It's going to be a whole week of transmission content here at Volts -- get excited! Today we go over the basic reasons the US needs more transmission. (If you don't want to read, you can listen.)
thanks for your nice calm, slow, clear reading of this post. It helped me digest the info more efficiently. I got here because i saw your response to Ezra Klein's piece ( something about dems tattooing that stellar advice on their brains) and then stayed and subscribed cause pictures of dogs. But I'm excited to learn more about something that interests me and you seem like a good teacher and advocate, so thanks.
As a distributed energy advocate, I'm really interested in making sure I'm well ground in this. I'm curious if the VCE study you mentioned is inclusive of the recent Chris Clack opus on the value of distributed energy resource in decarbonization. In other words, is this level of transmission beyond what we need once we double-down on distributed?
Bitcoin miners and others often make siting decisions based on the local price of electric energy. However, I think we need to learn and accept that every siting decision based on low electric energy prices is a transmission policy failure. The only reason that electricity might be cheaper in upstate regions near hydropower is that we haven't built out a transmission system and energy policy that ensures that every kWh of electricity flows to that user who is willing to pay the most for it. The fact that prices vary between regions, by more than the very small amount attributable to line losses, demonstrates a market failure that could and should be addressed by new transmission investments and non-discriminatory policy. A well formed transmission policy would ensure that those siting plants would be indifferent to local variations in electricity price.
Towns or regions that today think they can benefit by using their currently low electric rates to attract new employers should recognize that they are basing their economic development plans on a very fragile foundation. Because their rates are only low due to policy failures, anything that improves policy in the future will compromise companies' continued willingness to remain where they are. One might get a few incremental jobs today by offering low electric rates, but those jobs will inevitably result in demands for additional investment in public goods and services, like schools, roads, etc. that will no longer be needed if the price advantage of local power is ever diminished. If that happens, then local governments will be stuck with excess public goods and services as well as stranded assets. A wise local government would do all it can to discourage the siting of plants that come, like carpetbaggers, in search of cheap electricity. If cheap electricity is sufficient to attract plants today, then cheaper electricity somewhere else will often be sufficient to convince the plants to migrate once again.
Thanks for the initial overview. The use of HVDC - where and when needed - seems like the right choice, though one that will require a very costly swapout. AC transmission lines are prone to failure and they will remain so. That's because the existing power grid is a non-linear dynamical system, one that can and will result in regular blackouts. The larger the system, the more likely those are to occur.
The world of engineering has recently started to wrestle with that fact. The research only dates to 1982, when it was found that the swing equations used by power system modelers were analogous to those used in modeling planetary dynamics. Even a simple 3-generator system was shown to transition from stable to unstable... "In response to simulated faults on the line: tweak the operating parameters of the large generator just slightly, and a previously stable grid would run away."
It's a difficult pill to swallow, but there are systems whose behavior given even the smallest change in parameters is completely unpredictable. Large AC power lines are just such a system.
Not really on topic, but Bill Maher recently complained "I'm on YEAR FOUR of trying to get my solar panels hooked up." As a tiny microcosm of bureaucratic inertia, this hints at the mind-numbing hurdles that face something like a transmission line crossing a jigsaw puzzle of jurisdictions. Overcoming obstruction by housing NIMBYs sounds like a walk in the park, comparatively. (On the latter front, did you see that Sacramento evidently intends to abolish single-family zoning everywhere?)
One of Bucky Fuller's visions was an international grid. Sun is always shining on half the globe, wind is always blowing somewhere, plus interconnected systems builds interdependence and peace. He figured we would need some sort of superconducting technology to reduce losses enough to make this worth it. Anyone working on any aspect of this?
What will determine peak capacity requirements for a large region? My guess is that the critical peak design will need to be for moderately cold cloudy windless periods when heat pumps are least efficient. The coldest temps (clear night sky radiative heat loss) are always accompanied by clear days when PV’s are operating efficiently. So we would need a grid robust enough to bring power from distant windy and sunny areas. Is there data on the frequency of such poor weather spells lasting 4-6 consecutive days (beyond the reach of battery technology)? We seem to tolerate loss of distribution capacity due to hurricanes and ice storms every 25 years or so.
One of the things that you might discuss in the “politics section” is the language or framing we use to describe transmission.
Solar, wind and transmission all suffer from increasing “NIBY” (Not in my backyard). Local and state regulations are influenced by state legislators who can create roadblocks. Many of whom are rural and represent constituents with NIMB sentiments. But 70-80% of Americans like "clean renewable energy" and want more of it. The frame "clean renewable energy" makes this a no brainer and easier when the right steps are taken on the local level.
I believe the same situation exists for transmission, both to local resistance and to how we frame it. The field is full of acronyms and confusing technical terms. I don’t have the answer, but will work on suggestions. Do we need HVDC lines or American energy corridors? Do we need a transmission line that makes my cows crazy or the Grain Belt Express? How we frame transmission is key to getting local support and success.
thanks for your nice calm, slow, clear reading of this post. It helped me digest the info more efficiently. I got here because i saw your response to Ezra Klein's piece ( something about dems tattooing that stellar advice on their brains) and then stayed and subscribed cause pictures of dogs. But I'm excited to learn more about something that interests me and you seem like a good teacher and advocate, so thanks.
Nice intro, overview, and summary of the key issues. Thanks!
As a distributed energy advocate, I'm really interested in making sure I'm well ground in this. I'm curious if the VCE study you mentioned is inclusive of the recent Chris Clack opus on the value of distributed energy resource in decarbonization. In other words, is this level of transmission beyond what we need once we double-down on distributed?
Bitcoin miners and others often make siting decisions based on the local price of electric energy. However, I think we need to learn and accept that every siting decision based on low electric energy prices is a transmission policy failure. The only reason that electricity might be cheaper in upstate regions near hydropower is that we haven't built out a transmission system and energy policy that ensures that every kWh of electricity flows to that user who is willing to pay the most for it. The fact that prices vary between regions, by more than the very small amount attributable to line losses, demonstrates a market failure that could and should be addressed by new transmission investments and non-discriminatory policy. A well formed transmission policy would ensure that those siting plants would be indifferent to local variations in electricity price.
Towns or regions that today think they can benefit by using their currently low electric rates to attract new employers should recognize that they are basing their economic development plans on a very fragile foundation. Because their rates are only low due to policy failures, anything that improves policy in the future will compromise companies' continued willingness to remain where they are. One might get a few incremental jobs today by offering low electric rates, but those jobs will inevitably result in demands for additional investment in public goods and services, like schools, roads, etc. that will no longer be needed if the price advantage of local power is ever diminished. If that happens, then local governments will be stuck with excess public goods and services as well as stranded assets. A wise local government would do all it can to discourage the siting of plants that come, like carpetbaggers, in search of cheap electricity. If cheap electricity is sufficient to attract plants today, then cheaper electricity somewhere else will often be sufficient to convince the plants to migrate once again.
Thanks for the initial overview. The use of HVDC - where and when needed - seems like the right choice, though one that will require a very costly swapout. AC transmission lines are prone to failure and they will remain so. That's because the existing power grid is a non-linear dynamical system, one that can and will result in regular blackouts. The larger the system, the more likely those are to occur.
The world of engineering has recently started to wrestle with that fact. The research only dates to 1982, when it was found that the swing equations used by power system modelers were analogous to those used in modeling planetary dynamics. Even a simple 3-generator system was shown to transition from stable to unstable... "In response to simulated faults on the line: tweak the operating parameters of the large generator just slightly, and a previously stable grid would run away."
https://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/the-smarter-grid/the-unruly-power-grid
It's a difficult pill to swallow, but there are systems whose behavior given even the smallest change in parameters is completely unpredictable. Large AC power lines are just such a system.
Very interesting (sorry, Mabel)! What role do Canada-US relations play in the transmission system?
Not really on topic, but Bill Maher recently complained "I'm on YEAR FOUR of trying to get my solar panels hooked up." As a tiny microcosm of bureaucratic inertia, this hints at the mind-numbing hurdles that face something like a transmission line crossing a jigsaw puzzle of jurisdictions. Overcoming obstruction by housing NIMBYs sounds like a walk in the park, comparatively. (On the latter front, did you see that Sacramento evidently intends to abolish single-family zoning everywhere?)
One of Bucky Fuller's visions was an international grid. Sun is always shining on half the globe, wind is always blowing somewhere, plus interconnected systems builds interdependence and peace. He figured we would need some sort of superconducting technology to reduce losses enough to make this worth it. Anyone working on any aspect of this?
What will determine peak capacity requirements for a large region? My guess is that the critical peak design will need to be for moderately cold cloudy windless periods when heat pumps are least efficient. The coldest temps (clear night sky radiative heat loss) are always accompanied by clear days when PV’s are operating efficiently. So we would need a grid robust enough to bring power from distant windy and sunny areas. Is there data on the frequency of such poor weather spells lasting 4-6 consecutive days (beyond the reach of battery technology)? We seem to tolerate loss of distribution capacity due to hurricanes and ice storms every 25 years or so.
Maybe a naive question -- would making the national transmission grid more connected make it easier to hack or disable? Or less so? Or no difference?
One of the things that you might discuss in the “politics section” is the language or framing we use to describe transmission.
Solar, wind and transmission all suffer from increasing “NIBY” (Not in my backyard). Local and state regulations are influenced by state legislators who can create roadblocks. Many of whom are rural and represent constituents with NIMB sentiments. But 70-80% of Americans like "clean renewable energy" and want more of it. The frame "clean renewable energy" makes this a no brainer and easier when the right steps are taken on the local level.
I believe the same situation exists for transmission, both to local resistance and to how we frame it. The field is full of acronyms and confusing technical terms. I don’t have the answer, but will work on suggestions. Do we need HVDC lines or American energy corridors? Do we need a transmission line that makes my cows crazy or the Grain Belt Express? How we frame transmission is key to getting local support and success.