The U. S. electric grid: will it be our undoing?

[robertpaulsen]

The U. S. electric grid: will it be our undoing?
by Gail E. Tverberg

Quite a few people believe that if there is a decline in oil production, we can make up much of the difference by increasing our use of electricity--more nuclear, wind, solar voltaic, geothermal or even coal. The problem with this model is that it assumes that our electric grid will be working well enough for this to happen. It seems to me that there is substantial doubt that this will be the case.

From what I have learned in researching this topic, I expect that in the years ahead, we in the United States will have more and more problems with our electric grid. This is likely to result in electrical outages of greater and greater durations.

The primary reason for the likely problems is the fact that in the last few decades, the electric power industry has moved from being a regulated monopoly to an industry following more of a free market, competitive model. With this financing model, electricity is transported over long distances, as electricity is bought and sold by different providers. Furthermore, some of the electricity that is bought and sold is variable in supply, like wind and solar voltaic. A substantial upgrade to the electrical grid is needed to support all of these activities, but our existing financing models make it very difficult to fund such an upgrade.

If frequent electrical outages become common, these problems are likely to spill over into the oil and natural gas sectors. One reason this may happen is because electricity is used to move oil and natural gas through the pipelines. In addition, gas stations use electricity when pumping gasoline, and homeowners often have natural gas water heaters and furnaces with electric ignition. These too are likely to be disrupted by electrical power outages.

more...

http://www.energybulletin.net/43823.html

[wtmusic]

1. We will be the grid's undoing if we don't maintain it

It will require a commitment to upgrade, maintain, and re-regulate. There really isn't any other choice.

[NMDemDist2]

2. o joy! but not a surprise. too bad more folks aren't addressing this issue n/t

[madrchsod]

3. yes it will be

everyone knows there is a problem but everyone is waiting for the state and federal government to make up theirs minds on what they will do.

in my county land owners are holding up new transmission lines to the main power grid in northern illinois. without these new lines the windmills in place can`t be used to their full capacity. another 80 windmills are going up next year where i live in northern illinois and i think that will be over two hundred mills with in a 80 mile radius.

[kristopher]

4. No.

From your link:
How do we get from where we are now, to where we need to be, in a reasonable amount of time?

I am having a very difficult time seeing how this can be done. There are just too many entities and too many funding issues to make a transition from a neglected old system to a much-improved new system in a reasonable length of time. Our current economic model seeks growth and the maximization of profits. This economic model does not facilitate large groups of entities working together for the common good.

The transformation seems unlikely to succeed, if for no other reason than the fact that the cost of the new system is likely to be very high. Electric rates will already be increasing because of higher natural gas prices and the cost of building additional nuclear power. Adding the costs for a substantial upgrade to the transmission system at the same time would be very significant burden for the consumer. If we are dealing with peak oil at the same time, this will add an additional stress. It is difficult to believe that politicians and state regulators will allow such large costs to be passed back to consumers.

If anything would work to produce the desired result, it would seem to be something that approaches nationalization of the electric supply industry. If this were done, the problem of conflicting objectives could be greatly reduced. I have a hard time envisioning current leaders accepting such a radical approach, however.


<end>



I don't believe the author proper understands that the electrical system is still regulated pretty heavily. There are two very heavy duty lines going in, one through the midAtlantic congestion region and out west somewhere. These are planned and the Federal government has already passed a law exempting the eminent domain acquisitions from litigation. It crosses both the Chesapeake and the Delaware Bays.

I don't think there is significant problem with our grid, it is outdated and needs modernizing, but it is basically solid. There are more frequent outages now that ownership rights have been unbundled, but that is only to be expected. With a cost plus business model, the goal was 100% reliability. With the competitive business model, they cut back on line maint until it costs them money or attracts the attention of regulators.

There are conflicts and perverse incentives in the present system, however. I think what the author was trying to highlight is the uncertainty faced by efforts to build new lines. The big problem is that if you build a new line into an area, then someone builds a new generating facility in the area you planned on piping electricity into, then you are screwed.

I think we are close to reclaiming public control of transmission and distribution for those reasons.

The "Smart grid" upgrade is not difficult and it will probably be carried out with the electrification of the vehicle fleet, since your car will be the main entity the power company communicates with.

[robertpaulsen]

5. I guess there's two big questions.

1. How much will it cost to modernize?

2. How much time would it take?

The author of this piece believes both questions will be problematic, but unfortunately is not specific on statistical estimates. I think what she's trying to do is present this situation within the context of oil production about to decline. If that is the case, then time and $ are luxuries we will not have. Not the end of the world, but there will be problems.

[kristopher]

6. Yeah, I saw the link to peak oil

The mindset is predisposed to predicting disaster. I see an extremely positive renewable energy future of us, personally.

For a while my job was to plan for the survivability of a given military instillation in the case of nuclear conflict. Perhaps it just takes a little more to spook me.

As to your question, I haven't seen the specifics. Just like the system we have now, it is going to be a large sum and take time. The rate will be determined, IMO by the increasing clarity of the dangers from climate change - peak oil is no longer a relevant concept as we have more than enough to destroy the biosphere. The greater the perception of immediate danger from GW, the faster we'll invest in avoiding it.