I work for electric utility. 500/345/138KV Extra High Voltage. (Transmission System) Takes 5 yrs to journey out but you need them to basically have 7 years to be well versed out their job 2 years as a Journey Level. Been a shortage for a long time but also utilities are not raising staffing levels even if the individuals were available. Also utilities got greedy for a long time with lower pay & ample people. Now the tides have turned & they throw up their hands all helpless. They even at one point was cutting benefits etc. Then supply chain equipment, vehicles all worn out & utilities didn’t act when they should have now a back log that causes more & more issues. I could go on & on. Than all the aging infrastructure they refuse to retire. Now it cost double or triple to replace vs 2014 era.
This was a very interesting article. It made me evaluate the China build out of coal power in a new light:
The coal plants also require a grid connection. So maybe the main goal of the coal plants is the build out of the Chinese grid.
China has, according to reports, been operating a 40MW molten salt test reactor since April 2022.
A molten salt reactor can drop in place to decarbonize a coal plant very quickly.
China is the one country in the world that could, immediately, pull the trigger on a massive build out of Thorium molten salt reactors as soon as they are satisfied that the reactor is safe. And safe by their own standards.
China could completely decarbonize, using the steam equipment and electrical generators, and have the grid connection finished. When they pull the trigger this could be done in 5-10 years.
Maybe they are only building coal plants for the grid connections and generators. Maybe, they are playing the long game...?
Owen is a Welch name as you probably know. My family name Shanley was Mac Shanley and was common in Ireland., but my male ancestors married Welch wives and they goy to dictate names.
Terrible picture at the beginning of this article, the worker is using a climbing belt that has been banned by OSHA for years, and he's not even wearing safety glasses. You should have a modern photo of a worker using the correct PPE.
Another great article. Informative, data-driven concepts, serious and thoughtful, addressing technical issues and offering feasible solutions. Thank you for posting.
Thank You… thank you, thank you, thank you. I am so happy someone called out that absurd nonsense by the Times.
The idea that we should drastically expand the grid and spend over $684 Billion to accommodate a bunch of non-dispatchable, dilute, weather dependent crap is absolutely insane.
One thing you also brought up which I really want to emphasize is that these transmission expansion projects get extreme opposition everywhere they are attempted. I live in New England I have seen this first hand.
We would be infinitely better off reusing the existing infrastructure, building SMRs, and getting this done.
If you had said that "they" would spend our money (to no good end) like drunken sailors, you would have insulted drunken sailors ... but at least as the joke goes, it is the sailor's money. But you inferred that "they" are batshit crazy. You managed to insult bats, shit, and crazy in one sentence. Hat trick.
"...The economic operating system keeps crashing. It’s time to upgrade to a new one. Five decades ago, The Limits to Growth shocked the world by showing that population and industrial growth were pushing humanity towards a cliff. Today the world recognizes that we are now at the cliff edge: Earth has crossed multiple planetary boundaries while widespread inequality is causing deep instabilities in societies. There seems to be no way out..."
Word count:
Nuclear 1
Renewable 38
Equity 41
Sustainable/Sustainability 86
Inequality 134
Pure propaganda. Imagine these Grifters actually claim their first book, The Limits of Growth, published in 1972, made accurate predictions. Which is not what critics have concluded, i.e. Bjorn Lomborg:
"... The Limits of Growth got it so wrong because its authors overlooked the greatest resource of all: our own resourcefulness. Population growth has been slowing since the late 1960s. Food supply has not collapsed (1.5 billion hectares of arable land are being used, but another 2.7 billion hectares are in reserve). Malnourishment has dropped by more than half, from 35% of the world’s population to under 16%.
Nor are we choking on pollution. Whereas the Club of Rome imagined an idyllic past with no particulate air pollution and happy farmers, and a future strangled by belching smokestacks, reality is entirely the reverse.
In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost three million people – roughly one in 500 – died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per 2,000 people. While pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is falling, not rising.
Nonetheless, the mindset nurtured by The Limits to Growth continues to shape popular and elite thinking. Consider recycling, which is often just a feel-good gesture with little environmental benefit and significant cost. Paper, for example, typically comes from sustainable forests, not rainforests. The processing and government subsidies associated with recycling yield lower-quality paper to save a resource that is not threatened.
Likewise, fears of over-population framed self-destructive policies, such as China’s one-child policy and forced sterilization in India. And, while pesticides and other pollutants were seen to kill off perhaps half of humanity, well-regulated pesticides cause about 20 deaths each year in the US, whereas they have significant upsides in creating cheaper and more plentiful food.
Obsession with doom-and-gloom scenarios distracts us from the real global threats. Poverty is one of the greatest killers of all, while easily curable diseases still claim 15 million lives every year – 25% of all deaths.
The solution is economic growth. When lifted out of poverty, most people can afford to avoid infectious diseases. China has pulled more than 680 million people out of poverty in the last three decades, leading a worldwide poverty decline of almost a billion people. This has created massive improvements in health, longevity, and quality of life.
The four decades since The Limits of Growth have shown that we need more of it, not less. An expansion of trade, with estimated benefits exceeding $100 trillion annually toward the end of the century, would do thousands of times more good than timid feel-good policies that result from fear-mongering. But that requires abandoning an anti-growth mentality and using our enormous potential to create a brighter future..."
Interesting article. The NYT is just spouting more worthless green nightmares pushed by the professional liars in Amory Lovin's RMI. More vaporware that will never get built.
A few points. I assume a gigawatt-mile is the electrical capacity of the lines multiplied by the miles. So a 1 gigawatt line 100 miles long and and 100 gigawatt line 1 mile long have the same capacity-length. Of course, such a metric obscures more than it reveals. Lineman are hard to find, but I would also worry about engineers; high-voltage transmission is a very specialized specialty. Finally, this is just another worthless power play, an attempt to override local control to impose someone's personal vision. It is the California high-speed rail project, gone national and impinging something more important than an alternate form of transportation.
The current US annual consumption is 451 GW average annual power. That is serviced with an installed capacity of 1.1 TW of firm power generation sources (peak summer power plus reserve margins).
Converting most transportation to electric, converting space heating to electric (direct/heat pumps), and electrolyzing hydrogen feedstocks, etc. will increase our demand in, say 30 years, from 451 GW to 1,400 GW (3x).
Power transmission lines are rated at the peak load, summer for most of the USA. In 30 years there will be a massive peak on winter nights, as heat pumps will consume 3x more in winter than summer with much higher differential temperatures. So we will use a 2x factor for the peak load that power transmission lines will need to carry. WE WILL NEED 2X TIMES 1,400 GW of power transmission line. So we need power transmission lines to carry 2,800 GW.
Most new power transmission lines today are 345 kV lines that carry 400 MW (peak loading) out to 300 miles (745 kV still rare).
But wind and solar have very large peak loading compared to demand load variation. Unless you want to seriously curtail wind and solar output peaks ("throwing-away" a lot of energy), you will need to further de-rate the transmission line capacity by 1/3rd (400MW >> 267 MW).
So you now need 2,800 GW / 267 MW = 10,490 power transmission lines of length 300 miles.
THAT WOULD BE 3 MILLION MILES OF POWER TRANSMISSION LINES.
Why do I assume that each of the roughly 10,000 transmission lines will be 300 miles long?
BECAUSE RENEWABLES (wind/solar) ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR CURRENT, RATHER BRILLIANT, GRID ARCHITECTURE.
90% of the US population lives in cities 200,000 people and larger.
And for most of the USA, power generation sources are built directly in, or directly surrounding these cities with minimal transmission line lengths (under 30 miles). It is like an island with multiple generation sources, and a network of transmission/distribution lines that provide a robust network of redundant generation sources and redundant pathways to your home.
Yes, there are some power transmission lines that link city to city, serving rural communities in-between, but very little power flows as these transmission lines are exceedingly expensive and carry far less power than you think.
It is this brilliant architecture that allows for inexpensive growth due to increase in population/industry in cities. Addition of a new power generator typically requires less than a mile of new transmission line to join the localized network.
ENTER WIND/SOLAR. These are NEVER close to population centers (200k+). They are typically 200 miles plus away. AND RARELY DO THEY INSTALL THE NEEDED TRANSMISSION LINES TO BRING THAT POWER TO THE CITIES. Today, they mostly feed the surrounding, more rural communities, and with limited line linking to the far away city, they are often curtailing the output from those renewable plants.
A 300 mile long 345 kV line that can carry peak load of 400 MW will cost 300 x $5.5 million/mile = $1.65 billion dollars alone.
A 400 MW natural gas plant located near the city will cost $400 million including transmission line to join the localized network. SEE THE PROBLEM?
THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL INCOMPATIBILITY OF THESE PARADIGMS, AND NOBODY HAS EVEN PROPOSED A "NEW" GRID ARCHITECTURE THAT PROVIDES COST EFFECTIVE REDUNDANCY AND EASY INCREMENTAL (organic) GROWTH.
p.s. And all AC power transmission lines have a practical limit of about 300 miles, regardless of line voltage. Yes, you will see longer lines on a map, but in 99% of the cases, there are other generation sources that feed that line at intermediate points. (St. Clair Curve). A major problem for renewables.
Brilliant work sir. Hilarious metric, l will be linking this one to my friends who are fans of SI units or Dwight yoakam.
I work for electric utility. 500/345/138KV Extra High Voltage. (Transmission System) Takes 5 yrs to journey out but you need them to basically have 7 years to be well versed out their job 2 years as a Journey Level. Been a shortage for a long time but also utilities are not raising staffing levels even if the individuals were available. Also utilities got greedy for a long time with lower pay & ample people. Now the tides have turned & they throw up their hands all helpless. They even at one point was cutting benefits etc. Then supply chain equipment, vehicles all worn out & utilities didn’t act when they should have now a back log that causes more & more issues. I could go on & on. Than all the aging infrastructure they refuse to retire. Now it cost double or triple to replace vs 2014 era.
This was a very interesting article. It made me evaluate the China build out of coal power in a new light:
The coal plants also require a grid connection. So maybe the main goal of the coal plants is the build out of the Chinese grid.
China has, according to reports, been operating a 40MW molten salt test reactor since April 2022.
A molten salt reactor can drop in place to decarbonize a coal plant very quickly.
China is the one country in the world that could, immediately, pull the trigger on a massive build out of Thorium molten salt reactors as soon as they are satisfied that the reactor is safe. And safe by their own standards.
China could completely decarbonize, using the steam equipment and electrical generators, and have the grid connection finished. When they pull the trigger this could be done in 5-10 years.
Maybe they are only building coal plants for the grid connections and generators. Maybe, they are playing the long game...?
Then they will offer to lease it to us...
Owen is a Welch name as you probably know. My family name Shanley was Mac Shanley and was common in Ireland., but my male ancestors married Welch wives and they goy to dictate names.
Great article as always
Even if they succeed, the increase in fires (see California) will offset any CO2 reductions from electric
Terrible picture at the beginning of this article, the worker is using a climbing belt that has been banned by OSHA for years, and he's not even wearing safety glasses. You should have a modern photo of a worker using the correct PPE.
the New York Times is basically a disinformation outlet for leftist bias
this should be accepted by any mature adult
Sheldon Whitehouse is a national disgrace
it is really a question of how bad do things have to get before the lunacy of decarbonization is accepted?
Another great article. Informative, data-driven concepts, serious and thoughtful, addressing technical issues and offering feasible solutions. Thank you for posting.
Robert…
Thank You… thank you, thank you, thank you. I am so happy someone called out that absurd nonsense by the Times.
The idea that we should drastically expand the grid and spend over $684 Billion to accommodate a bunch of non-dispatchable, dilute, weather dependent crap is absolutely insane.
One thing you also brought up which I really want to emphasize is that these transmission expansion projects get extreme opposition everywhere they are attempted. I live in New England I have seen this first hand.
We would be infinitely better off reusing the existing infrastructure, building SMRs, and getting this done.
Nuclear. Nuclear. Nuclear. The only answer.
If you had said that "they" would spend our money (to no good end) like drunken sailors, you would have insulted drunken sailors ... but at least as the joke goes, it is the sailor's money. But you inferred that "they" are batshit crazy. You managed to insult bats, shit, and crazy in one sentence. Hat trick.
Can we put you in charge?
The Bankster organization The Club Of Rome just put out a new book:
Earth for All: A Survival Guide for Humanity:
https://www.amazon.com/Earth-All-Survival-Guide-Humanity-ebook/dp/B0B3M6N78G/
"...The economic operating system keeps crashing. It’s time to upgrade to a new one. Five decades ago, The Limits to Growth shocked the world by showing that population and industrial growth were pushing humanity towards a cliff. Today the world recognizes that we are now at the cliff edge: Earth has crossed multiple planetary boundaries while widespread inequality is causing deep instabilities in societies. There seems to be no way out..."
Word count:
Nuclear 1
Renewable 38
Equity 41
Sustainable/Sustainability 86
Inequality 134
Pure propaganda. Imagine these Grifters actually claim their first book, The Limits of Growth, published in 1972, made accurate predictions. Which is not what critics have concluded, i.e. Bjorn Lomborg:
"... The Limits of Growth got it so wrong because its authors overlooked the greatest resource of all: our own resourcefulness. Population growth has been slowing since the late 1960s. Food supply has not collapsed (1.5 billion hectares of arable land are being used, but another 2.7 billion hectares are in reserve). Malnourishment has dropped by more than half, from 35% of the world’s population to under 16%.
Nor are we choking on pollution. Whereas the Club of Rome imagined an idyllic past with no particulate air pollution and happy farmers, and a future strangled by belching smokestacks, reality is entirely the reverse.
In 1900, when the global human population was 1.5 billion, almost three million people – roughly one in 500 – died each year from air pollution, mostly from wretched indoor air. Today, the risk has receded to one death per 2,000 people. While pollution still kills more people than malaria does, the mortality rate is falling, not rising.
Nonetheless, the mindset nurtured by The Limits to Growth continues to shape popular and elite thinking. Consider recycling, which is often just a feel-good gesture with little environmental benefit and significant cost. Paper, for example, typically comes from sustainable forests, not rainforests. The processing and government subsidies associated with recycling yield lower-quality paper to save a resource that is not threatened.
Likewise, fears of over-population framed self-destructive policies, such as China’s one-child policy and forced sterilization in India. And, while pesticides and other pollutants were seen to kill off perhaps half of humanity, well-regulated pesticides cause about 20 deaths each year in the US, whereas they have significant upsides in creating cheaper and more plentiful food.
Obsession with doom-and-gloom scenarios distracts us from the real global threats. Poverty is one of the greatest killers of all, while easily curable diseases still claim 15 million lives every year – 25% of all deaths.
The solution is economic growth. When lifted out of poverty, most people can afford to avoid infectious diseases. China has pulled more than 680 million people out of poverty in the last three decades, leading a worldwide poverty decline of almost a billion people. This has created massive improvements in health, longevity, and quality of life.
The four decades since The Limits of Growth have shown that we need more of it, not less. An expansion of trade, with estimated benefits exceeding $100 trillion annually toward the end of the century, would do thousands of times more good than timid feel-good policies that result from fear-mongering. But that requires abandoning an anti-growth mentality and using our enormous potential to create a brighter future..."
https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/40-years-later-time-has-not-been-kind-to-the-limits-to-growth/
More exposure of the giant green scam!!!
Interesting article. The NYT is just spouting more worthless green nightmares pushed by the professional liars in Amory Lovin's RMI. More vaporware that will never get built.
A few points. I assume a gigawatt-mile is the electrical capacity of the lines multiplied by the miles. So a 1 gigawatt line 100 miles long and and 100 gigawatt line 1 mile long have the same capacity-length. Of course, such a metric obscures more than it reveals. Lineman are hard to find, but I would also worry about engineers; high-voltage transmission is a very specialized specialty. Finally, this is just another worthless power play, an attempt to override local control to impose someone's personal vision. It is the California high-speed rail project, gone national and impinging something more important than an alternate form of transportation.
GigaWatt-Miles is a worthless statistic, as the length of the transmission line has a huge impact on its load-carrying capacity.
Here is a back of the napkin attempt to quantify.
YOU WILL NEED ABOUT 3 MILLION MILES OF NEW POWER TRANSMISSION LINES THAT WILL COST TENS OF TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE CALCULATION:
The current US annual consumption is 451 GW average annual power. That is serviced with an installed capacity of 1.1 TW of firm power generation sources (peak summer power plus reserve margins).
Converting most transportation to electric, converting space heating to electric (direct/heat pumps), and electrolyzing hydrogen feedstocks, etc. will increase our demand in, say 30 years, from 451 GW to 1,400 GW (3x).
Power transmission lines are rated at the peak load, summer for most of the USA. In 30 years there will be a massive peak on winter nights, as heat pumps will consume 3x more in winter than summer with much higher differential temperatures. So we will use a 2x factor for the peak load that power transmission lines will need to carry. WE WILL NEED 2X TIMES 1,400 GW of power transmission line. So we need power transmission lines to carry 2,800 GW.
Most new power transmission lines today are 345 kV lines that carry 400 MW (peak loading) out to 300 miles (745 kV still rare).
But wind and solar have very large peak loading compared to demand load variation. Unless you want to seriously curtail wind and solar output peaks ("throwing-away" a lot of energy), you will need to further de-rate the transmission line capacity by 1/3rd (400MW >> 267 MW).
So you now need 2,800 GW / 267 MW = 10,490 power transmission lines of length 300 miles.
THAT WOULD BE 3 MILLION MILES OF POWER TRANSMISSION LINES.
-------------------------------------------------------
Why do I assume that each of the roughly 10,000 transmission lines will be 300 miles long?
BECAUSE RENEWABLES (wind/solar) ARE COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE WITH OUR CURRENT, RATHER BRILLIANT, GRID ARCHITECTURE.
90% of the US population lives in cities 200,000 people and larger.
And for most of the USA, power generation sources are built directly in, or directly surrounding these cities with minimal transmission line lengths (under 30 miles). It is like an island with multiple generation sources, and a network of transmission/distribution lines that provide a robust network of redundant generation sources and redundant pathways to your home.
Yes, there are some power transmission lines that link city to city, serving rural communities in-between, but very little power flows as these transmission lines are exceedingly expensive and carry far less power than you think.
It is this brilliant architecture that allows for inexpensive growth due to increase in population/industry in cities. Addition of a new power generator typically requires less than a mile of new transmission line to join the localized network.
ENTER WIND/SOLAR. These are NEVER close to population centers (200k+). They are typically 200 miles plus away. AND RARELY DO THEY INSTALL THE NEEDED TRANSMISSION LINES TO BRING THAT POWER TO THE CITIES. Today, they mostly feed the surrounding, more rural communities, and with limited line linking to the far away city, they are often curtailing the output from those renewable plants.
A 300 mile long 345 kV line that can carry peak load of 400 MW will cost 300 x $5.5 million/mile = $1.65 billion dollars alone.
A 400 MW natural gas plant located near the city will cost $400 million including transmission line to join the localized network. SEE THE PROBLEM?
THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL INCOMPATIBILITY OF THESE PARADIGMS, AND NOBODY HAS EVEN PROPOSED A "NEW" GRID ARCHITECTURE THAT PROVIDES COST EFFECTIVE REDUNDANCY AND EASY INCREMENTAL (organic) GROWTH.
p.s. And all AC power transmission lines have a practical limit of about 300 miles, regardless of line voltage. Yes, you will see longer lines on a map, but in 99% of the cases, there are other generation sources that feed that line at intermediate points. (St. Clair Curve). A major problem for renewables.