Cross posted at the NDN blog.
-----
Should the federal government build or incent others to build a new electron superhighway? In other words, a backbone for a 21st century electrical grid? At NDN's recent event on clean infrastructure, Rep. Jay Inslee (D-Wash.) asked precisely that question, and it's one more and more energy leaders are asking.
Our current grid, as former CIA Director Jim Woolsey has noted, resembles nothing so much as the road system before interstates were built. Had President Eisenhower not built the interstate system after observing the autobahns in Germany and fretting over the difficulty of moving an army from one end of America to the other, our roads would be a network of streets, shopping boulevards, and country roads, slowed by trucks as well as tolls. There would be no easy way to travel between one large city and another, and trade and distribution of goods would be drastically hampered.
This is precisely the situation we have today in the world of electricity, where mid-20th century wires are now tasked with carrying 21st century loads and tolls are collected by dozens of utilities along the way. As a result, instead of a national market in electricity, we have a balkanized patchwork of local fiefdoms, each with vastly different prices. Electricity producers face obstacles in moving their electrons to market -- hardly an ideal solution.
How would an electron superhighway work? One proposal by the Energy Department would build major high-voltage (765KV) trunk lines traveling east to west and north to south, particularly in the under served center of the country. Like Interstates 10, 40, 80, and 90 which link the east and west and Interstates 5, 55, and 95 (as well as those in between) which link the north and south, these large roads would facilitate long-distance movement of power. Relieved of this burden, utilities could focus their resources on localized distribution. While the proposal might cost $60 billion to $100 billion, (a weekend's worth of bailout money), the long-term benefits would be tremendous. In fact, the proposal could be financed through a minuscule tax of less than a penny on the average monthly utility bill.
A particularly interesting approach to building an electron superhighway would be to run the cables underground. No one wants a high voltage transmission line running anywhere near their home, leading to complex obstacles to siting new lines. Additionally, underground lines are far more expensive than overhead ones, and it is harder to identify problems when they occur. However, new superconducting wire (eliminating almost all the resistance in a wire by cooling it down using liquid nitrogen) that can be laid in a three-foot trench -- and is already being implemented in Long Island -- could be run underneath bike-paths, along roads, and in other unobtrusive places. While this technology is new -- proven in pilot projects and now being tested at scale -- it could revolutionize long-distance power transmission.
The interstate highway system is not the only model for moving goods. The internet backbone, though jump-started by federal investment, is run privately for profit. Similarly, private companies own the long-distance natural gas pipes. And private companies own the railroads.
Of these, the internet system is probably least illustrative because it remains unregulated. Natural gas is produced at a comparatively limited number of points, simplifying its long-distance transportation requirements. America's rail system, a relic of the 19th century, is probably not a model for a ubiquitous electricity network.
It may be that federal ownership is not necessary. However, a national tax on electricity would certainly be easier to implement than hundreds of individual rate cases -- the traditional method for funding investment. Important obstacles to greater federal involvement in electricity remain, however, in the form of state regulators and some utilities that have traditionally opposed a larger federal role.
As America confronts its 21st century challenges, in particular, developing a grid that can facilitate a national electricity market and also accommodate decentralized generation of renewable power, the idea of an electron superhighway merits serious attention. At a very minimum, work should accelerate on how to implement an electricity backbone. Quoting Albert Einstein, FERC Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff remarked at NDN's clean infrastructure event, "physics is easy, politics is hard."
Comments
View as Flat
Bob Wallace Posted 2:08 am
26 Nov 2008
On a more local scale we have a set of transmission lines connecting us here behind the Redwood Curtain with the outside world of the central valleys of the state.
I could stick an electron in the pipe here on the isolated coast on which I live and it could turn up in Seattle, San Diego, Nevada, and I assume the other Southwest states such as Arizona, New Mexico, and Colorado. Then up to Utah....
I would think that most of the country is connected in some way to regional grids. Those grids already control real estate. People have more or less made their piece with the big wires running through their areas.
HVDC is a very effective (low loss) way to ship power. That means that we can forgo the most direct/shortest distance route if it means less money for new real estate and fewer permit problems.
Upgrade/replace existing towers if they aren't engineered to carry the extra weight. String some new wires.
Where are the gaps in the country that have to be bridged? Where would we have to establish new transmission routes?
Are there already railroad right of ways that could be used?
Permalink
ssn139 Posted 5:49 am
26 Nov 2008
The "at scale" test in Long Island is 2,000ft long. While this helps a lot in densely populated place like New York, where space is limited and expensive, it is not exactly to scale with what would be needed to transmit renewable electricity from plants located hundreds of miles from population centers.
That said, if superconducting wire was scaled up to longer lengths and made less expensive, it would improve energy efficiency by 3-4%, which is currently being lost to friction.
The Finite World. A resources and energy blog.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 6:36 pm
26 Nov 2008
If so, burying cables and going to the huge bother and expense of surrounding them w liquid nitrogen for such a puny gain seems pointless.
?
Whiskerfish
Permalink
stopgreenpath Posted 5:30 am
27 Nov 2008
this article, like 90% of the others i see on this subject, is an argument for more dependence, less reliability, more monopolies, less opportunity for ratepayers, more eminent domain, less job creation, more Big Energy pricing and supply manipulation, and less economic stimulus.
clearly, if one spends more than 10 minutes thinking about the Best Way, rather than a bandaid on the Old Crappy Way, we will come to the conclusion that structures should be as close to Net Zero as possible, with some producing more power than they use (and getting PAID for it, via feed in tariffs) and some needing more power than they produce (with them PAYING) for it.
the Big Remote Combustion, Long Transmission, Robber Baron era is OVER. we need to fight for our rights as taxpayers, ratepayers, land owners, and access holders to public lands and STOP the rape of our open spaces and citizenry to prop up Big Energy profiteering in an era where Sun and Wind are going to be dominant "fuels."
generous feed in tariffs and generous tax credits for point of use generation/conservation/storage will rapidly scale up renewable energy, will reduce demand, will efficiently use existing grid, will provide economic stimulus - both in LOCAL skilled jobs, and in checks going to homeowners - and will keep our desert carbon sinks and wildlife habitats functioning as they are supposed to function.
this whole Big (ahem) "Renewables" interim step is super destructive, super expensive, and will only guarantee that there is no money left for US. please support local, point of use solutions and incentives, and make sure your legislators know we are opposed to Big Energy monopolists getting yet another massive handout.
the greenest energy is that which you needn't ever produce.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:04 am
28 Nov 2008
The old central fully dispatchable dumb grid had to be over built, it works on the brownout, blackout plagued model that the electrical system has to be designed for the greatest possible load, ie., everyone turning on everything in their home, all factories at peak demand, and a heat wave that melts transformers all happening at once.
We see how reliable that model is.
A smart grid can control and time demand and store power for later needs, that reduces peaks to a manageable level. For instance, it can use ground source cooling to cool a mall when supply peaks, then that coolness stored in the floor allows the building to coast through the rest of the 24 hour cycle.
The government already owns the right of way on which power lines, pipelines, train tracks, and cables for information travel, private companies own the wires, tracls, and pipe. We the people could actually exert power through our legislators to creat an electron superhighway out of that mess.
But it would take smart grid techology to measure and keep accounting for the flow. That is ready to happen. It could use 50 billion and building a few more HVDC lines berween high energy supply regions and high demand regions could use the other 50 billion. that's a good compromise.
Incentivize smart grids and build out a few more key power lines. Without a way to measure power flow to and from suppliers and consumers, through tansporting companies, how can legislation free up the flow from monopoly forces?
It can't, and that's how monopoly industries like it. Central control. Big power plants, big nukes, big coal, big (evil, earth destroying) mess.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 1:42 pm
28 Nov 2008
We've got a zillion players in the energy production/distribution game. There's no company called "Big Evil".
Sure, companies would like to maximize their profit. Just like you'd like to minimize your expense. (And that doesn't make you "Little Evil".)
Without big players we're all going to be sitting around in the dark. It takes an economy of scale to make energy affordable. (Except, perhpas, for those very few individuals who have year-round hydro potential.)
Because of the nature of transmission/distribution it pretty much has to be either a government owned or single-company owned grid. I'll opt for a privately owned grid with reasonable levels of government regulation to avoid the evil side of monopolization.
We've got a pretty good system. Spend some time in a less developed country and see if your opinion isn't modified.
It does need serious upgrading and some regulation tweaks.
Individuals should be able to sell power back to the grid at something close to wholesale price. Being small providers they might not be entitled to full wholesale price.
We're going to be moving to a smart grid. We're just setting up the test versions at the moment. but "sorta-net metering" is something that the smart grid will give. Along with being able to "rent" your BEV/PHEV batteries back to the grid for grid smoothing.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:01 pm
28 Nov 2008
Big does not equate with evil automatically, absolute power has to be mixed into the witch's brew. Mwhahaha...hehey.
Can local renewable power coops keep the lights on without mega-monopolists? Absolutely.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 3:37 pm
28 Nov 2008
Congratulations! ;o)
But in the third paragraph you return to the topic being discussed....
Can a local renewable power coop keep the lights on without mega-monopolists?
Sure. At least in some locations. But keep the lights on at reasonable prices? Sometimes....
If you're talking about Buffalo New York, then it might work. Just use all that good power falling off that big falls.
Of course if they had to start from scratch, where would they get the money to build?
How about some place in mid-state NY that doesn't have hydro, goes for months without decent solar, doesn't have enough harvestable wind?
Big enough and well-regulated very big is the solution in my mind. A somewhat free market will create an economy of scale and bring price efficiencies with competition.
Where there is no ability for the market to operate we have to regulate.
Can local renewable power coops build large wind turbines on their own? Can they set up wind farms 500, a thousand miles away and ship in power?
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 4:04 pm
28 Nov 2008
Can huge wind machines and long distance power lines be built without monopolies? Yep, even that can be done with good old fashioned competitive capitalism, no too-big-to-fail socialist/corporate entities that beg for government bail out at the first sign of recession needed.
The full range of renewable/conservation energy options informs a different paradigm of distributed power production, instituted over 10 to 20 years it can replace the old centralized grid model. Can it replace coal, nukes, and gas guzzling by next week? Nope.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink
Bob Wallace Posted 5:00 pm
28 Nov 2008
That entity is going to have monopolistic control over the shipment of power from point of generation to point of consumption.
You are not going to see a half dozen companies build transmission lines and then bidding against each other to see who gets the contract to carry the power while the others sit idle.
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 2:11 am
29 Nov 2008
Since the public owns the right-of-way on which these lines are run, a better plan would be to regulate the grid so that it creates a real free market in electricity.
Without reform, a change in the present state of monopoly gaming in the energy industry, why would anyone expect a different result? Namely the very same problems we face now. That would be insane, by definition.
Why do you hate capitalism Bob? Hehey.
http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin
Permalink