Biden administration earmarks $13b to modernize electric grid The US electric grid badly needs to modernize, and the Biden administration says it's ready to give as much as $13 billion to organizations willing to make it happen. Utilizing funds from the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Grid Resilience Innovation Partnership (GRIP) and Transmission Facilitation Programs have opened …
The grid would be much more reliable after five or ten years if is was completely controlled and organized by politicians (in the US and the UK) because when they screwed up and failed power for the voters then they would be replaced by politicians promising a complete effort to deliver power to all communities.
Organizations get wealthy by fiddling with the grid, not powering it. Politicians would get elected if they didn't screw up and everyone had a warm home in the winter and a cool one in the summer.
The Climate Change deniers/drill baby drill sections of the GQP will do their very best to block this just like they are doing with the Student Debt Relief.
In the next two years, nothing of substance will happen in the US Government other than the multitude of inquiries and impeachments of Pres Biden that they have promised.
meanwhile.... the world temp continues to rise and I'm sure that we'll soon see millions on the march due to famine and drought. Oh wait... parts of the USA are already in the middle of a drought.
Numpties the lot of them.
As a Californian, allow me to be the first to say that the Almond orchards need to go away. Pronto. If not sooner. Same for the rice paddies. And the cotton plantations. Get rid of those three (and some antiquated manufacturing processes), and California will no longer have a water problem.
The Climate Change deniers/drill baby drill sections of the GQP will do their very best to block this just like they are doing with the Student Debt Relief.
The problem the Reality deniers have is contained in this statement-
"to enhance grid flexibility and improve the resilience of the power system against growing threats of extreme weather and climate change," the DoE said.
So assuming this is the real threat, then you'd think you'd be designing an energy policy around stuff that isn't vulnerable to extreme weather, or climate change. Hmm..
https://external-preview.redd.it/2tVYdo6Ca0C6nQvThzJ6-5jM6wEoJcnEqTaZxNDig2s.jpg?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=9ed1a8aa36a85352c8c9fba40c3fceac4bea1494
https://us.v-cdn.net/6024911/uploads/attachments/5897/3286.jpg
Second being a rooftop installation vs hail in Missouri. Then of course there's wind. So windmills don't spin when there's no wind, or get damaged if there's too much. But for some strange reason (ok, lobbying $$$) climate 'experts' predict extreme weather, and promote 'solutions' that are vulnerable to that weather.
Then of course there's the cost, but that'll just be added to everyone's bills, so 33,500 climate 'experts' can carry on flying to jollies like they've just had in Egypt. Where they could dine on the finest steak, and not bug protein. On expenses, of course. Some day, some of these experts may realise we've kinda evolved to a point where we let the animals that can digest insect proteins do the hard work, then we eat those digestable animal proteins.
Then again, the 'highlight' from COP27 was a 'loss and damage' fund to go on top of the $100bn a year the climate lobbyists are demanding.
"So assuming this is the real threat, then you'd think you'd be designing an energy policy around stuff that isn't vulnerable to extreme weather"
You mean when Texas' gas pipelines froze? You know, the one where the fossil champions blamed the wind turbines they have, for the massive problems?
You mean when Texas' gas pipelines froze? You know, the one where the fossil champions blamed the wind turbines they have, for the massive problems?
The pipelines didn't freeze. In a genius move, Obama era EPA decided that gas transportation must be decarbonised. So instead of tapping off product, running it through a gas turbine or generator and providing electricity.. It was mandated that gas pumping must use 'clean' energy. So pumping stations got hooked up to the Texas power grid. Then the windmills froze, electricity supply dropped, gas couldn't be pumped and some Texans died.
Obviously the solution to blocking high pressure weather systems that lead to the Texas freeze is windmills that don't spin, on account of low/no wind and icing, and solar panels that need to be heated.. some how to melt snow & ice that will cover them. But that's neo-luddites for you. Part of me wonders how 'grid scale' batteries would cope in similar conditions. Sure, it'll be cold, but if that could mean ventilation & cooling systems ice up, and they overheat anyway.
Downvoted because that's NOT what happened. What happened was that Texas being Texas, the regulators of the state's electric system (ERCOT and the PUC) didn't believe in regulation and depended largely on the free market to control things. And that worked pretty well until Texas had one of it's once a decade or two serious cold snaps. Unfortunately, because ERCOT/PUC, hadn't required sensible precautions for an extreme event and because sensible precautions would have cost money for gas line freeze protection, provision of emergency power to power generators, and possibly adequate interconnects from the Texas grid to the other US grids, a lot of generation fell over and there was next to no possibility of importing power from elsewhere.
The wind turbines -- 20% of Texas power normally -- did shut down early on for a few hours because of low wind., And when they did come back, they were nowhere near sufficient to overcome the shortages caused by widespread failure of natural gas powered generation. And yes, sensible planners (if any such exist) would try to do something about that in the future.
Result: 250-700 fatalities, $195B in damages and economic losses, And the members of ERCOT and the PUC all resigned. (In Japan they would presumably have gone out to the parking lot faced East, mumbled an apology, and slit their bellies open. Not in Texas).
Texas now requires power suppliers to cold-harden their equipment ... someday ... when they get around to it.
Source: https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/15/texas-power-grid-winter-storm-2021/ But there are lots of other sources if you don't like that one.
How will the world feed it's population with out the energy we currently have to grow, harvest and distribute it? Not to mention the supplements to grow it derived from fossil fuel.
You may be right the world is melting now but there is no REAL alternative at this time to dump fossil fuel as so many wan to to do.
Dumping before alternate is real will kill millions.
What we need is generation capability. Has nobody noticed the rolling blackouts/brownouts that we are having right now, today?
And that means the elephant in the room ... Nuclear power. It is the only way out of this mess.
Please note that the existing wire can handle it (with normal, routine maintenance), at least for the next couple decades.
And that means the elephant in the room ... Nuclear power. It is the only way out of this mess.
But.. but.. Nuclear is evil! The cynic in me wonders if the reason our fearless leaders aren't saying much about Ukraine repeatedly shelling a NPP is because we haven't had a nuclear 'disaster' in a while. And pesky engineers are asking why we're still tilting at windmills.
Please note that the existing wire can handle it (with normal, routine maintenance), at least for the next couple decades.
But can it? I've read a few reports that there are potentially huge problems with the local distribution grids. Those weren't really designed to support everyone being forced to convert to electric heating, cooking and rapid EV charging.
"But can it?"
In my opinion, yes. It can. But not forever, and certainly not without maintenance.
"I've read a few reports that there are potentially huge problems with the local distribution grids."
Most of those reports are funded by people with a vested interest. Pinch of salt time. Follow the money.
"Those weren't really designed to support everyone being forced to convert to electric heating, cooking and rapid EV charging."
People are not actually being forced to do anything. Re-read that. It's important.
The vast majority of (for example) Californians are not going to change what they use for power any time soon. People with gas stoves will continue to use them, likewise gas heat, gas water heaters, etc. Likewise wood stoves and fireplaces. New homes might all be built with all electric, but existing homes will remain the same (and with people leaving CA in droves, housing starts are way down ...). ANYway, appliances are not being swapped out in bulk. Nor will they ever be.
People also aren't swapping their existing gas/diesel powered vehicles for EVs ... Percentage wise, only a few wealthy people have bought EVs, mostly for SJW posing. Most of the rest of us not so much. They cost too much ... and even when they try to make it mandatory, hybrids will be the order of the day. Distances are too great around these here parts for a mostly plug-in fleet. (As one example, there's guy here in Sonoma who has had Teslas since the Roadster came out. He drives about town on weekends, and goes on and on about how "green" he is. He commutes to Cupertino five days per week. His commuter? A Lincoln Navigator. I think I can fly my Cessna A152 to Palo Alto from here on less fuel than driving the Navagator the same distance during commute hours ... )
So there is not going to be a sudden rush on grid power here. Not now, not tomorrow, not next year, probably not ever.
I do note, however, that many people who ARE converting to electrical everything are having large PVs fitted, and many are dropping off the grid entirely. Even in cities. I predict that this is the actual wave of the future that we should be preparing for. It's the only scenario that makes sense both from a TCO and ROI point of view.
There are enormous problems with distro networks, globally, to taking on more demand.
The principal problem is the amout of transmission capacity at exit points to DNO levels - what's there is already spoken for so increases in demand need more/bigger exit points.
Secondly, within the DNO itself; consider the transformers that provide last-step conversion to go down to residential properties. The Power, and therefore Current requirements for mass installed EV are significantly greater than anything would have planned for when those networks were constructed 50 to 100(+) years ago - everyone charging at 5PM? Either the transformer will overload (and hopefully trip itself out, if well designed) or catch fire. Though the consequences of either are much the same.
From a Transmission POV the US is a varied beast - large conurbations with generation often "nearby" but generally quite weak interconnection from state to state (because long, and therefore expensive to build) with little resilience to fault by design. As generation sources ARE changing (no matter how relevant you think coal/gas burners are, renewables ARE coming) TX networks need to build more to take accept new sources.
The only answer is to build build and build some more; or accept crappier reliability - Or go backwards and burn more coal/gas.
The UK has similar problems, which are now coming to a head with the shift in generation reaching a critical point. Nearly all spare "bays" have either been used or earmarked for connections. The problem is so bad with ESO recently announced changes to the first-come-first-served nonsense. One could build more of course, but then you get into the who-pays problem - without a customer "signing on" to pay the bill, do you build them speculatively? No private outfit will do that. And Ofgem won't grant the funds for it either. And so there has been an impasse in the capacity space for 30 years. Now that capacity has run out something has to give. The old connections processes aren't fit for purpose anymore.
Demand reduction is by far the best solution to this problem; distributed micro generation eliminates the need for "as much" upstream network. Why the hell we (or the US) aren't subsidsing microgen is utterly beyond me. It's really not that expensive in the grand scheme compared to stamping out new networks and large generators... Beyond that your choices are limited to building more network, or accepting failures with the economic damage they cause.
Except the infrastructure is not really all that bad.
Yes, there were a couple of wide-spread blackouts in the last half a century or so, but most of those problems have been fixed. PG&E shutting down vast areas of Northern California is another issue entirely ... And of course Texas, which has created its own self-contained mess, and as far as I'm concerned they can wallow in it.
But today, right now, things pretty much work. And will continue to work.
It's power that we need, not the means to distribute it.
As an org that bought US networks a while ago; I can conform 19th century equipment was still buzzing away in a number of them. And standard practise for overheating/overloaded transformers is to get the fire department to point a pump at them.
The US networks are ramshackle affairs; if you want reliability on your terms, you have to get your own generators.
"US Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm. "We are moving swiftly to deliver cleaner, cheaper energy to every American community by building a modern and reliable electric grid.""
I hate that when I hear something that sounds as reasonable as that I think 'forget the oxy, just a moron', because I instantly assume they are going to be demanding monuments to a sky god in hope its beaming smile and flatulence will provide the power needed. Obviously there is nuke and hydro etc but unfortunately my go to assumption for such proclamations is a lack of energy and higher prices.
> I'm on a 100% renewable (Ha!) elec tariff so where are these savings??
That's the fault of the market not the cost of producing the stuff , in the UK the most expensive source sets the electric "market rates" - it used to be renewables but now it is gas. hence windfall taxation of the energy producers
It is easily proven that generation is cheaper by renewable. The RETAIL price however... Well, that tracks the last-dispatched generation source, which most of the time is either Gas or Coal. If the generating cost differential is 9x then, it follows that the Windmill operators are quids in to the tune of 9x that of a gas burner.
To break the back of that under the "current" market, means having a gross excess of wind generation available to the point where it is the last dispatched source.
To reform the market to undo the last-dispatched problem would mean tearing up 30 years of privatisation. An action I'm not against, but an awful lot of people are; not least the incumbent government.
"Windfall taxes" are a nasty bodge that don't address the underlying issues. Considering that the windfall tax is in most ways being used to pay for the "assistance" on bills being handed out, one does not have to look far to see who is creaming off of the increased cashflow.
For the record, no aversion to green power, quite the opposite. But the market system wrapped around it? A joke designed to funnel cash to divvies.
The US grid is highly balkanised; that is, there are competing networks and regulators from state to state. If not even within state. Working for a European outfit that bought a bunch of US networks under the misapprehension that they could be rationalised; I can say with some experience that the lack of central planning at national level makes us look good. (The US ops do generate all-important cash flow - they were not a complete write off!)
$13bn, even with US land prices will translate into at most, 500-1000km of transmission route. I.e. bugger all on US scale.
Should substation equipment be required; the budget will go even shorter. Most of the worlds supply chain is sensibly being earmarked to rebuild Ukraine.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
