Re: [Pen-l] smart grid question

[Gar Lipow <gar.lipow@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 1:04 PM, Eugene Coyle<eugenecoyle@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> I hope the left -- and environmists generally think carefully before getting
> wedded to long distance transmission.  Long distance transmission is an
> imprimatur for a technological solution to clean energy.  Of course
> technology will play a role but it should be a secondary one, at best.
>
>        And why long distance transmission at all?  Why not locate the new
> technology closer to the load?  Ian Bowles, an official in Massachusetts had
> a good Op Ed in the NY Times six or eight or ten weeks ago making the
> argument against long distance transmission and for locating new renewable
> generation where the load is.  I liked his essay.
>
>        I think the smart grid and the argument for long distance
> transmission are just today's technological fixes as solution to a problem,
> and there are better solutions available.
>
> Gene Coyle

The article you mentioned can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/07/opinion/07bowles.html

First of all please note that he supports the smart grid. If you are
going to oppose long distance transmission and want renewable energy
you almost have to support the smart grid, because if you are going to
plug in variable supplies you have to find some way to smooth demand.
Also note that he kind of handwave meeting power needs renewably
locally. He describes qualitative reasoning. There is a New Rules
institute study that found that half of all states could meet their
electricity needs renewable. There was an amazing triumphalism with
which this conclusion was proclaimed. That left half the states that
couldn't, and many of them were high population states. Also even that
relied on really high uses of biomass. Biomass is sustainable up to a
point, but that point is not a very big percent of our needs.

As to he point of a technological solution. Of course the smart grid
is a technological solution. We are discussing technology. This is a
context switching game I'm sick of encountering. If you discuss the
technology, someone says "oh technofix  - why you focusing on
trivial". If  you discuss politics and economics  you get "Oh, we
don't  have the technology to do that".  Gene you are a smart guy.
Please don't waste time with the unfair debating tactic of pretending
to be unable to walk and chew gum at the same time.

In terms of Doyle's suggestion, no long distance transmission does not
have to be superconducting. Nice if we can get it, but as Eugene one
of those things that have been a few years away for decades.
Old fashioned High Voltage Direct Current lines (HVDC) can transmit
power as far as we  need - the industry thinkss up to 5,000 kilometers
and certainly easily up to 2,700 kilometers. Africa has at least one
1,700 Kilometer HVDC line built in the 50's which is why I have not
found anyone who seriously disputes that we could transmit power 2,700
kilometers with today's technology. The power loss from transmission
and bridging to AC lines at both ends would be about ten percent at
peak usage, less as lower amounts of power were transmitted offpeak.


And Doyle, no transmission does not store power. It replaces storage.
The key is that the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine the
same amount in different places. By connecting wind and sun across
long distances we get smoother power availability, more of which is
there when we need it than in separate atomized grids.  So more of the
power produced is used when it is produced and thus less needs to be
stored for later use. Long distance transmission in a renewable grid
would pay for itself in reducing storage costs.  Reducing generation
costs would be secondary, and not worth the 1 to 2 cent per kWh
delivered premium.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l