Posted on 12/31/2008 10:56:43 AM PST by newbie2008
Back in May 2008, I wrote a post on the US Electric Grid. With the Obama administration taking over shortly, I expect there will be more discussion about upgrading the US electric grid, so below the fold is a re-post of the earlier essay.
One obstacle to upgrading the grid not discussed in my earlier post is the issue of the differing costs of electricity around the country, depending on the fuel used to produce the electricity (natural gas tends to produce high-cost electricity; coal and nuclear produce lower cost electricity). As the grid currently operates, the limitations of the grid tend to discourage huge long-distance redistribution of electric power. If the impact of a new electric grid back-bone is to start evening-out electric rates across the country, customers currently in low-cost areas will tend to oppose the change, because their rates may be higher. This could create a significant obstacle to passing legislation to upgrade the grid.
I am not sure whether this will be an issue in practice. With the grid upgrade, areas currently with inadequate local electrical production will more easily be able to import electricity from elsewhere, so their costs may be lower, not considering the cost of the grid upgrade. Rates in areas which are currently low-cost will increase to the extent that customers are charged for the new grid upgrades, but it is not clear that they will increase otherwise. If low-cost utilities are able to sell some base-production that might otherwise go to waste, the grid could theoretically lower costs to even currently low-cost customers.
We used to have kerosene lamps at our Fish Camp, because we’d lose power on a regular basis during strong summer storms.
I think the author is wrong in their assumptions about what exactly new technology SHOULD do, for general energy generation and distribution.
I think new technology should be employed to (1)reduce the need for super-mega-generation at far distant sources and so called “improved” increased long distance distribution of increasing amounts of such mega supplies, by (2) improving the number and variety of small to medium size venues that can achieve more power, more locally, by (a)”alternatives” [fuel cells, wind, solar, etc.] and (b) improved technologies for more efficient, more economical energy production on smaller scales from current conventional power sources (mini-nuclear plants for instance).
We need those things more than we need new ways to move additional massive-source energy supplies over massive distances more efficiently. We need a “grid” that is more resilient because more segments of it are less dependent on fewer remote supplies from it.
For instance it is stupid for massive far-remote power systems to send - and waste in that sending - energy to thousands of tiny rural hamlets across huge distances where the number of service connections per square mile could sometimes be counted on one hand. “The grid” is a huge wasted resource - and wastes massive amounts of energy - in such situations; which are perfect situations for wind and solar systems with backup (intermittent sources) supplies via natural gas.
On the other hand wind and solar cannot efficiently power large metropolitan areas.
And, again, on an other hand, a mega-power plant is not needed to supply energy for every city of no more than 100,000 people - given new nuclear power plant designs.
Technology needs to be charged with doing a better job of providing a huge variety of solutions that meet specific needs, scaled as much as possible to the conjoined size of the venue involved.
Get the environmental and regulatory Nazis out of the way, massively expand tax credits and tax holidays for capital investment in energy production, from ANY and every energy source, across the board, and science, technology and markets will transform energy production in this country in a decade (and likely reduce the importance of and problems of “the grid”) simultaneously.
Energy companies (”electricity suppliers”) will not see massive GROSS revenue depreciation, even in a recession (because most people do not reduce electrical consumption, accept as a last resort). But, if their steady GROSS revenues are met with massive tax credits, they will be able to increase their own capital and even verifiable “liquidity” for borrowing capital, based on their increased NET revenues; and to a much greater degree than the government can squeeze subsidies from unemployed taxpayers.
We do not need an “energy plan” run by the U.S. Congress and financed by draining more income from more working Americans. We need to TAKE LESS revenue OUT of the energy sector, leave them more of their earnings (why not all) and take more of the shackles off of the work they need to do. We can do this by rewarding the energy sector with dollar for dollar tax credits, all the way up to the point they have zero taxes owed, for every dollar they put into new capital investment in new energy production.
“” But investment and incentives into the “smart grid” are reasonable, way overdue, and needed””
There is plenty of private money available for investing in new capacity. But the government kills every project because of environmental concerns. We will never get anywhere significantly with socialized energy policy.
Best hope for most of rural America, which will be abandoned by the policy, is for individual generation.
Reliability and cost would then lay on the individual owner rather than government rate commissions and environmentalist interference.
And no, with so many rate cases being denied by state utility commissions, there isn't enough capacity.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.