running concurrent, and 2 years construction, or what is the general timetable based on your experience?
In California we have been dealing with the Sunrise Powerlink and opponents who insist, based on Bill Powers and others, that there is absolutely no real need for the transmission line; he insists that everything can be done via rooftop solar, a position which I think stems from an insular concept of San Diego, separate from the US and a desire to install rooftop.
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 11:25 am
28 Oct 2009
Doesn't the of both or your experienced and informed points lead one to the conclusion that the current plans to integrate any significant percentage(let alone 100%) of renewables into the existing system and market structure is like fitting a square round into a peg hole.
As Gene points out from his privileged access to WECC and ERCOT data (not publicly available) that even inside of these two balkanized grids, reliability issues require constant upgrades to deal with N1 contingencies. These are challenging and expensive even now. Adding intermittent and highly centralized renewables in location constrained clusters adds exponentially to the complexity of facilities and necessary to mitigate the loss of this generation. This requires fast acting generation or storage of sufficient capacities ready to dispatch. Even now neighboring utilities require ever increasing facilities and reactive support to maintain reliability as more energy is wheeled between these systems. As systems such as the western and texas grids become connected through proposed HVDC interconnects, market power issues as well as the costs and eff factors become other components that are significant cost drivers, adding complexity and contentiousness to the overall system, that rate payers will be burdened with.
My point is that it really is time to consider the old adage: Keep it Simple Stupid, because like many of the collective endeavors that are foisted upon the American people for their convenience,the RPS approach may prove to be inefficient from any perspective. Are there tangible benefits? No one can answer that assuredly.
Consider for a moment the challenges and lead times from conception to built, the Sunrise Powerlink that Dan
refers to. I 'd bet that it is at least a 10 year process. And there are folks on both sides of this particular transmission line who argue for or question it's necessity.No judgement here on the merits, just a reality check. Democracy in action? The point is that the only way the bigger picture plans, which are vast gets built in the time frames to meet RPS goals, is by changing how transmission planning and siting works, and I'd guess that Gene is aware of this. Will it become a less open and transparent? Will there be predetermined and pre approved projects? Who shall have this authority? Doesn't this have huge ramifications in our democracy?
The affects to local and states rights would be significant.
In California, Statutes and Policies in place require local and distributed solutions be implemented first and foremost. This is The Loading Order, as adopted by state regulators. http://www.energy.ca.gov/2005publications/.../CEC-400-2005-043.PDF
How this is interpreted, depends on your unmovable point of view, but I personally see this as not pliable!
So ultimately backstop measures such as local based solutions and microgrids seem to be the imperfect but most logical and most mutually beneficial approach until the BEST solution materializes; True energy independence from Grid Dependence. Real alternatives to monopoly dependence and the cumbersome, ever increasing system build out. RE offers this potentially. The economies of scale in centralized models are full of incomplete ASSumptions as GENE has pointed out.
I suppose as Dan injects into this discussion in earlier posts, our consumer culture would require a revamping as well. This too would have huge tangible environmental benefits... because this is the root of the Global Climate Change Threat.
Personal responsibility, Is this culture ready to integrate renewable energy on a personal level? Or do we wait for utilities to do it? It's looking like the pseudo public option may prevail...
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:47 am
28 Oct 2009
San diego county could get 53% of its grid power from rooftop solar (according to a study), at the old efficiency of 12% for flat panel PV. Use higher effiociency (up to 38% for 10 sun concentration PV according to NREL testing) solar cogeneration (collects heat as well as electricty) on roofs, and cut heating/cooling load with ground source heating/cooling, and fill in with offshore wind/wave power and San Diego county could be a net power exporter.
All this with short range transmission.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 9:59 am
28 Oct 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:22 am
28 Oct 2009
http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:JM9uLlCYTw8J:www.sandiego.edu/EPIC/publications/documents/060309_ASESPVPotentialPaperFINAL.pdf+53%+san+diego+county+solar+rooftop&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESjVdACf3rhBSORQPBvlMQlhRFQYc9m3Q_OWCf3TJMrd4jazs6c6B_oCcHPb8wIrT4OQ11YgPuI0PPdaI_t1KG5DINftbsb1bbFdf3-8mgXLPh_P9nRR_yfyajpUld9eQ5hzBOym&sig=AFQjCNFDqUdnegBxnf1X94WbVxwRA3wEWw
Check this: insulation values of various substances.
http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/Insulator+chain
It would seem to me that a buried cable could be designed that has mulyiple layers of solid insulator, the hollow gaps filled with liquid insulator like oil or even deionozed water, to form a failsafe package.
Detectors would shut down the line when one layer of liquid insulator was breeched, the liquid would be pumped out and filtered or replaced then the circuit reenergized. Robots could even travel inside the liquid layer and repair faults in the solid insulation layers. A deionozed water layer on the outside of the whole cable lying inside a tank shaped covered concrete channel providing a final safety layer.
By going over the needed capacity of insulation layering by say 200%, and installing two of these cables side by side, one would always be operational even if a temporary fault repair was being acomplished on the other cable. How much extra safety insulation would 5 feet of deionozed water provide?
That would make a two lane national electron superhighway. Could it be buried in freeway median right of way with an electric commuter train on top in a tube? In a sci-fi future maybe? Hehey.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 11:14 am
28 Oct 2009
I wrote a column a few months ago on the cost of solar rooftop - just an estimate based on real production and retail installation for solar rooftop. That copyrighted column: "Erect, connect, repeat: The many shades of green" By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, May 14, 2009, reads in relevant part as follows:
"Money spent on environmental projects had to be earned and therefore has an associated environmental cost. It should be spent carefully in order to minimize environmental harm and maximize benefit.
...
That said, someone is going to pay, regardless of cost-shifting efforts, and by using plain dollars and cents for installed equipment, irrespective of who pays, PV is clearly more expensive than a transmission system which can link into a diverse renewable energy portfolio. Hence, tension exists between different groups seeking similar results.
It is incumbent upon the environmental community to be honest about actual costs and the alternatives which might be purchased with those environmental dollars. The approach used by Wall Street speculators who distort costs should not be adopted as a method for achieving environmental ends. After all, it is not merely the cost of electricity, but avoiding untoward environmental harm, which makes all renewable energy sources desirable.
...
In his SD2020 report, at page 45, Powers says "the most abundant renewable resource in San Diego County is the sun. San Diego County currently has approximately 38 MW of installed commercial and residential PV capacity," 1.9% of the 2000 MW required.
The SD2020 report at page 56 also states: "wind power is considerably less capital intensive than PV on a (megawatt) basis."
Physical capital is the primary basis of renewable energy production. Spending excessive amounts on an expensive energy source is a misallocation of natural resources and money. It is not wise environmentalism.
While not entirely clear, at one point Powers mentioned a cost of $8 per installed watt for solar PV panels, not including the significant additional costs required for large-scale battery storage systems. In past comparison calculations, I have used an advertised retail price of $22,700 for a 3.7 kilowatt PV installation, or about $6.15 per watt.
To provide 2000 MW of solar (PV) power would require 540,000 (3.7 kW) rooftop installations, occupy a minimum of 16,000 rooftop acres, and would cost $12.3 billion. Powers says this approach saves money when compared to Sempra's $1.3 billion dollar Sunrise Powerlink transmission line, a project which, even with a 40-year pay-down period, including interest, Powers says is $7 billion. That leaves $5.3 billion for power production equipment and enables the transmission and purchase of less expensive, more efficient, renewable energy."
I think we need to pay close attention to what works and what it costs. Otherwise, we spend time on a path which leads us to a dead end and lost time and opportunities.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 11:44 am
28 Oct 2009
That process has led to a number of opposition groups saying things which are highly questionable. In fact, I did a column recently which pointed out just how duplicitous things have become. This approach is undermining the credibility of the environmental community, even or maybe especially, in the eyes of those who strongly support them.
That column, "Erect, connect, repeat: It's astounding; time is fleeting" By Daniel Coffey, Thursday, June 11, 2009 can be viewed, along with my others at http://www.sddt.com/commentary Daniel Coffey. In relevant part it says:
"Recently I questioned statements made by Supervisor Dianne Jacob and other opposition groups who claim the as-yet-to-be-constructed Sunrise Powerlink will carry NO electricity derived from renewable sources. My incredulity was heightened because this posture is used to egg on opposition to relatively tiny additional transmission lines needed to reach significant Mexican renewable wind power, some of which may be carried by Sunrise Powerlink.
Imagine my shock while reading a document challenging the Sunrise Powerlink filed by Backcounty Against Dumps, Protect Our Community Foundation, East County Community Action Coalition, and Donna Tisdale (collectively, "Tisdale Group") with the United States Department of the Interior. Instead of asserting that NO renewable energy would be carried on the line, the complaint was, in effect, that too much renewable energy would be carried -- that the Sunrise Powerlink was growth inducing, causing more renewable energy projects to crop up in various areas.
The document says, with citation omitted: "as noted, the [Sunrise Powerlink] will induce growth from the increase in power generation along the selected route of the transmission line. See, e.g., (Crestwood / Pacific Wind Generation in the McCain Valley). One stated purpose of the project is to promote renewable energy. [The Tisdale Group] acknowledge(s) that the [Sunrise Powerlink] will promote the construction of renewable facilities. By creating a transmission line designed to increase renewable energy supply, production, and use, the [Sunrise Powerlink] will have industrial growth inducing impacts." Yes, more renewable energy projects!
It continues: "there are a number of projects 'that are so closely related to the [Sunrise Powerlink] as to be considered part of the project for purposes of CEQA and NEPA analysis.' These projects include: a Sempra Generation wind project in northern Mexico (the La Rumorosa Wind Farm), the Stirling Energy Systems solar facility, and the Esmerelda-San Felipe Geothermal Project."
These are renewable energy projects which are part of an effort to avert catastrophic global warming, the same projects which these "environmental" groups are attempting to thwart! Every year La Rumorosa's completion is delayed means 12 billion additional pounds of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Amazingly, groups publicly attacking Sunrise Powerlink for carrying NO renewable energy, out of public view, instead assert too much renewable energy will be carried by the line.
A few argue that transmission lines are unnecessary and all additional power required by San Diego can be produced from a few technical tweaks and 16,000 acres of rooftop solar photovoltaic panels.
The Tisdale Group document cites Bill Powers' sworn declaration for the proposition that: "the project's current estimated cost, $1.88 billion, is far greater than either the provision of 900 megawatts of local photovoltaic arrays at a cost of $700 million, or the provision of 2,000 megawatts of local photovoltaic panels at a cost of $1.5 billion." (Really, $0.78/watt?!) It goes on to summarize an apparent central concern of Powers and others: "pre-empting development of local photovoltaic generation."
From the latter statement it appears that a greater concern for transmission lines is that they "pre-empt" installation of local solar photovoltaic, of which Bill Powers is a principle advocate, and which is viewed as creating union electrician and installation jobs.
Those who think San Diego is a self-sufficient island overlook, inter alia, the reality that future water supplies and vehicular transportation will require more electricity. Of necessity, San Diego will rely more on noncarbon electricity produced from a diversified portfolio of energy sources, including renewable sources connected by transmission lines. Those who say otherwise haven't objectively accessed impacts from accelerated global warming."
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 12:30 pm
28 Oct 2009
While it maybe true that certain data is skewed, this typically happens on both sides of an argument. I'm am not very familiar with specifics on the Sunrise Powerlink, opponents or advocates for, planners are trying to avoid this situation, but this seems to be a universal occurrence from such proposals. Mr Power's arguments have validity with me in that value streams maybe diverted back to rate payers, which is so rare these days. I don't have enough knowledge of his plan to opine how successful it would be ultimately be.
So how this is overcome is difficult to fathom, hence my point, self reliance as the ultimate backstop. While this might be perceived as too insular, and I'm sure would be disruptive to status quo if large numbers did so. I think the least number would be hurt negatively. And who knows, it could materialize as very beneficial, to the most numbers, albeit long lead time. Certainly Industrial users could use a similar approach. All should assume responsibility.
Stranger things have happened.
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 12:43 pm
28 Oct 2009
The last PV panels (May of this year) I purchased were monocrystalline High eff 17.5% for 3.90 a watt. A bargain in my mind... Thin film maybe quite a bit less right now.
Buyers market ...
Best Wishes, Ron
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 1:13 pm
28 Oct 2009
I strongly disagree with this strategy and view it as very short sighted in light of the other challenges which are afoot. We have coal on one side saying we need do nothing, we have environmentalists saying don't build wind turbines or transmission lines because you can do it all with solar rooftops, you have anti-wind groups raising all kinds of barriers, and now we have the nay sayers telling the public that the "environmentalists are wrong - just like they were in the past" and "global warming is not happening and we don't need expensive, silly renewable energy."
All of this doubt and bickering is feeding together in the public mind to suggest that if the environmentalists aren't really any big hurry to really take action on the ground and the nay sayers are telling us its OK, then whatswiththat?
Note the recent significant drop in poll numbers when it comes to global warming.
The convergence of anti-renewable anti-global warming forces from both sides may have serious repercussions if attention is not paid to the larger communities perception of this situation. Actions speak louder than words!
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 12:57 pm
28 Oct 2009
In my view, it is folly to focus on high-labor cost individual rooftop installations, when we can expand PV production capacity via utility scale deployment. Once you achieve large scale deployment, then the price drops and the individual rooftop installation will become more economical overall.
Too much bickering over the best way as the only way - we need it all, and we need it now.
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 3:02 pm
28 Oct 2009
I get 100% of my electricity from solar and have done so for long enough to know it's abilities.
Storage is the key, Whether it is an off grid application or utility scale. While the grid may have capacity to absorb RE generation, this is limited. And greater penetration of intermittent energy will stress existing capacity. So whether it is a micro system or a national grid, both will have to develop and deploy strategies to secure reliable load serving capabilities.
Regulated Monopoly structures insure cost recovery and guaranteed rates of return. A review of your utility bill makes this plain, although I haven't seen one recently. The point is, there are plenty of reasons to ponder whether your money is well spent buying someone else's gear or your own. And ever increasing T& D costs make this hard to not consider. Simple economics, and as I see it T&D buildout is not the ONLY way of capturing the benefits of renewables. Simple fact, no speculation on my part. For the existing structure and market, and current consumer behavior, you might be right, transmission is necessary. This is evidence of the market power that the existing system has created, NO CHOICES.
When one argues that those who get in the way of T&D buildout, it will perpetuate Global Climate Change; it even further reveals the perception of power that this structure has exercised. Total dependence.
Even the argument that one should support utility scale PV to drop the price of rooftop installations is an extension of this power into an area that offers the closest thing to an option as a consumer. I have a real hard time believing that notion.
RE was incubated by off grid users,than struggled to make small forays into the mainstream and then in recent years grew unexpectedly quick as a way to reduce your bill and personally take some measure of responsibility.
It has always struggled to compete economically on a levelized playing field with fossil fuel generation. In California, incentives and tax credits helped to really drive the market of rooftop PV. However as you know, caps are established and the subsidies are drying up. This has impacts to the PV industry and rate payer.
Now it is emerging as a significant source of utility power. The PV market is not, nor will it be the lion's share of utility scale RE. I doubt that it will be the most prevalent technology in utility scale solar. The thermal technologies are poised to be the biggest contributor. So is it really wise to hope that utility scale PV will make rooftop more affordable? I think there are too many variables to call that. World Supply is affected by many factors. I have friends in the business who know this all too well.
While I applaud your efforts to see that RE becomes the prevalent source of power,and understand your reasoning, I do not think there are no other ways to get there. I fully support a PV future, just a different flavor.
I see a long history of market manipulation some blatant, some subtle, that the energy industry has exercised. This is hard to ignore, and I for one do not.
However, as in all things American, The market shall decide.
Respectfully, Ron
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 4:07 pm
28 Oct 2009
The notion that utilities are the enemy is fairly common, and to some extent generated by the isolation which utility employees and management have imposed upon themselves. In past times they lived by a simple principle: we make electricity. They wanted it to be the best quality, lowest cost, most abundant and to serve industry, civil society and a robust military. The rise of electricity has been the rise of a quality of life and convenience which is almost astonishing.
Now we know that the price of emissions are higher than previously understood, and that requires an adjustment to how we produce power - by what means. While there are many who feel that they did it first and now the utilities are also-rans horning in on the renewable energy bandwagon, I think its a great thing that a wide variety of people who care nothing and will never care for how electricity is produced, are able to receive it from sources which reduce environmental impacts.
Most of the utility folks I have spoken to and interviewed are interested in doing the right thing. They are keenly aware of how their business operates and the barriers which exist in both the politics and the physics of energy production.
After giving this matter a good deal of thought, I am convinced as are most others who see this as a national problem and a planetary challenge, that transmission is indispensible. You may be able to run your household on renewable energy from solar power panels, but look beyond your own back yard across the farm fields, the factories, the commercial facilities, the wintery northern climes and to places were renewable energy will have challenges. It is very clear that Wyoming in the winter will have less solar power than may be needed and a windmill in every residence may present some challenges.
Won't it be a better world if the Wyoming wind farm can supply California's needs, or Nevada's, or Utah, and visa versa?
Much of the challenge is not seeing your own rooftop as a source of energy, but expanding that notion to a whole nation. To do that requires transmission lines.
As for stepping off the grid into isolation, that can be done in some instances, but more often than not we don't want to know about or deal with the power in our house any more than you want me to explain the law of hazardous waste and its operational implications for your everyday usage of oil, gas, refrigeration, and garage. Nor is it necessary that everyone know how cheese is made, wheat is grown, meat is obtained, gasoline is refined, oil is explored, iron is mined, or a million other things that are done in professional, organized ways which make our individual lives free of such distractions.
Energy in the home is just one thing - an important thing - and it can't be forced on everyone any more than a knowledge of calculus, physics, chemistry, geometry, error sampling, or nutrition. Let's face it, there are so many things which have been ceded over to specialized and knowledgeable groups, the most important thing remains that we all hold a common value of supporting civil society.
When you look across the world at how things are done elsewhere, it is no surprise that we have it pretty good - but we can fritter that away if we choose or if we make too many bad decisions.
I was recently at a conference at the UN concerning environmental matters and especially nuclear radiation risks, and while there I happen to speak to a fellow from Nigeria. He told me about the highly distributed individual generator system that they use to supplement the centralized power system. The wealthy have fuel and lights; the poor get to enjoy the darkness when fuel is in short supply or expensive.
But enough said,
Best,
Dan
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 4:34 pm
28 Oct 2009
You are so right. One does not live on this earth without impacting it. And all must ponder how to do it mindfully.
It's tough at times... just the basics.
Best success in all your endeavors, I can tell that you are a passionate and considerate person, great qualities to have!
Ron
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 4:34 pm
28 Oct 2009
You are so right. One does not live on this earth without impacting it. And all must ponder how to do it mindfully.
It's tough at times... just the basics.
Best success in all your endeavors, I can tell that you are a passionate and considerate person, great qualities to have!
Ron
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 9:37 pm
28 Oct 2009
Q - You say "The solar and wind generators cannot control the reactive powers
in this system." I'm going to look into that aspect more closely. Maybe
I'm mistaken, but I thought wind facilities are controlling their reactive
power from the whole farm. Am I missing something here?
A - When the wind generators are below about 10% of their output, their ability to absorb the charging VARS goes to zip. This causes the voltages to rise. Shunt reactors can be put on the lines to bring down the voltages. However the wind generators do not want to pay for these reactors because to do so would make the wind generation no longer economic. Also, if the reactors are put closer and closer to exactly cancelling the line charging, then 60 Hz resonances can occur during line switching operations and high voltages can occur causing saturation of the iron of the shunt reactors which will burn them out. This is avoided in a normal old fashioned power system by running convention gas or coal generation and the generators can take care of absorbing the remaining VARS and in that design the reactors are made to be only up to about 30% of what is actually needed for complete cancellation, thus avoiding the resonance problem. But in an system with no conventional generation, we would have to use high powered electronics to replace the role of the gas or coal plant in absorbing these VARS when the wind is off line. This further drives up the expense and makes a pure wind plan not as attractive (more expensive). Texas is struggling with this at the present time but what we have here in Texas is nothing compared to the control problems you would have with thousands of miles of new 500 kV lines. Another possibility is to use DC lines everywhere to avoid the MVAR problem altogether. But that is also an expensive proposition.
Q - As for the number of wind turbines and solar plants for a total of 80,000
MW which need to be connected to the grid, that does raise the specter of
lots of connections and lines. What I do wonder about is the average 500
miles for each line. That seems very long to me. How do you come up with
that number?
A - The initial wind and solar sites may be closer to load centers than 500 miles. If specific sites are known, use those distances to get a better estimate. Regardless of whether its 100 or 500 miles, there are new lines needed, and there will be opposition in CA for sure. This delay makes the renewables plan not acceptable. So why are we spending so much time working on a plan that doesn't have a chance at working?
Q - In California before they settled in on an RPS of 20%, I believe they studied this issue carefully, but I could be wrong.
A - You are correct in being wrong. It has not been studied carefully. By carefully, I mean a specific plan with specific lines and specific sources of wind, solar, and other power sources, and load levels, and also hourly data, on wind, solar, loads, including the transmission system, generation specifics, etc, all simulated hourly to see if it works together. All utilities do these kinds of studies before building a project or projects. The studies are required by lending institutions to insure the system will work and the monies are not just being wasted. Could you design a mission to Jupiter using only a few spreadsheet calculations that was going to be solar powered with a stopoff at the moon to refuel from a nonexistent space station that has yet to be designed? No, but that is what the Scientific American article by Jacobson is trying to do for the power system.
Q - I understand that Texas is, in fact, building more transmission capacity as we speak. Is that correct?
A - Yes, $5 billion worth of new lines, most to be completed by 2013. And these lines are automatically approved for construction, i.e. they do not have to be justified as non CREZ lines must be cost justified. Here is what the new lines look like: http://www.puc.state.tx.us/electric/maps/CREZ_Map_Attach_A.pdf
Q - you said "These lines take a very long time to construct." Can you
break that down into permitting, pre-construction and construction time
frames as an example. In other words, does it take 5 years to permit, 1 year
pre-consutruction running concurrent, and 2 years construction, or what is
the general timetable based on your experience?
A - The CREZ lines are about as fast as new lines can be approved and built. I would estimate that at least a couple of years is needed to develop a comprehensive plan for new lines. This is a difficult task in itself and CA has not done this as far as I know. Then there needs to be a financing plan and approval from all agencies for the plan. CA has not done this or even has any idea how to do this step. Then alternative routes need to be identified and environmental impacts assessed for the alternative routes. Public meetings are still required. There will be considerable opposition. If the state agencies are not willing to support the utilities building the lines the lines could get hung up indefinitely at this point. In Texas the opposition to new CREZ lines does not seem to be slowing them down, even for cases with claimed environmental impacts. I do not think this will be the case in CA. After all that is done, it may take a couple of years to actually build the lines. In Texas I would say it has taken about five years from start to finish to build the CREZ lines and that is with a climate in which opposition did not delay the lines. In CA I do not think the lines will ever be built. CA can you show us this is incorrect? That you can build new lines?
Q - What is your view of ultra-capacitors as an energy storage medium?
A - Ultracapacitors cannot store large amounts of energy, however they have two important features, long life, and high power discharge. The high power characteristics can be used in EVs to make the EVs perform with jackrabbit starts and stops, which could make EVs the most popular muscle cars around. For utility applications, the ultracapacitors might have some applications for stabilizing grid oscillations. But they do not store enough energy to shift load from peak to off peak or to store solar energy for night time use. Maybe we will see a breakthrough in energy storage. However, imagine for a moment you did have an ultra capacitor that stored a jazillion megajoules of energy. What if it short circuited? It would create such a tremendous explosion that it might level the block. Thats the problem with storing a whole lot of energy in a small space. I once heard a story from a ham radio friend who wanted to discharge an ordinary utility grade capacitor about one cubic foot in size using a rather large screw driver. He thought it was safe. He was wrong. The screwdriver exploded like a stick of dynamite nearly blowing his head off. He was lucky to have survived. All he had in his hand was the screwdriver handle and splattered metal everywhere although much of the metal was vaporized. Its good he had eye protection. Can you think of a way to store much higher amounts of energy - by a factor of one million more times - safely?
Q - If your estimates are correct it would seem that long distance high voltage
transmission is prohibitively expensive and can't be installed in time to
head off climate change.
A - No its not prohibitively expensive. Consider that 500 miles of 500 kV line that cost $3 million per mile and handles 1500 MW is only a cost of $1/watt. If centralized solar cost $5/watt, the transmission adds only one more dollar per watt bringing the cost of centralized solar in the desert to $6/watt. Compare that to $7/watt rooftop solar that produces only about 60% of the energy and you can see that the centralized solar and transmission is much lower in cost than rooftop solar. But the environmentalists don't want to believe that, even though its a fact. On the second point, I don' think that the renewables plan as outlined in the SA nov 09 issue by Jacobson will ever have enough transmission to be realized, and in that sense, I agree that it can not be installed in time to head off climate change.
Q - why do solar and wind projects need to be clustered so far away from
where the power is used? That's the beauty of rooftop solar and other
distributed generation like farm based wind and biogas, it is all over. 20
miles off the southern California coast all the wind, wave, and ocean
current power generation to augment rooftop solar cogeneration, is waiting
to be tapped.
A - because the 80,000 MW is such a large amount of power, the wind and solar is likely to be installed just about everywhere in CA and neighboring states. Even Jacobson recognized the small contribution of rooftop solar as far as being a low energy producer. I don't think CA will ever allow a large set of wind farms just off-shore. If they were allowed, why aren't they there now? What's stopping them? Its either cost or environmental constraints.
Q - As far as a national high voltage direct current power grid, this estimate
of 1500 mw carrying capacity per overhead power line makes buried cables the
obvious alternative. One trench carrying enough conductor cross section and
surrounding insulation instead of 50 seperate overhead lines makes more
sense. What is the status of R&D on HVDC buried transmission cable? Could the
capacity of 50 overhead lines be buried in a freeway median?
A - The cost would be prohibitive, probably about 10 times more expensive.
Q - Given the difficulty and expense, superconducting magnetic energy storage
(SMES) might be used to cut the cost of transmission by acumulating energy
from a national grid to backup each particular region.
A - No, SMES does not contain enough energy to store power for more than a few minutes. SMES does not cut transmission costs. It is used to stabilize a system that has oscillation problems or is unstable in some manner. Your example of a paper mill cutting on and off is an example of SMES smoothing out the transient loads. But thats all it can do. Suppose you could store trillions of joules of energy in a magnetic field or a super rotating flywheel? Now suppose something goes wrong and the energy is released in a flash. It would create an explosion similar to a small nuclear bomb. I don't think we want that piece of equipment around.
Q - One more thing, the expense and time problem involved with long distance
transmission makes rooftop solar and distributed generation and storage
(backup batteries in homes and buildings) combined with conservation efforts
like ground source heating/cooling even more cost effective. San diego county could get 53% of its grid power from rooftop solar
(according to a study), at the old efficiency of 12% for flat panel PV. Use
higher effiociency (up to 38% for 10 sun concentration PV according to NREL
testing) solar cogeneration (collects heat as well as electricty) on roofs,
and cut heating/cooling load with ground source heating/cooling, and fill in
with offshore wind/wave power and San Diego county could be a net power
exporter.
A - No it doesn't. Work up the numbers and see the cost. Use $7/watt rooftop solar and 14% capacity factor (not related to efficiency). A 5 kW house installation costs about $35000. If SDGE load is about 3000 MW in 2010 (looking at the load flow data), and you wanted to get 53% of its peak load from rooftop solar, that would be about 1600 MW of solar and cost about $11 billion dollars. So how much daily energy will that 1600 MW of solar roof top panels produce? Lets assume San Diego's average daily energy is about 60% of its peak based on 3000 MW (I'm just guessing the 60% value). The daily energy on average would be about 3000*.6*24 = 43200 MWh. The roof top solar panels would produce 1600*.14*24 = 5376 MWh daily. This is about 12.5% of the daily energy. The other 87.5% of the energy would have to come from other sources. The rooftop solar panels do not supply the base load energy which would come from hydro, coal, or nuclear energy. Some might come from wind. Can people really afford to spend 11 billion on such a low energy producing source? Seems like too low an energy return on the energy invested.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 10:33 pm
28 Oct 2009
If, in fact, these issues have not been adequately evaluated then we are in for some challenges. I am going to see if I can figure out who to talk to about the 20% and 33% studies, especially now that we are discussing transmission needs. You might be interested in the RETI link I refereed you to earlier.
We all live and learn, especially if one lives long enough to know better. I was struck with the movie-gag style of testing with a screwdriver, but that could have easily been a tragic, life altering or deadly accident. Oh my god, high power large scale capacitors are no playthings, unless the game is "you bet your life." There are definitely some safety issues which need to be driven home when we talk about home technology and storage media. But that is why we have good engineers - well paid and happy.
Incidentally, I believe that the two long transmission lines out of Wyoming to carry wind power, I believe are going to be HVDC.
Finally, I use 3.7 kW for $22,700 retail based on what I have seen advertised in San Diego. My estimates for just installing 2000 MW was about $12.7 billion, not counting storage, and that does not count MWhrs, just installed capacity not accounting for the actual number of MWhrs produced. As you say, 14% (I use 20%), so multiply by 5 or 6 times in order to get a full 2000 MW producing full capacity.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 3:52 am
29 Oct 2009
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 4:24 am
29 Oct 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:27 pm
28 Oct 2009
On your point about the cost of buried HVDC. I realized that to carry 50 times the current of one overhead tower mounted HVDC system, one would need a cross sectional area of conductor equal to 50 times that of the overhead wire. That is 7 times the diameter. So a 14 inch buried conductor would carry 50 times the power of a 2 inch overhead cable.
The insulation required would also be 7 times that of the overhead cable. Why would this be prohibitively expensive given mass production and installation efficiencies?
For example: if Hoover Dam would have been built with crews with cement mixers, it would have cost a thousand times as much and would have taken a thousand years.
Factory assembly line produced conductor sections and channel installed with automated robotic equipment in freeway medians could beat the cost of running 50 overhead tower transmission systems? Maybe by a factor of 100?
As in WW II war production (Obama mentioned it in his Arcadia Fla. speech, hehey) a lot of inovation will take place as this green manufacturing revolution proceeds.
Superconducting magnetic storage explosions? Seems a bit farfetched, hehey. All sorts of industrial electrical safety systems are employed now to prevent explosions when handling huge amounts of power. Along with R&D on SMES that can store enough power to backup the grid for hours, until backup generation kicks in, the safety R&D would need to be done.
I envision distributed renewable energy backup generation in the form of fuel cell/turbine cogeneration using stored biogas with natural gas as the fossil fallback. Would we still need a bit of natural gas, say 1% of emergency backup, with a smart grid and national electron superhighway? I think so. But the low consumption would ensure that supplies last for centuries.
Uh dan, on your $7 per watt estimate on rooftop solar, Ithink that cost could come down to around $2 with mass production. The kwh cost is most important.
How would solar with 3 times the efficiency 38% versus 12%) and 1/10th the PV material that collects heat for hot water, saving kwhs for domestic hot water heating, compare to the per kwh cost of other sources like wind and large scale solar furnace power.
I think it would compete. Until then subsidies could fill in the gap to get the mass production going. Shift subsidies from fossil fuel to renewables and it can get done in a tax and deficit neutral way.
Hmmm, "the sun doesn't shine at night?", hehey. That's why diverse sources and a smart grid are needed.
Floating wind/wave/ocean current platforms off your cost, far enough so NIMBYs can't see them, farm biogas and other waste stream biomass distributed fuel cell cogeneration, rooftop solar, factory mounted solar furnace cogeneration (that store solar heat in molten salt for nigh time power generation), it's all part of the big renewable source..modulated by a smart grid that also adjusts load, it will be more reliable than the old central power grid.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 4:02 am
29 Oct 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:13 am
29 Oct 2009
From WorldChanging.com:
The US National Renewable Energy Laboratory just held a conference on photovoltaic concentration technology in Scottsdale, Arizona. Among the announcements: the availability of PV concentration systems with efficiencies close to 40% at concentrated sunlight levels.
At the conference, NREL announced a new record efficiency of 37.9 percent at 10 suns, a measure of concentrated sunlight. Soon thereafter Boeing-Spectrolab, under contract to NREL and the Department of Energy, surpassed the NREL record with 39.0 percent at 236 suns announced at the European photovoltaic conference in Barcelona, Spain.
This should allow PV concentration system makers to reach their near-term goal of a $3/watt installed price, roughly competitive with other forms of power generation.
http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003127.html
So what you are saying is that running 50 seperate cables overhead, with the same amount of copper and 7 times the insulation, would cost far less than a buried cable? They have the same amount of copper. 50 seperate paths with related lawsuits and permitting nightmares and huge towers versus one buried line. The buried cable placxed in freeway median right-of-way with no right-of-way problems, it's all federal already.
Ok, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
On solar cost, it could follow the same cost reduction curve as PCs have followed. My 10 year olds computer cost 4000 bucks, my new 400 dollar computer is many times faster and better. The concentrating solar cogeneration inovation has not even hit the factory floor yet.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 1:41 pm
29 Oct 2009
You mentioned the unsightly appearance of wires overhead. First, a clarification. The line that I was talking about is three wires for a single three phase AC transmission line. Even an underground line would have three phases or three main conductors. Also I was not talking about a single cable replacing 50 wires. The 50 I was talking about was not 50 wires, but 50 power lines. These are usually put in pairs of lines on a tower (6 wires). So that one tower would have two of these making 25 sets of towers, but not all on the same Right Of Way. To keep reliability high the lines would need to be in several locations from Canada to ElPaso running east - west. You would see only one ot two sets of towers at any one location. AEP shows how the use of 765 kV transmission can reduce the number of lines needed in a ROW to transfer the same amount of power, see the bottom of this web page: http://www.aep.com/about/transmission/transmissionqa.aspx so raising the voltage is one way to reduce the number of lines that are needed.
Buried lines have less capacity than overhead lines because its difficult to use the highest voltages on underground lines and also the heating of the wires underground limits the current they can carry. There is research on suberconducting cables, but these are still in the experimental stages and the cost is not cheap. I wouldn't plan on using suberconducting cables for our problem. Why don't we think about how to design a system that does not need all these lines? Isn't that what we all want?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:15 pm
29 Oct 2009
What has been clear for a long while is that the old saw "if it could work it would already have been done" isn't conducive to exploration of new technology. Ask the Wright brothers, their first flight wasn't reported in the New York Times until 4 years after it happened. The times fell back on the old saw.
Hmmm, a coindidence? The NREL report was from 2005.
You were talking 3 phase AC? HVDC is the standard now for long distance transmission. Are we back in the 1950s? Hehey.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:33 pm
29 Oct 2009
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
So three overhead AC conductors handle 1500 mw safely? and it would take 50 of these systems to transport power from the solar installation to the city? I wonder what 500 kilo-volt HVDC would handle?
It's used for moving Canadian hydropower down to our cities here in the US. There must be some data on that. This whole topic needs study.
I'm also a bit skeptical of the idea that the whole 80,000 mega watts (the output of 80 nukes or coal power plants) needs to be transported from a specific generating location to a specific city. With a national electron supperhighway only a fraction of that would need to be transported.
Mainly only backup power would need to go over the national grid for regions with a temporay solar or wind drought to augment other regional distributed backup generation and storage.
Working with the old central "dumb" grid model, where guys on telephones throw switches and start up power plants, is just not a realistic picture of how a distributed smart grid is going to operate.
Permalink
Daniel Coffey Posted 10:34 am
29 Oct 2009
followed. My 10 year olds computer cost 4000 bucks, my new 400 dollar computer is many times faster and better. The concentrating solar cogeneration inovation has not even hit the factory floor yet."
As attractive as the PC model may be, what has happened in connection with that market is more intellectual property has been costed and incorporated into smaller amounts of materials and coupled with very low labor costs off-shore to meet these new low cost specifications.
That is not the same model as power production which requires more copper and bigger equipment to handle bigger voltages and amps. The physics of the situation are entirely different. That's not to say that improvements won't be made, but you have to look at how and what the technology will change, and what will remain the same.
MOreover, what Gene is referring to is the ancillary equipment and housings, a good deal of which would be needed in connection with concentrating light on solar panels. Hence, the price associated with the ancillary equipment must also be considered.
The laws of physics don't take a holiday with bulk power and electricity.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:58 pm
29 Oct 2009
Funny stuff! I guess the guys at NREL need a refresher course, care to school them?
Do you know why a cable 7 times the diameter carries 50 times the power? Answer that and maybe you can get the NREL guys to sit in your class.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 1:18 am
30 Oct 2009
Ok I admit that compound parabolic louvers or trough systems that ratchet up or down depending on season are not tracking. However I seriously doubt that mom and pop are going to put these parabolic dishes on their properties. The point I was making is that this technology is beyond what can be implemented by mom and pop.
Yes, you can use HVDC, and there is new technology, however most HVDC uses overhead lines. HVDC is great for long distance transmission. HVDC has been used in WECC for decades to bring hydro power from the Pacific NW to southern CA. Its very likely that the eastern US grid, Texas, and the western system will be connected via DC lines. Also there are many DC ties between Canada and the US and a few to Mexico.
Concerning the smart gird, I was one of the persons on the SGIG evaluation team. As stated in this article this morning http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40809 I was also a little disappointed that the applications I reviewed were not more advanced. The utilities are a little slow to change. There is a lot of inertia in the system (investments) and limited financial resources to make changes. Certainly the utilities today are not at the level of "guys on telephones throwing switches to start up power plants" ha ha. However they are struggling with integrating wind into the system because of the high loadings on power lines and the effect wind is having on other non wind power plants. Let me give you an equivalent idea you may be able to relate to better. Suppose you have an interstate highway system with smooth traffic flow. Now introduce some cars on the freeway that vary their speed up and down all the time. It disrupts the traffic flow. So we have to build new lanes (lines) to put the wind generators (sputtering cars) on so that the original cars (24/7 generators) can get around them without causing traffic jams. This is a crude equivalent to what is happening to the electric grid. Before wind we had a smoothly operating coordinated system that was planned in advance each day and the operators could relax and have plenty of time to drinking coffee. Now they are in an excited state in which they are running around all the time pulling their hair out trying to keep the whole system from falling apart. That is what wind is doing to system operations. Also, some of the big base load generators are being jerked around. This would be like constant braking and accelerating by 18 wheelers. It would kill their efficiency and cause their rigs to wear out faster, which is what is happening right now to the power plants in the system in ERCOT (Texas).
I will admit 80,000 MW is probably too much. However, what if the WECC (western system) load at night time were 40,000 MW and was completely dependent on wind power. If the wind was not blowing, WECC would need to import that power. That means that the other system must have at least 40,000 MW reserve and the lines to that other region must be able to carry 40,000 MW. In a system where the generators are dependable 24/7 you don't need these tie lines because you could depend on the generators within WECC to supply the night time power. That's the currnet system. But with 100% wind, you cannot depend on there being 40,000 MW of wind every night of the year. Therefore the variability of wind forces you to install tie lines to other areas that do have wind they could supply to WECC.
Now this has some interesting consequences. First, we have to overbuild the other area by 40,000 MW so they will have the power to supply WECC, which implies that WECC should return the favor and also overbuild their wind by 40,000 MW so WECC could supply power to the other grids when the other regions do not have wind. This discussion shows that when the power sources are variable and not 100% dependable, then there will need to be an overbuilding of wind in all areas and strong tie lines will be needed between the areas. This overbuilding and additional lines tieing the areas together adds cost to the overall system plan.
Probably the need for tie lines can be reduced by investing in battery storage. But that is also very expensive. To estimate the cost of battery storage use $1/watt for the power rating of the equipment plus $0.4/WattHour for the cost of the batteries themselves. I saw several different schemes for energy storage and they all fall into about this same cost. The interesting storage is the Redox battery in which a liquid contains the energy and large tanks of that liquid can be used to store significant amounts of energy. However this liquid still has only a fraction of the energy content of gasoline, so its not suitable for powering electric cars and thats too bad because it would be the perfect solution for moving cars off carbon.
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 11:43 am
29 Oct 2009
There are a number of factors that affect the real world performance of PV, and like anything else cost is a factor. 20% is an achievable capacity factor in the much of the SW.
Some of your numbers could be interpreted as being on the conservative side. Reputable panel manufacturers have moved a long ways in recent years in the output labeling of the various types of PV eff, (conversion of irradiance to energy) using both Lab type testing (STC) and real world (PTC). The different types of commonly available Polycrystalline- Mono Crystalline- Thin Film also have different important co-eff. factors that a reputable and informed dealer will use for achieving the best performance per application. Actual wattage rating per sq meter of area conversion are usually a consideration of space available on a roof or rack. The Co Eff factors that are worth considering but are not limited to are: typical site conditions such as average ambient temps., annual average irradiance at the specific site, mounting options, fixed or tracking, and of course consumer use patterns. This is perhaps the most important to gain the biggest bang for the buck!
While high eff panels and combined thermal/elec systems are being researched as DRX notes these technologies have not entered yet the market, and their cost effectiveness have yet to be determined. However there is high potential for these in CHP type apps. As you note Inverter( DC-AC) eff are a factor of money spent.Typically Domestic and Euro types of grid tied inverters now achieve 90-95 % conversion eff. These tend to go decades of mean time before failure , coupled with good PV, these are expected to be 20-30 year investments, perhaps more.
Coupling a thoughtful installation with rate payer subsidized incentives, tax credits, and perhaps a real Feed in Tariff, and you may have a formula for parity with fossil fueled centralized generation and transmission.This is dependent upon a thorough analysis of ALL levelized cost! I doubt that an unbiased research has ever been done, I have seen many over the years. These have run the gamut of summations. If you know of one, please refer. Additionally the roof top consumer base has tended to be affluent, higher tier consumers. Higher penetration to a full consumer base would affect the costs to benefit ratios.
In California, Time of Use offers consumers even greater opportunities for return on investment. Solar matches peak load better than other RE technology. So like all things, cooperative engagement is a factor in ultimate success of any application. This one just has more value stream to rate payers than other models, but indeed may have factors such as grid impacts and how strategies will be deployed to overcome intermittency, but as you know DG and Distributed Storage strategies could apply...
I am aware of folks who have applied some of these strategies and have reached roof top costs of $4.00 per watt. out of pocket. I've heard of lower but do not know as fact.
Societal costs including GHG and Electricity rate impacts all are worth factoring in. Complex but worth looking at as many are now doing. I concur, commodity and labor are huge variables, but these are full of complexities and prone to speculation and manipulation. Centralized or Distributed benefits? The jury is out...
Thanks,
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 9:54 am
30 Oct 2009
You got the 7 squared reference I see. Oh yeah lots of factorsarew in play, especially with AC. With DC not so many, the carrying capacity would be closer to that square factor. That's why DC is better for a long distance grid, lower losses as the wiki article explains. In fact AC is almost impossible to bury with high voltage high power circuits, because of capacitive loss to ground.
This also makes HVDC buried cables act like huge capacitors, an interesting phenomenon that may actually help with storage someday.
BTW how big are the three phase conductors in the example you cite?
On the heating effect in the cables: do they sag at a critical temperature which limits the power transmission? No sag problems in a cable channel, with water cooling and ground source cooling or even waste heat recovery who knows what the upper limit would be? How about a hollow conductor with water flow down the center?
Overhead wires are limited in their options for cooling. And extremely vulnerable to weather. As the volatuility of storms increeases due to climate change we are seeing more 300 mph tornadoes. That kind of wind wipes out any overhead power system, one can't be designed economically to resist that wind force, as the power in the wind varies with the cube of the wind speed.
Only buried cable could survive in storms this severe. Present economic losses due to storm outage are 75 billion per year (?), I think that was Obama's figure in the solar farm speech the other day. A distributed generation and storage smart grid with buried connections and diverse energy sources and backup, would even allow individual businesses to stay open in a hurricane. During Katrina, motorists were stranded trying to escape as gas stations lost power and couldn't sell the gas they had.
It can't be done?! Think WW II, how did all that "impossible" technology get created? How did mass production win the war? The films of German war production compared to US assembley lines is very striking.
I think a buried HVDC national grid that maybe carries 10 power plant's worth of power, 10,000 megawatts, on the main lines would be sufficient. Feeder lines to individual power projects, like windfarms or large solar installations could carry 2,000 megawatts, 2 power plants worth of electricty.
I think it's a reasonable design criterion, and a more realistic hypothetical that a grid powered by one wind farm exclusively (no other sources, no backup, no storage, no distributed smart grid control over load) where 80 power plants worth of electricty needs to be supplied to one city.
ps. I'm a former television transmitter engineer, handling high voltage, high current power systems, AC and DC and even radio frequency was my job. Klystrons! Hehey.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:08 am
30 Oct 2009
This also makes it great for joining wind farms to the grid. Will wind machines one day have vertical axis rotors with high voltage generators on the ground (instead of up on a tower) that join right up to an HVDC underground cable loop?
Will nanotech yield capacitive storage that can operate at that same high voltage and even capacitance effect generators? Instead of magnets, they use the electrostatic effect of rotating plates passing over stationary plates to turn mechanical energy into high voltage pulses.
I can see 1000 foot tall tri-leg towers with auto furling sail "wings" all the way up the tower legs, riding on wheels on a 1000 foot diameter circular track with high voltage generators on the ground feeding buried HVDC. Am I hallucinating or could these generate 20 megawatts? Hehehey.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 10:20 am
30 Oct 2009
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 7:07 pm
30 Oct 2009
At a glance some of your calculation need review and perhaps revising.
Start with your methodology to obtain your Cap Factor for roof top PV. Sound cap factors are based on Solar Insolation at specific location and actual module exposure, tracked or fixed. So this is a pliable figure. Find a chart to check a specific location in the US...http://www.go-solar.com/Pvinsolation.html
(24hrs)(.15)=3.6 Might be a little conservative, especially if you are in the southern US.
Fairbanks Alaska gets 3.99 Ave Solar Insolation.
Next your Inverter (DC-AC) eff Check manufacturers spec on three of the most common Grid Tied Inverters installed today, (OUTBACK,SUNNYBOY,XANTREX) All three are above 93% with one at 96%
Another thing that is better to buy domestic.
I also see quite a bit of squishiness in your totals, while your generation to generation comparison might be reasonable, Where are your Transmission & Distribution input figures in the modeling? It sounds like you might be omitting the source of revenue for your consulting firm. A review of a utility bill without the proposed upgrades to centralized RE, show some substantial charges. Based on your previous post, You know this could go through the roof, depending on RE development scenarios.
Food for thought? In California all upgrades whether it is a Smart Meter or a 500 KV DCTL go through a ratemaking process at the PUC. Any upper tier user sees that a high percentage of their bill is in T&D charges.
A 10000KWH annual consumer is in this category, and probably needs to have an energy audit done. I digress.
The infrastructure costs need to be included in you modeling. Micro Grid vs Centralized... All needs to be levelized.
Thanks for posting.
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 5:22 pm
31 Oct 2009
With a little more thought about your calcs, I realized that since you are assuming the rate payers position in the determination of benefit to cost ratio.
Your centralized gen cost are in essence the WHOLESALE cost that the merchant generation owner would incur on initial development, these would certainly need the inclusion of operation and maintenance,ROI, as well as T&D and who knows what number of additional support facilities with some RE scenarios. Where is the guaranteed rate of return for the Investor owned utility. What else are you forgetting?
So the RETAIL customer would not benefit as you suggest in your summation;
"So why are we so interested in rooftop solar when it is clearly uneconomical compared to centralized solar?"
A merchant generation owner or transmission owner would possibly have these perspectives.
Additionally missing in your comparative analysis is that the retail customer would realize benefits from net metering that would move them in to lower tiers, if not net O KWH generation charges on the monthly bill.
Imagine what a Feed In Tariff for rooftop would do to the rate payers bottom line.
Its quite a bit more complex than you suggest. Myself as well. Lots to ponder...
Who benefits economically in the end?
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 7:33 am
02 Nov 2009
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 10:58 am
02 Nov 2009
Clearly you are missing the point or you choose to put blinders on, Your perspective is mixing the wholesale and retail values and does not reflect all the benefits behind the meter. Which is the basic premise of your summary.
A small point first. You inverter eff are typical... of cheap imports!
Granted every input could change even depending on "location". If I lived in Midland TX, and had some open space I'd have a small wind genny flying in the yard. If I was in Phoenix AZ, or Bakersfeild Ca, My property would have Solar Thermal and PV knocking my BTUs and KWH into lower teirs. Hence the need to apply the MOST local solutions FIRST. And then scale up gradually to look at the centralized stuff, with ALL of the ancillary costs that the RATE PAYER will bear.
BTW, I've never heard of a small utility owned subdivision. What is that?
Perhaps you mean a subdivision that becomes a merchant generator... A micro grid concept, one worthy of a much more thorough accounting.
Too many factors remain unaccounted for in your oversimplified analysis.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 1:27 pm
02 Nov 2009
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 2:35 pm
02 Nov 2009
Excuse me for misunderstanding the models in your comparison.I thought we were staying topical to Mr Farrel's article. I was not clear that you were doing an island to centralized comparison.
Your calcs would still need to include a huge number of variables, one being intentional communities typically do not use industrial models to build their infrastructure nor would they necessarily mimic the consumption that centralized culture tends to provide. Very hard to do an apples to apples or oranges comparison.
I know of similar type of cooperative endeavors, they do tend to suffer the same typical societal drawbacks of some parties having to carry the unequal burden of another's. Satisfaction tends to be the brain of the beholder. One always needs more than another. Humans are just kinda funny that way.
However, apples to apples you still must include ancillary infrastructure and for profit ownership in your models. because your summary will not be correct without these inputs. I doubt that you have the time or the resources to do fully do this. Nor is it necessary because the community model you use will likely never happen. The hybrid local/connected is what is now and the subject of contention.
This all leads me to feel self reliance for energy has the greatest appeal.(caveat when possible and economical)
Consumption adjustments are mandatory for measurable success. A non starter for most folks and their ideals.
Simplicity is best achieved with simple inputs. Electricity is no different in this regard. How many gazillion watts are just unused heat with todays model? Do you really think this will improve? I have NOT even seen any definitive proof of GHG reduction with proposed RPS solutions. Nor do I expect to. Too much squishiness and uncertainty.
All is complex enough!
Best Wishes, Ron
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 3:38 pm
02 Nov 2009
Permalink
ron dickerson Posted 12:15 am
03 Nov 2009
Permalink
TomBlees Posted 1:30 am
03 Nov 2009
Wonderful! Then consider yourself sold on newks. Read this book, and open your eyes to a brighter future. Welcome to the revolution!
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 5:46 am
03 Nov 2009
Is it to build waste neutralizing reactors that retrofit into existing nuclear sites? As far as I can see it is the only way to deal with the waste problem and it will also generate power.
The problem is that this technology does not exist in any affordable, safe, mass producible form. If a design could be developed it would take at least 10 years, probably 20 to actually deploy.
Nuclear advocates talk about Russian designs started in the soviet era for instance, but how can any research coming from that sphere be trusted? There is far less oversight there than even the criminally negligent revolving door fake NRC "regulation" here.
Permalink
Gene Preston Posted 8:10 am
03 Nov 2009
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 11:23 pm
03 Nov 2009
Plug this in if you have a supercomputer at work (hehey):
One apropriately sized biogas/natural gas fuel cell/turbine backup generator at a local factory, landfill, or municipal facility for every 100 to 1000 homes or equivalent load.
Battery backup for 20 hours of emergency power in every building that is also used to store power through a smart grid to adjust supply and demand. And electric cars with storage that can be used the same way.
Rooftop solar on buildings connected to the smart grid that can also recharge backup batteries in emergency outages.
Regional, wind, wave, solar furnace factory cogeneration backed up by natural gas fuel cell cogeneration, and PV farm installations connected through a national grid sized to take into account the inherent increased stability from the smart grid with local distributed generation and storage.
And last but not least, heat/cold storage in factories, buildings and appliances (like freezers) that is charged up by ground source heating/cooling, that uses excess power when it's available and shuts down when needed. The stored heating/cooling capacity would let the factory furnace, building or appliance coast at the required stable temperature.
Could nukes and coal plants be rendered unecessary by some combination of these devices that would actually reduce energy costs over time? Remember the electric cars would save a lot of oil related costs, including oil wars and periodic recessions. Obama claimed the cost of grid power storm outage is 75 billion per year in lost GDP.
Permalink
TomBlees Posted 7:04 pm
03 Nov 2009
You've seen enough of what I've written here, X, to know. The Integral Fast Reactor is a proven technology from our own Argonne National Laboratory, where our top nuclear scientists recycled tens of thousands of fuel pins during and after the IFR project. Just because our government foolishly decided not to follow through for political reasons with a commercial facility in no way validates your claim "that this technology does not exist in any affordable, safe, mass producible form." The electrorefining process is simple and used on a daily basis by numerous companies. The components are fully modular and can be readily mass-produced. The amount of material that would be recycled in a 2 gigawatt IFR power plant would amount to only about a gallon a day. These facilities could be housed in a space not much bigger than a garage.
Before we use these reactors to retrofit current light water reactor power plants, we should most certainly use them to retrofit coal-fired power plants, both here and overseas. That way we can avoid the massive stranded costs that would be the result of shutting down serviceable but polluting coal plants, and create zero-emission power plants that use the same cooling systems, generators, switchyards, etc. Only the burner changes.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 10:54 pm
03 Nov 2009
But why use them to replace coal, wouldn't it be wiser to start with the oldest most dangerous plants or even already shut down plants first, retrofit them as a test bed? then begin to treat the dangerously stored waste we already have?
A few years of secure testing will be needed even if test data does already exist on the design. Mass production for cost reduction is another can of worms that will have to be developed while testing goes forward.
Get them going and shut down coal as you get them online. I hate to admit it, as I oppose nuclear power, but we can't let the waste just sit there, it's our responsibility, this generation to handle it. Gotta step up, like past generations did in world wars. It's true for this new energy economy too. It's got to get done, now.
Permalink
TomBlees Posted 1:03 am
04 Nov 2009
By the time we get IFRs into mass production, most of the LWRs are going to be pretty close to the end of their service lives anyway. At that point we can look at the associated infrastructure (turbines, which will in many cases have already been replaced), cooling systems, switchyards, etc. If it seems economical and sensible to continue to use/rebuild that infrastructure, it'll be easy enough to do a retrofit. But we've got to get the coal plants shut down ASAP.
I know it's a psychological leap to support nuclear power when you've been opposed to it for years. But being able to look at this new technology and reject a knee-jerk aversion to it is something that many, many people have been struggling with and accomplishing. It's not just a matter of disposing of nuclear waste. It's a question of whether you want to live in an energy-rich or an energy-poor world. There is no question that this system will work, it was proven in spades. Just last week South Korea announced that they're planning on using the IFR to solve their own energy challenges, including spent fuel from LWRs. What would be ideal would be for the USA to build the commercial prototype that could become the world standard design, since we already designed it and it's safer than any nuclear power plant design ever conceived (according to the risk assessment studies). As things stand now, South Korea and India and China and others are working to reinvent the wheel. The USA could lead the world to that energy-rich future if we decide to do it. I sincerely hope we will make that decision in the affirmative.
Permalink