I’m just learning all this but today my husband and I were driving through West Virginia and we saw a lot of huge windmills, and also mining. And other things going on, on the land, which we weren’t even sure what they were doing.
As I said, the quote comes from their website. However, FERC regulates the power rates flowing over the lines after the lines are in op. As the quote indicates the state regulates the construction recovery $..not FERC.
And if FERC regulates ALL transmission (as you seem to indicate), why don't states like Hawaii, Alasksa, and most of Texas (because it has an independent power grid) not get regulated by FERC? Because from your previous ref: "transmission of electricity is not in “interstate commerce” and so does not come under FERC jurisdiction"... So at least in those states, Transmission is regulated completely by the State...I rest my case.
How am i dead wrong? When FERC's own website as previously quoted says it does not reg xmission line construction. It only regulates power flow rates. And in your reference you gave before it unequivcally states " FERC is responsible for ensuring that the rates, terms, and conditions of the transmission of electricity in interstate commerce...." Again they ONLY regulate power flow (ie; 'transmission of electricity' not construction of). Finnally, historically regulating electricity by states has been a cherished right, maintain since the onset of electric companies. States did not give up their regulatory privledges...in fact the US Constitution says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want to continue to argue with me trying to find a way to be right? How many transmission rate challenges have you filed, and where did you file it? Who heard your case? Did you win?
And I keep on responding to you with evidence that you completely ignore. I've read your ref and it really supports what I said. All that I'm pointing out is that Ferc has at best a partial oversight of transmission at the power flow level. Neither can it compell construction of transmission nor does it have jurisdiction within the state of intrastate transmission.
"FERC does not have the authority to regulate transmission line construction. This authority rests with the individual States or State Public Utility Commissions .However, FERC can provide financial incentives to energy companies to propose and build transmission lines."
From FERC own website.
And even if state advocates may be overworked and under resourced...I'm sure a $4 trillion expenditure would recieve some oversight & questioning, don't you? And as far as them catching everything, I never said that...but they certianly can impead and obstruct frequently enough to be a hinderance. Also, its not if they are skilled or not in rate filings, its a matter of if they intervene. They can, and do intervene...they can and do ask questions, and they can and do look at the supposed benefits of capex that the utility is trying to rate base...as its been my experience. Also, the Advocates don't always work at the judicial rate setting level, they can be quite effective negotiating behind the scenes...ie how the real world works.
Ferc doesn't regulate transmission construction cost recovery.. The states do, as the quote (repeated here) form FERCs own website states:
"FERC does not have the authority to regulate transmission line construction. This authority rests with the individual States or State Public Utility Commissions .However, FERC can provide financial incentives to energy companies to propose and build transmission lines."
Yes, I understand rate making, but the reason that rates are approved of (by gov regulators), is because of the benefit...not because the utility wants to spend more capex and get more return. And as often the case, not 100% of rates are approved of...they're often disagreements by regulators vs utility on what/how the capex was spent..ie, was it needed, was it too much, was it bid fairly,etc,etc. So benefit analysis does show up...perhaps behind the scenes, but its there. Also, on any transmission expansion, the reliability of the grid is looked at very closely, so there are benefits to the trans/distribution ops of the utility..again benefits. Also, grid expansion just for load growth is a benefit....we don't want rolling blackouts, nor high demand brown outs, or less stable grid, do we??...yet another benefit. There's benefits all over this thing....some easy to quantify, most not..as they require predicting the future...always a hard thing....with interest rates, load growth and location, weather, national security, emp hardening/vulnerability, pop growth. Yes the article is just looking at the load growth & required design only using regional solar/wind gen because of the electrification of the entire CE transport, and that's a start...you gotta know the cost to contemplate if its worth it. And how do you know its worth it? You need to know the benefits.
You might be surprised if you ever participate in a utility rate case. The utility's expenditures are presumed prudent and the burden of changing that presumption is on the challenger. The utility doesn't have to prove anything. Cost of service rates mean exactly that -- what does it cost to serve the consumer. That includes the amount a utility spends building things the consumer uses. At any rate, a huge build out of transmission simply for transmission's sake alone is going to cost upwards of $4T. And it's still not going to make wind + solar reliable.
I am surprised. However, I do know that each state does it utility monopoly regulation to its own statues and regs. And their is quite a bit of variance in how it works. So, you can't say as a general rule "expenditures are presumed prudent", and especially "burden of changing that presumption is on the challenger" If fact many states have automatic rate challengers aka rate payer advocate...paid by the state
Interstate electric transmission rates are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The presumption of prudence IS a general FERC rule. A state regulator must pass these costs through to consumers in the rates it sets. States have no jurisdiction over the rates of transmission projects like those envisioned in this article. "Automatic rate challengers" are overworked and under-resourced. They do what they can to stop the worst abuses but they certainly don't catch and fix everything. Speaking of automatic, perhaps you should do some research on FERC formula rates, where they utility rate is a formula where numbers are simply plugged in by the utility each year to calculate the amount you pay. Ripe for abuse? You betcha! But yet there is nobody "automatically" checking these filings for accuracy. In my experience, state consumer advocates don't have the right skill set to even understand how these filings work.
Germany has the exact same problem. They have been trying to build high voltage (aka “High Speed” - that made me laugh) lines from the North Sea south to Bavaria and Baden-Würtemburg, but they can’t get the approvals to permit them because nobody wants gigantic masts running through their town. The southern part of Germany is a huge high value added industrial base that is basically totally screwed when the last nuke plants go offline.
Another aspect of the expansion needed, is all those solar panels on houses feeding into the grid. All those EV's backfeeding into the grid (under some proposals). These will work at what is called in the industry the distribution level (generally 69kv and lower). In fact the stuff running by your house is generally around 13kv, but I digress. My point is, the distribution level was not, is still not, designed for "back feeding" into the system. It was designed to deliver one way. It has been able to take minor back feeding ...say 3% of power (if that). That's ok, but under some of proposals...30% or more (at times of high demand) its not designed for. Nor is it easily modified for such power flows. Also, the back office accounting for such "back feeding" needs to be upgraded from current practice (ie. Net metering a'nt gonna work). Also such large #'s of relatively small power generators need to be tightly/quickly controlled by the local/regional utility so that voltage/frequency problems are kept to nominal levels. This again goes back to how the original grid design was for the economies of large centralized power plants.
The cost of all this transmission to ratepayers is way too low. If the transmission costs $1 trillion to build, then consumers would pay back $1T of principal over the project's useful life (usually 40 years). Consumers would also pay rate of return on the utility's investment, averaging 9-11% of the remaining balance annually. Consumers would also be on the hook to pay the project's operations and maintenance costs over its lifetime. Think of transmission rates like a home mortgage. You don't repay the exact amount you borrowed, you also pay interest (and taxes and insurance). If you compare what you borrowed with what you'll pay over 30 years, it's often triple the amount borrowed. Same with transmission. So, we're really talking at least $4 trillion, since utility interest rates are so much higher than home mortgage interest rates.
And in 30 years, youve gotten the benefits of it for 30 years...a long time, inflation has eaten away a significant amount of the extra you paid (for interest,taxes,insurance) so the net benefit is better than you portray. And at the end of 30 years, what would it cost to build the same amount of transmission...probably considerably more than $4 Trillion...so you have an asset (very much like your house) that has gone up in value.
Benefits have nothing to do with transmission rates. I believe this article estimated how much this would cost, not how many benefits it produces. What it costs has nothing to do with any benefits it provides. Benefits do not reduce the costs paid by ratepayers. Whatever the next transmission project may cost has nothing to do with paying for the current one. Transmission rates are hard enough, let's not confuse the issue with a bunch of irrelevant values. No wonder most people's eyes roll up into their heads when someone starts talking about transmission rates.
What? Benefits have nothing to do with rates? That's like saying the price of your new car has nothing to do with its utility to you....the price has everything to do with it. The price is the decision point on the cost curve vs utility. To high a price, and you'll look for alternatives or run the old clunker longer. To low a price, and they won't be able to make enough. The Benefits do reduce the cost paid by ratepayers, it provides a way to cool their house cheaper than running thier own generator, heat the house using a heat pump, more cheaply than nat gas. And the supposed benefits of allowing solar/wind power to be built in low cost acreage (or windy areas) transmitted across the country to metropolitan areas.
We seem to be talking past each other. Here's what the article said, "Rollins and her team also provided cost figures. Between 2008 and 2021, each new mile of high-voltage transmission capacity cost about $4 million. Thus, if those figures stay flat and the U.S. attempted to double its high-voltage transmission capacity, the cost to consumers would be about $1 trillion." That is a hard cost not reduced by "benefit." Utility rates recover costs expended. Cost of service rates reflect the total amount that must be collected in rates for the utility to recover its costs and earn a reasonable return. It determines the amount you pay for your electricity each month. You seem to be talking about what happens to the individual's budget after the bill comes. That has nothing to do with ratemaking. Using your logic on the home mortgage example I provided, the amount you paid for your house and the amount you borrowed is not reduced by the fact that you get a roof over your head. I'm talking about ratemaking for electric transmission, which is a way to pay for the costs to construct the project.
WSJ yesterday…experts say utilities can keep up with increased generation requirements but can’t expand the grid fast enough. One of those is true. California uses about 6500 Tbtu/year.. 2500 from the grid, 2000 from nat gas, and 2000 from liquid petroleum. Moving transportation and nat gas to the grid would require tripling current generation. CA has been connecting wind and solar as fast as they can with an unlimited budget for 15 years. The result is 30% renewables, gas and nuclear shut down and 25% imported coal and gas from other states. What is the plan for tripling generation?
That's the problem right there. Also, going all electric is like depending on one source of supplier for you business.....what happens if that supplier has problems...guess what,you have problems.
Great article Robert. I really like your podcast too. There is a shuttered coal fired electric plant near me. I've been reading about plans to demolish it and thinking; what a waste. There must be some way to repurpose it. As your article points out, the steam turbine, the generators, the cooling infrastructure and the transmission grid are already there. I work in highway design and construction, so I know how difficult getting right of way and permits can be and how long it can take. I've been thinking about reaching out to the local legislators to see if there is any interest in working with a modular nuclear or deep geothermal company to see what can be done to bring this plant back online. Anyone have any suggestions for how to approach this?
Nice piece Robert. Southern California Edison “unit cost guide” for line construction lists a base cost of $1.2. Million per mile for 230 kV tower line with adders for terrain. Much more for 500kV and yet more for DC. A little quick math will tell you that you aren’t going to build 480,000 miles of new transmission on the puny inflation reduction act. SCE recently spent $4 billion undergrounding 8 miles of 500 kV line in Chino Hills. $500 million per mile. Now everybody wants all lines to be underground so let’s see. $500,000,000 x 480,000 = ???
Robert and environMENTAL... this is 2020 but I would guess things are worse now. The contract they talk about sounds similar to those of the solar companies.
Something I never see reported, but maybe somebody here can tell me -- how much loss is there on these long-distance transmission lines? For example, they are talking about putting in lines to move wind energy from here in New Mexico over to California. Wouldn't a fairly sizable percentage of that energy be lost?
The losses are determined by the length of the line and the amount of aluminum (gauge & # of parallel conductors) used to carry the power. So the rational way to size the line is when the marginal cost of adding aluminum = added value of the avoided line loss sold to the customer. Problem is transmission lines to wind are only ~30% loaded and solar only ~20% loaded due to their low capacity factors. The transmission line must be sized for peak demand on the hottest day whereas the avg output is much less than that. So effectively it is not cost effective to keep line losses low for wind & solar long distance transmission.
So with for instance TRTP costing $11M/mile to transmit 4.5GWpk from Wind farms amounting to a low grade avg 1.5GW average output, even lower median output. With APR1400's being pushed for export by Korea costing $24B/5.6GWe recently in the UAE or $4.8B/GW avg output @ a 90%CF. Or $7.2B for 1.5GW. That means $7.2B/$11M/mile = 654miles. So in other words building a TRTP more than 654miles for wind power would cost more than the substitute NPP that doesn't need that transmission. And you still have to add the cost of the Wind farms which would be similar to the NPP cost. And add battery storage which would cost more than either the transmission or the generator. And the numbers are even worse for transmitting solar power. This is all just a giant scam. Too incredibly stupid to be anything but Malthusianism.
As you know, capacity factor is (typically) an annual calculation. Something like Annual MWh-generated / [MW nameplate capacity * 8760hrs]. Line loading, while not real-time, is more of an hours-by-hours concern. That is, if your 30%-CF wind farm is cranking out 98% of nameplate for 6-hours, that is the amount of amperage the line serving it is loaded with, not its paltry 30% capacity factor. Solar is, often, worse because peak solar is during the heat of the day.
Thank you. So the losses are pretty reasonable for short runs, but could be quite a lot for a long haul of 1000 miles. And they are talking about long hauls, like the quote in the article about connecting Chicago to the Southwest.
Yes, although that's one reason why they have extra-high-voltage lines; the loss increases as the square of the current, but for a given level of transmitted power the current is inversely proportional to the voltage.
It occurs to us that even if the state level eminent domain legislation and other legal actions didn’t undo many of the transmission plans you note, environmentalists would have likely done so. And will going forward.
We can’t see a scenario where, for example, Center for Biological Diversity wouldn’t oppose transmissions lines impacting Tiehm’s Buckwheat in Nevada (where they are opposing a proposed lithium mine that just received a DOE conditional loan guarantee, with USF&WS service riding shotgun!). We can give dozens of similar examples.
This gives us an interesting idea for a possible collaboration. Has to do with your Renewables Rejection Database.
I don't think any of these Analysts, "influencers". P.hd.'s etc who write these reports, have ever got out from behind their respective "desktops" and ventured into the real world!! Infrastructure need permits, and you catalog the plethora of issues out there that hold back development.
Well there’s a Stanford Univ Professor named Mark Jacobson about whom we’d say exactly that.
According to the good Prof J, we can convert every energy source consumed by 145 countries to wind, water, solar and energy storage, which will result in lower cost energy and other “benefits”, such that it’s all paid off in 6 years, creating 28 million more jobs in the process than it all costs.
Jacobson is a civil engineer. We consult them when we need soil samples taken for a tower foundation. That is as close to electricity as they should be allowed.
I can recommend a website that is getting a lot of national attention from the huge number of grassroots groups. I often share articles with them. "Citizens for Responsible Solar." The are local to me in middle VA. They started out fighting utility/industrial solar but appear to be looking at the whole VA program, left over by the last administration, that ties all things environmental in VA to whatever CA is doing.
I will subscribe to your page and share with the FB pages I am on.
The more people sharing, the more are aware and hopefully we can stop this garbage.
BTW did you see Bill Gates comment about his private jet? What an arrogant, clueless creep!
I’m just learning all this but today my husband and I were driving through West Virginia and we saw a lot of huge windmills, and also mining. And other things going on, on the land, which we weren’t even sure what they were doing.
As I said, the quote comes from their website. However, FERC regulates the power rates flowing over the lines after the lines are in op. As the quote indicates the state regulates the construction recovery $..not FERC.
You're dead wrong. Get some help.
And if FERC regulates ALL transmission (as you seem to indicate), why don't states like Hawaii, Alasksa, and most of Texas (because it has an independent power grid) not get regulated by FERC? Because from your previous ref: "transmission of electricity is not in “interstate commerce” and so does not come under FERC jurisdiction"... So at least in those states, Transmission is regulated completely by the State...I rest my case.
How am i dead wrong? When FERC's own website as previously quoted says it does not reg xmission line construction. It only regulates power flow rates. And in your reference you gave before it unequivcally states " FERC is responsible for ensuring that the rates, terms, and conditions of the transmission of electricity in interstate commerce...." Again they ONLY regulate power flow (ie; 'transmission of electricity' not construction of). Finnally, historically regulating electricity by states has been a cherished right, maintain since the onset of electric companies. States did not give up their regulatory privledges...in fact the US Constitution says the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Do you really want to know? Or do you just want to continue to argue with me trying to find a way to be right? How many transmission rate challenges have you filed, and where did you file it? Who heard your case? Did you win?
And I keep on responding to you with evidence that you completely ignore. I've read your ref and it really supports what I said. All that I'm pointing out is that Ferc has at best a partial oversight of transmission at the power flow level. Neither can it compell construction of transmission nor does it have jurisdiction within the state of intrastate transmission.
"FERC does not have the authority to regulate transmission line construction. This authority rests with the individual States or State Public Utility Commissions .However, FERC can provide financial incentives to energy companies to propose and build transmission lines."
From FERC own website.
And even if state advocates may be overworked and under resourced...I'm sure a $4 trillion expenditure would recieve some oversight & questioning, don't you? And as far as them catching everything, I never said that...but they certianly can impead and obstruct frequently enough to be a hinderance. Also, its not if they are skilled or not in rate filings, its a matter of if they intervene. They can, and do intervene...they can and do ask questions, and they can and do look at the supposed benefits of capex that the utility is trying to rate base...as its been my experience. Also, the Advocates don't always work at the judicial rate setting level, they can be quite effective negotiating behind the scenes...ie how the real world works.
Here's some quick reading for you. Get informed. Transmission rates are hard but you can understand it if you try.
https://www.ferc.gov/formula-rates-electric-transmission-proceedings-key-concepts-and-how-participate
Are you trying to tell me that FERC does not have jurisdiction over interstate transmission rates? You're profoundly misinformed.
Seems like you have your own fiction about utility rates that has no correlation to reality.
Don't let me interfere with that.
Ferc doesn't regulate transmission construction cost recovery.. The states do, as the quote (repeated here) form FERCs own website states:
"FERC does not have the authority to regulate transmission line construction. This authority rests with the individual States or State Public Utility Commissions .However, FERC can provide financial incentives to energy companies to propose and build transmission lines."
Yes, I understand rate making, but the reason that rates are approved of (by gov regulators), is because of the benefit...not because the utility wants to spend more capex and get more return. And as often the case, not 100% of rates are approved of...they're often disagreements by regulators vs utility on what/how the capex was spent..ie, was it needed, was it too much, was it bid fairly,etc,etc. So benefit analysis does show up...perhaps behind the scenes, but its there. Also, on any transmission expansion, the reliability of the grid is looked at very closely, so there are benefits to the trans/distribution ops of the utility..again benefits. Also, grid expansion just for load growth is a benefit....we don't want rolling blackouts, nor high demand brown outs, or less stable grid, do we??...yet another benefit. There's benefits all over this thing....some easy to quantify, most not..as they require predicting the future...always a hard thing....with interest rates, load growth and location, weather, national security, emp hardening/vulnerability, pop growth. Yes the article is just looking at the load growth & required design only using regional solar/wind gen because of the electrification of the entire CE transport, and that's a start...you gotta know the cost to contemplate if its worth it. And how do you know its worth it? You need to know the benefits.
You might be surprised if you ever participate in a utility rate case. The utility's expenditures are presumed prudent and the burden of changing that presumption is on the challenger. The utility doesn't have to prove anything. Cost of service rates mean exactly that -- what does it cost to serve the consumer. That includes the amount a utility spends building things the consumer uses. At any rate, a huge build out of transmission simply for transmission's sake alone is going to cost upwards of $4T. And it's still not going to make wind + solar reliable.
I am surprised. However, I do know that each state does it utility monopoly regulation to its own statues and regs. And their is quite a bit of variance in how it works. So, you can't say as a general rule "expenditures are presumed prudent", and especially "burden of changing that presumption is on the challenger" If fact many states have automatic rate challengers aka rate payer advocate...paid by the state
Interstate electric transmission rates are under the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). The presumption of prudence IS a general FERC rule. A state regulator must pass these costs through to consumers in the rates it sets. States have no jurisdiction over the rates of transmission projects like those envisioned in this article. "Automatic rate challengers" are overworked and under-resourced. They do what they can to stop the worst abuses but they certainly don't catch and fix everything. Speaking of automatic, perhaps you should do some research on FERC formula rates, where they utility rate is a formula where numbers are simply plugged in by the utility each year to calculate the amount you pay. Ripe for abuse? You betcha! But yet there is nobody "automatically" checking these filings for accuracy. In my experience, state consumer advocates don't have the right skill set to even understand how these filings work.
Germany has the exact same problem. They have been trying to build high voltage (aka “High Speed” - that made me laugh) lines from the North Sea south to Bavaria and Baden-Würtemburg, but they can’t get the approvals to permit them because nobody wants gigantic masts running through their town. The southern part of Germany is a huge high value added industrial base that is basically totally screwed when the last nuke plants go offline.
Another aspect of the expansion needed, is all those solar panels on houses feeding into the grid. All those EV's backfeeding into the grid (under some proposals). These will work at what is called in the industry the distribution level (generally 69kv and lower). In fact the stuff running by your house is generally around 13kv, but I digress. My point is, the distribution level was not, is still not, designed for "back feeding" into the system. It was designed to deliver one way. It has been able to take minor back feeding ...say 3% of power (if that). That's ok, but under some of proposals...30% or more (at times of high demand) its not designed for. Nor is it easily modified for such power flows. Also, the back office accounting for such "back feeding" needs to be upgraded from current practice (ie. Net metering a'nt gonna work). Also such large #'s of relatively small power generators need to be tightly/quickly controlled by the local/regional utility so that voltage/frequency problems are kept to nominal levels. This again goes back to how the original grid design was for the economies of large centralized power plants.
Underrated comment and under discussed issue IMO!
The cost of all this transmission to ratepayers is way too low. If the transmission costs $1 trillion to build, then consumers would pay back $1T of principal over the project's useful life (usually 40 years). Consumers would also pay rate of return on the utility's investment, averaging 9-11% of the remaining balance annually. Consumers would also be on the hook to pay the project's operations and maintenance costs over its lifetime. Think of transmission rates like a home mortgage. You don't repay the exact amount you borrowed, you also pay interest (and taxes and insurance). If you compare what you borrowed with what you'll pay over 30 years, it's often triple the amount borrowed. Same with transmission. So, we're really talking at least $4 trillion, since utility interest rates are so much higher than home mortgage interest rates.
And in 30 years, youve gotten the benefits of it for 30 years...a long time, inflation has eaten away a significant amount of the extra you paid (for interest,taxes,insurance) so the net benefit is better than you portray. And at the end of 30 years, what would it cost to build the same amount of transmission...probably considerably more than $4 Trillion...so you have an asset (very much like your house) that has gone up in value.
Benefits have nothing to do with transmission rates. I believe this article estimated how much this would cost, not how many benefits it produces. What it costs has nothing to do with any benefits it provides. Benefits do not reduce the costs paid by ratepayers. Whatever the next transmission project may cost has nothing to do with paying for the current one. Transmission rates are hard enough, let's not confuse the issue with a bunch of irrelevant values. No wonder most people's eyes roll up into their heads when someone starts talking about transmission rates.
What? Benefits have nothing to do with rates? That's like saying the price of your new car has nothing to do with its utility to you....the price has everything to do with it. The price is the decision point on the cost curve vs utility. To high a price, and you'll look for alternatives or run the old clunker longer. To low a price, and they won't be able to make enough. The Benefits do reduce the cost paid by ratepayers, it provides a way to cool their house cheaper than running thier own generator, heat the house using a heat pump, more cheaply than nat gas. And the supposed benefits of allowing solar/wind power to be built in low cost acreage (or windy areas) transmitted across the country to metropolitan areas.
We seem to be talking past each other. Here's what the article said, "Rollins and her team also provided cost figures. Between 2008 and 2021, each new mile of high-voltage transmission capacity cost about $4 million. Thus, if those figures stay flat and the U.S. attempted to double its high-voltage transmission capacity, the cost to consumers would be about $1 trillion." That is a hard cost not reduced by "benefit." Utility rates recover costs expended. Cost of service rates reflect the total amount that must be collected in rates for the utility to recover its costs and earn a reasonable return. It determines the amount you pay for your electricity each month. You seem to be talking about what happens to the individual's budget after the bill comes. That has nothing to do with ratemaking. Using your logic on the home mortgage example I provided, the amount you paid for your house and the amount you borrowed is not reduced by the fact that you get a roof over your head. I'm talking about ratemaking for electric transmission, which is a way to pay for the costs to construct the project.
WSJ yesterday…experts say utilities can keep up with increased generation requirements but can’t expand the grid fast enough. One of those is true. California uses about 6500 Tbtu/year.. 2500 from the grid, 2000 from nat gas, and 2000 from liquid petroleum. Moving transportation and nat gas to the grid would require tripling current generation. CA has been connecting wind and solar as fast as they can with an unlimited budget for 15 years. The result is 30% renewables, gas and nuclear shut down and 25% imported coal and gas from other states. What is the plan for tripling generation?
That's the problem right there. Also, going all electric is like depending on one source of supplier for you business.....what happens if that supplier has problems...guess what,you have problems.
Great article Robert. I really like your podcast too. There is a shuttered coal fired electric plant near me. I've been reading about plans to demolish it and thinking; what a waste. There must be some way to repurpose it. As your article points out, the steam turbine, the generators, the cooling infrastructure and the transmission grid are already there. I work in highway design and construction, so I know how difficult getting right of way and permits can be and how long it can take. I've been thinking about reaching out to the local legislators to see if there is any interest in working with a modular nuclear or deep geothermal company to see what can be done to bring this plant back online. Anyone have any suggestions for how to approach this?
Robert Bryce has been really prescient, lately.
Nice piece Robert. Southern California Edison “unit cost guide” for line construction lists a base cost of $1.2. Million per mile for 230 kV tower line with adders for terrain. Much more for 500kV and yet more for DC. A little quick math will tell you that you aren’t going to build 480,000 miles of new transmission on the puny inflation reduction act. SCE recently spent $4 billion undergrounding 8 miles of 500 kV line in Chino Hills. $500 million per mile. Now everybody wants all lines to be underground so let’s see. $500,000,000 x 480,000 = ???
Robert and environMENTAL... this is 2020 but I would guess things are worse now. The contract they talk about sounds similar to those of the solar companies.
https://andersoncountyreview.blogspot.com/2020/01/allen-county-kansas-learns-wind-farm.html?m=1
Something I never see reported, but maybe somebody here can tell me -- how much loss is there on these long-distance transmission lines? For example, they are talking about putting in lines to move wind energy from here in New Mexico over to California. Wouldn't a fairly sizable percentage of that energy be lost?
The losses are determined by the length of the line and the amount of aluminum (gauge & # of parallel conductors) used to carry the power. So the rational way to size the line is when the marginal cost of adding aluminum = added value of the avoided line loss sold to the customer. Problem is transmission lines to wind are only ~30% loaded and solar only ~20% loaded due to their low capacity factors. The transmission line must be sized for peak demand on the hottest day whereas the avg output is much less than that. So effectively it is not cost effective to keep line losses low for wind & solar long distance transmission.
So with for instance TRTP costing $11M/mile to transmit 4.5GWpk from Wind farms amounting to a low grade avg 1.5GW average output, even lower median output. With APR1400's being pushed for export by Korea costing $24B/5.6GWe recently in the UAE or $4.8B/GW avg output @ a 90%CF. Or $7.2B for 1.5GW. That means $7.2B/$11M/mile = 654miles. So in other words building a TRTP more than 654miles for wind power would cost more than the substitute NPP that doesn't need that transmission. And you still have to add the cost of the Wind farms which would be similar to the NPP cost. And add battery storage which would cost more than either the transmission or the generator. And the numbers are even worse for transmitting solar power. This is all just a giant scam. Too incredibly stupid to be anything but Malthusianism.
As you know, capacity factor is (typically) an annual calculation. Something like Annual MWh-generated / [MW nameplate capacity * 8760hrs]. Line loading, while not real-time, is more of an hours-by-hours concern. That is, if your 30%-CF wind farm is cranking out 98% of nameplate for 6-hours, that is the amount of amperage the line serving it is loaded with, not its paltry 30% capacity factor. Solar is, often, worse because peak solar is during the heat of the day.
Yup. Great analysis
Page 4 of https://web.ecs.baylor.edu/faculty/grady/_13_EE392J_2_Spring11_AEP_Transmission_Facts.pdf gives a range of less than a percent to over 4% per hundred miles.
This little guide is a great resource…thanks
Thank you. So the losses are pretty reasonable for short runs, but could be quite a lot for a long haul of 1000 miles. And they are talking about long hauls, like the quote in the article about connecting Chicago to the Southwest.
Yes, although that's one reason why they have extra-high-voltage lines; the loss increases as the square of the current, but for a given level of transmitted power the current is inversely proportional to the voltage.
Another outstanding piece as usual, Robert.
It occurs to us that even if the state level eminent domain legislation and other legal actions didn’t undo many of the transmission plans you note, environmentalists would have likely done so. And will going forward.
We can’t see a scenario where, for example, Center for Biological Diversity wouldn’t oppose transmissions lines impacting Tiehm’s Buckwheat in Nevada (where they are opposing a proposed lithium mine that just received a DOE conditional loan guarantee, with USF&WS service riding shotgun!). We can give dozens of similar examples.
This gives us an interesting idea for a possible collaboration. Has to do with your Renewables Rejection Database.
Keep up the great work!!
Great article!
I don't think any of these Analysts, "influencers". P.hd.'s etc who write these reports, have ever got out from behind their respective "desktops" and ventured into the real world!! Infrastructure need permits, and you catalog the plethora of issues out there that hold back development.
Well there’s a Stanford Univ Professor named Mark Jacobson about whom we’d say exactly that.
According to the good Prof J, we can convert every energy source consumed by 145 countries to wind, water, solar and energy storage, which will result in lower cost energy and other “benefits”, such that it’s all paid off in 6 years, creating 28 million more jobs in the process than it all costs.
Because his spreadsheet model tells him so.
And no, we didn’t just make that up.
https://www.pv-magazine.com/2022/08/08/study-finds-100-renewables-would-pay-off-within-six-years/
And if you dare to claim he's mistaken, beware, you will be sued. He's very sensitive about criticism. Poor baby.
"Extrapolations are the last refuge of a groundless argument."
- Thomas Sowell
Jacobson is a civil engineer. We consult them when we need soil samples taken for a tower foundation. That is as close to electricity as they should be allowed.
I wouldn't even trust him with that.
Robert, you got a shout out from "Stop These Things" (a page I recommend and follow. I'd post it here bit I can't seem to paste a copy 🙄
Good. He earned it!
(We’re trying to earn similar shouts!!!)
https://envmental.substack.com/p/sacrificing-humanity-on-the-green-16c
I can recommend a website that is getting a lot of national attention from the huge number of grassroots groups. I often share articles with them. "Citizens for Responsible Solar." The are local to me in middle VA. They started out fighting utility/industrial solar but appear to be looking at the whole VA program, left over by the last administration, that ties all things environmental in VA to whatever CA is doing.
I will subscribe to your page and share with the FB pages I am on.
The more people sharing, the more are aware and hopefully we can stop this garbage.
BTW did you see Bill Gates comment about his private jet? What an arrogant, clueless creep!