I thought US had a power grid...

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2015315556_windpowerdispute15m.html?syndication=rss

I thought US/Canada was able to transfer energy from one part of the country with low demand/high production to another part of the country with high demand/low production...

I just don't get why we are shutting down wind farms because of too much green energy in one state, while Coal and natural gas plants keep running in other states...

On the other hand, I can proudly say that my Leaf is running 100% on hydro power now... falling water drives me to work every day!

There is a limit to how much power can be transferred to other areas due to congestion of the power lines (limited capacity).

Our grid in the NW is fairly limited (not interconnected). Just a few feeders to northern California from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Don't worry though, it's a good thing!

DarkStar said:

Our grid in the NW is fairly limited (not interconnected). Just a few feeders to northern California from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA). Don't worry though, it's a good thing!

Click to expand...

How is it a good thing if they are artificially driving Wind farms to bankruptcy?

UkrainianKozak said:

I thought US/Canada was able to transfer energy from one part of the country with low demand/high production to another part of the country with high demand/low production...

Click to expand...

From what I understand the United States transmission grid is quite antiquated and isolated to three main areas being the west, north east and central around Texas and these three systems do not share power. If the grid was updated making it "smart" perhaps power could then be shared across the country but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Its the fish vs renewable energy.. oh my!

The US has a grid that shares power in a region, usually north-south.. but nothing that runs east-west for extreme distances.. it would be good if solar power generated in AZ could be sold in NY during peak afternoon demand. Lots of wind in Texas and the midwest also. It would be a worthwhile Federal project.

Read up on RTOs:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_transmission_organization

I remember the amount of stress enron put on the NW powergrid during the fradulent energy shortage. Selfishly, it was times like those where I'd rather they cut the lines at the Californian border rather than have potential rolling blackouts up here.

But with the massive surplus of electricity due to our hydro situation, all of that wind is going to waste. But at least the nuke, coal, and natural gas is getting the axe first.

What we need are thousands of miles of new grid power lines - but that runs into "not in my backyard" problem.

We also need grid interchage - which are being planned and will happen some day.

Transmission lines are like long drop cords running at high voltage. They have resistance, maximum current capacity and corresponding power limits.

In particular consider reading the pdf located at :

http://www.oe.energy.gov/transmission.htm

This can be addressed with more distributed power generation. Local wind, solar, landfill methane, etc. Or, superconductors that can operate at ambient temps.

OilFreedom said:

This can be addressed with more distributed power generation. Local wind, solar, landfill methane, etc. Or, superconductors that can operate at ambient temps.

Click to expand...

+1

Speaking of which, id like a superconductor motor in my LEAF for 2012.

rainnw said:

Speaking of which, id like a superconductor motor in my LEAF for 2012.

Click to expand...

Yeah!, 5% extra range.. perhaps I would prefer a 50kwh pack instead..

OilFreedom said:

This can be addressed with more distributed power generation. Local wind, solar, landfill methane, etc. Or, superconductors that can operate at ambient temps.

Click to expand...

Problem with local renewables is that they all tend to go up or down at the same time as weather changes. We would still need the larger grid for stabilization.

evnow said:

What we need are thousands of miles of new grid power lines - but that runs into "not in my backyard" problem.

We also need grid interchage - which are being planned and will happen some day.

Click to expand...

This goes along with a post I had somewhere related to inductive charging while driving. The main electric grid distribution also follows the main highway grid connecting our cities. Build a new lane on the inside (carpool type lane) that has the power line conductors embedded in the road. You'll get a new roadway and a new power distribution in one construction project. The embedded power would allow you to charge your car while driving down the highway at normal highway speeds. You run on battery power while in the city, jump on the highway to go to the next big city and charge while you are on the way there. You arrive in the next big city with a full battery and use it to get around town.

Obviously very complicated, but technically possible.

rainnw said:

Speaking of which, id like a superconductor motor in my LEAF for 2012.

Click to expand...

I'd like one for my model trains
http://t.co/VGb8Q2S

evnow said:

OilFreedom said:

This can be addressed with more distributed power generation. Local wind, solar, landfill methane, etc. Or, superconductors that can operate at ambient temps.

Click to expand...

Problem with local renewables is that they all tend to go up or down at the same time as weather changes. We would still need the larger grid for stabilization.

Click to expand...

Thinking out loud here...still trying to wrap all three of my functioning neurons around this.

- If we look at the problem from the 'that's the way we've always done it' centralized/grid view, then the Grid is King and we need to expand it, secure it, add HVDC links, beat land owners into eminent domain submission for right of way, etc. And since our energy needs keep growing (is it geometric?), we need to overbuild it right from the start and keep building power plants.

- if we look at the problem from a 'centralized grid is so 1960s like centralized computers - time for the IBM PC to put the mainframe company out of business', then we need to decentralize the system in a huge way. This is more efficient for the local energy use, can be done close to or below costs of building large plants, is more flexible and adaptable. Decentralized thinking also easily allows integration of home- or business-scale co-generation (like Honda's unit, for example). I think that a decentralized mindset more easily allows vehicle to grid and solar/wind with battery backup/grid stabilization as well. And anything that makes coal plants redundant is a plus...

And while the press and/or current-thought keeps beating the 'unstable wind' or 'the sun doesn't shine at night' drum, large scale battery backup/grid stabilization is already on-line and growing. In addition to balancing renewables, it's already less expensive to install a big grid-tied battery than to run new power lines to some areas in the US...
http://www.azonano.com/news.aspx?newsID=18936
http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2011/01/27/hawi-wind-farm-to-get-battery-backup-system/
http://markets.hpcwire.com/taborcomm.hpcwire/news/read?GUID=4467341
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...russian-national-grid-operator-106441193.html
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125561502

So yes, evnow - if we connect all the solar panels to one standard grid in a standard old-skool city, I agree 100%. But we've had the ability for years to 'cure' that perceived weakness - and it's happening 'under the radar' today.

What's that sound? Look - over there - is that paradigm shifting? :lol:

palmermd said:

evnow said:

What we need are thousands of miles of new grid power lines - but that runs into "not in my backyard" problem.

We also need grid interchage - which are being planned and will happen some day.

Click to expand...

This goes along with a post I had somewhere related to inductive charging while driving. The main electric grid distribution also follows the main highway grid connecting our cities. Build a new lane on the inside (carpool type lane) that has the power line conductors embedded in the road. You'll get a new roadway and a new power distribution in one construction project. The embedded power would allow you to charge your car while driving down the highway at normal highway speeds. You run on battery power while in the city, jump on the highway to go to the next big city and charge while you are on the way there. You arrive in the next big city with a full battery and use it to get around town.

Obviously very complicated, but technically possible.

Click to expand...

My wife was noticing in the owners manual that if you have a pacemaker or other similar implant you should not be in the vehicle while it's charging. Something to think about with "charge while driving" systems. The passenger cabin needs to be shielded in some way so that occupants are protected appropriately.

Or, this could just be a case of "we're not sure yet, so slap a warning in there just in case" from the lawyers. Kinda like the "cell phone signals MAY increase cancer risk" thing.

Other major aspect to building the transmission lines into the road is the cost. Not just for installation, but think of road maintenance. Maybe we can eventually get there, but it's just not feasible at this time. One of the reasons that they still put powerlines overhead is due to cost, both in installation and maintenance. Underground lines usually have less maintenance (e.g. no trees falling on them) but when they do need maintenance it's far more costly and time consuming. And that's in the dirt, not in a major highway where you would then require more equipment and traffic control.

Just like with EVs, though, I think the power utilities' technology is increasing exponentially and they're working on some pretty cool stuff. It will be really interesting to see what advances can be made in power production, storage, transfer, etc with the R&D that's currently going on. It seems like a huge shame that we have such great power production here in the PNW and we're having to shut some of it down simply because of the technical challenges and cost of providing that power to other areas of the country that could really use it, or store it somewhere for our own use later when we fire the other (not as green) plants back up.

- ... we need to decentralize the system in a huge way. This is more efficient for the local energy use, can be done close to or below costs of building large plants, is more flexible and adaptable.

Click to expand...

Um... no. There is no economically efficient distributed generation available today. Utility rates and government incentives often make solar PV or sometimes fuel cells appear attractive to individual customers, but that does not equal economic effiency. If you have rooftop solar, your neighbors are paying for the backup power, distribution system, transformers, and other utility costs that don't go away just because you generate, on average, over a year, as much power as you consume. Cost shifting <> cost reduction.

And while the press and/or current-thought keeps beating the 'unstable wind' or 'the sun doesn't shine at night' drum, large scale battery backup/grid stabilization is already on-line and growing. In addition to balancing renewables, it's already less expensive to install a big grid-tied battery than to run new power lines to some areas in the US...

Click to expand...

Again, the idea of islanding individual customers or regions (by assuming away transmission lines) only degrades reliability. Most intermittent renewable generation sources (yes, solar/wind, I'm talking to you) require either standby fossil-fired generation or other capital-intensive backup power (batteries are an option, but nobody on this forum is naive about the cost of adding batteries to any system, 4-wheeled or stationary) to maintain reliability. So yes, you can build a windmill or a solar panel, but you also have to build a gas-fired plant or battery "behind" that if you want the lights to go on *every* time you throw the switch. Leaving aside the fact that at today's technology, both solar/wind are more expensive kWh for kWh, surely it is obvious that building 2 generating sources where one would do, means additional costs.

I'm not arguing that renewable technology is bad, or that we as a society should not pursue it, or that it may not get cheaper in the future, but let's not get confused that it is somehow "cost effective" today. It is more expensive, whether or not social policy and government incentives mask some of those costs.

See Eric - that's looking at the problem from the past and trying to define tomorrow thru the rear-view mirror. We don't navigate and pilot a boat by focusing on the wake, right?

I wasn't trying to define the entire problem though - only set two pseudo-extremes or bounds for further discussion.

I didn't say 'economic' efficiency - I actually intended electrical. And yet... The economics would work out beautifully if ALL subsidies stopped and ALL power producers were required to include the externalities - like paying for mercury emissions from coal plants. According to a recent intergovernmental panel on climate change report on the state of renewables, a kWh of wind is either slightly above or slightly below the cost of a kWh of coal. The difference appears to be transmission losses. It's more efficient - electrically and economically - to plant wind turbines closer to the consumers. Like off-shore wind for Houston rather than piping the electrons over land from a turbine in North Dakota.

There was an excellent segment on E2 Design from PBS about new commercial building construction in China. Seems that since the US market isn't very interested in efficiency, American designers are working with the Chinese to design self-sufficient buildings and complexes - like a 5 tower housing complex that captures rainwater on green roofs; reuses greywater for air conditioning, gardening, and landscaping; uses combined heat/power units on site; and incorporates active (PV) and passive solar in the design. It uses about 40% of the energy and water of a similar sized building in the US.

Net-zero buildings are a nice start, but we've had the ability to cut about 40% or more off the energy bill in efficiency - and I think that should be done well before one bolts up PV.Using less energy means the energy demand curve flattens, fewer new centralized plants are needed, and we don't need to build as much new infrastructure. And every building that starts life completely off-grid is even better.

Sorry, no - even though my water and electricity use is waaaaay below my neighbors, the city and thus the city-owned power and water companies get the same money from me as my neighbors for transformers. Your mileage may vary, of course... Mine will too - I'm headed off the water, sewer, and electrical grid...

IPCC Special Report on Renewables - 77% of world energy could be supplied by renewables by 2050:
http://cms.srren.ipcc-wg3.de/index_html

See page 8 for global price comparisons:
http://cms.srren.ipcc-wg3.de/ipcc-srren-generic-presentation-1

Efficient Housing:
http://www.ornl.gov/sci/ees/etsd/btric/pdfs/whole_tva_zeh_fs_2-07.pdf
http://www.premiersips.com/Comparisons/ZEH5_40_saver.pdf

REALLY Efficient Housing:
http://www.earthship.com