The U.S. electrical grid is 50-80 years old. It is based on old technology and the infrastructure is old. It does not meet the needs of our modern energy use:
- It is the single largest source of wasted energy – improvement to the grid could easily save 20% of electricity. We need better design and additional transmission lines. There are many “waste areas”. Correcting the major ones can save 10% rather quickly.
- We are missing transmission lines from the renewable energy generation areas to the centers of energy consumption. Building transmission lines is one of the main roadblocks for faster implementation of renewable energy.
- The grid is not flexible enough to prevent power outages, thereby requiring too much spare energy generation. We are currently overproducing electricity because the load balancing is not up to the task.
- The grid is not built for distributed energy generation (for example by solar panels on roof tops). It is largely a one way system.
- It is not designed to meet the rise of use by electrical battery cars. If battery based cars are charged only at night, we will not need to add capacity for many years.
The U.S. needs “a Manhattan project” to upgrade its electrical grid. It is badly needed and will improve U.S. competitiveness. It is a clear mission that can be initiated by the federal government and should include:
It is a critical component of the electricity based economy that will expand in the 21 century.
- We need federal design and oversight commission to manage the project. It is not a state issue.
- A redesign of the electrical grid to meet the changed usage patterns of the 21 century. We need to think of the grid as the next Internet (i.e., distributed). We can start immediately with available technologies, like additional transmission lines and smart meters. A Smart Grid should be able to communicate information about the availability, price, and cleanliness of power, enabling more consumer choice, faster demand response, and increased grid reliability.
- We need similar legal easements and land use amendments that were used to build our railroads, interstate freeways, and oil and gas pipes. The new grid is a “must do” infrastructure project of the same importance as these projects. It will solve the regulatory problem.
- Significant research to improve the grid technology. We are using early 20th century technology.
The grid is also not designed to take potential national security issues into account.
The grid is also not designed to take potential national security issues into account.
This section — not very active yet — is arguably the most vital and under-appreciated aspect of our energy system. There is now such hype around ‘smart grid’, but a discussion of what that means, what technologies are available, and what areas of existing but not well or widely used technology and policy can be brought to bear to dramatically accelerate the decarbonization of the economy.
As an example, consider this very interesting but quite controversial assessment of the opportunities (and costs) of California meeting a 33% RPS by 2020 (Executive Summary included below).
Not only can you access the report at:
http://www.cpuc.ca.gov/PUC/energy/Renewables/
but you can also get breakdowns of projects by utility and data on projects in the pipeline for 2009, 2010, …. but also you can comment in on the interplay of generation technologies, the grid, and the policy options.
So, … enjoy!
Executive Summary California lawmakers are currently developing legislation to increase the current 20% by 2010 Renewables Portfolio Standard (RPS) to 33% by 2020. The California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and California Energy Commission (Energy Commission) have endorsed this change and it is a key greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction strategy in the California Air Resources Board’s (ARB) Assembly Bill (AB) 32 Scoping Plan. As the principal agency responsible for implementing the current RPS program, the CPUC has learned many lessons that can help guide the design of a higher mandate. In addition, several recent analyses have cast light on various aspects of renewable energy development and integration. Drawing on these resources and new analyses, staff at the CPUC developed this report in order to provide new, indepth analysis on the cost, risk, and timing of meeting a 33% RPS. This report does not recommend a preferred strategy on how to reach a 33% RPS, but rather provides an analytical framework for policymakers to weigh the tradeoffs inherent in any future 33% RPS program for California. Summary of key findings include: Timeline: Achieving 33% RPS by the year 2020 is highly ambitious, given the magnitude of the infrastructure buildout required. Resources: To meet the current 20% RPS by 2010 target, four major new transmission lines are needed at a cost of $4 billion. Three of these lines are already underway. To meet a 33% RPS by 2020 target, seven additional lines at a cost of $12 billion would be required. In addition, the 33% RPS target is projected to require almost a tripling of renewable electricity, from 27 terawatt hours (TWh) today to approximately 75 TWh in 2020. Cost: Electricity will be higher in 2020 regardless of the RPS requirements. o Even if California makes no further investments in renewable energy, this analysis projects that average electricity costs per kilowatt-hour will rise by 16.7% in 2020 compared to 2008 in real terms. o In 2020, the total statewide electricity expenditures of achieving a 20% RPS are projected to be 2.8% higher compared to a hypothetical all-gas scenario, where new electricity needs are met entirely with natural gas generation. o In 2020, the total statewide electricity expenditures of achieving a 33% RPS utilizing the current procurement strategy is projected to be 7.1% higher compared to the 20% RPS, and 10.2% higher compared to an all-gas scenario. Policies: Achieving a 33% RPS by 2020 requires tradeoffs amongst various policy goals and objectives. If the 2020 timeline is the most important policy priority, California must start implementing mitigation strategies such as planning for more transmission and generation than is needed to reach just 33%, pursuing procurement that is not dependent on new transmission, or concentrating renewable development in pre-permitted land that would be set aside for a renewable energy park.
Bottom line conclusion to get out there: Renewables need transmission, but transmission costs are relatively modest and can be reduced further through careful planning and allowance for renewable energy certificates.
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory released a new report: “Exploration of Resource and Transmission Expansion Decisions in the Western Renewable Energy Zone Initiative.” The abstract is shown below and the full text can be found here: http://ourenergypolicy.org/docs/27/lbnl-3077e.pdf.
Abstract
Building transmission to reach renewable energy (RE) goals requires coordination among renewable developers, utilities and transmission owners, resource and transmission planners, state and federal regulators, and environmental organizations. The Western Renewable Energy Zone (WREZ) initiative brings together a diverse set of voices to develop data, tools, and a unique forum for coordinating transmission expansion in the Western Interconnection. In this report we use a new tool developed in the WREZ initiative to evaluate possible renewable resource selection and transmission expansion decisions. We evaluate these decisions under a number of alternative future scenarios centered on meeting 33% of the annual load in the Western Interconnection with new renewable resources located within WREZ-identified resource hubs.
Of the renewable resources in WREZ resource hubs, and under the assumptions described in this report, our analysis finds that wind energy is the largest source of renewable energy procured to meet the 33% RE target across nearly all scenarios analyzed (38-65%). Solar energy is almost always the second largest source (14-41%). Solar exceeds wind by a small margin only when solar thermal energy is assumed to experience cost reductions relative to all other technologies. Biomass, geothermal, and hydropower are found to represent a smaller portion of the selected resources, largely due to the limited resource quantity of these resources identified within the WREZ-identified hubs (16-23% combined). We find several load zones where wind energy is the least cost resource under a wide range of sensitivity scenarios. Load zones in the Southwest, on the other hand, are found to switch between wind and solar, and therefore to vary transmission expansion decisions, depending on uncertainties and policies that affect the relative economics of each renewable option. Uncertainties and policies that impact bus-bar costs are the most important to evaluate carefully, but factors that impact transmission costs and the relative market value of each renewable option can also be important. Under scenarios in which each load zone must meet 33% of its load with delivered renewable energy from the WREZ-identified resource hubs, the total transmission investment required to meet the 33% west-wide RE target is estimated at between $22 billion and $34 billion. Although a few of the new transmission lines are very long— over 800 miles—most are relatively short, with average transmission distances ranging from 230-315 miles, depending on the scenario. Needed transmission expenditure are found to decline to $17 billion if wide use of renewable energy credits is allowed; consideration of renewable resources outside of WREZ-identified hubs would further reduce this transmission cost estimate. Even with total transmission expenditures of $17-34 billion, however, these costs still represent just 10-19% of the total delivered cost of renewable energy.
Source? 20% is a substantially larger estimate for the power wasted in grid distribution than anything I recall seeing. I believe typicall transmission losses are in the range of 5-10%.