http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=afYEN_OriWrU&refer=us
from March 10,,Dont recall hearing of it before today.
Well,,that didn`t work! Sorry
from March 10,,Dont recall hearing of it before today.
Well,,that didn`t work! Sorry
High Voltage Lines
- Thread starter johnn
- Start date
-
Active since 1995, Hearth.com is THE place on the internet for free information and advice about wood stoves, pellet stoves and other energy saving equipment.
We strive to provide opinions, articles, discussions and history related to Hearth Products and in a more general sense, energy issues.
We promote the EFFICIENT, RESPONSIBLE, CLEAN and SAFE use of all fuels, whether renewable or fossil.
- Status
mbcijim
Member
ml said:
Bush made it easier a few years back to site high voltage lines. Now Obama is making it even easier.
It's a great idea. I've seen too many easy, no thought needed, projects take years to be approved by the beauracrats. I've read a few reports that wholesale power prices would come down nationwide with just a few of high voltage lines connecting the grid regionally. Supposdly there are power peaks in some areas while there is a power glut in others at the same moment in time. I'm not saying they're correct, just saying that's what I've read. Reducing the cost of power for all would be an increase in everyone's standard of living.
I do find that part of Obama's environmental proposal interesting. How Obama matches his environmentalism up with the new power lines will show his true political wisdom. Every NIMBY and BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Absolutely Near Anybody) person will roll out every environmental reason in the book why the power line shouldn't be built in their backyard. On the other hand, taking the wind power from the United States Great Plains to it's coast will take many new lines in environmentally sensitive areas.
Short of rereading the article,,it seems like quite an investment for just 20% of demand (was that just eastern zone?) Not being very informed I thought the issue was that companys were not allowing the use of their lines for this extra power,,,by your mentions above,,most issues will be over the installation of power lines to reach the current supply lines??
gpcollen1
Minister of Fire
As a guy witha n Environmental background, I applaud this. Folks have been trying to get new transmission for years and years and no go. The infrastructure MUST be updated and expanded and this is the only way to get it done NOW!
DBoon
Minister of Fire
Several years ago, a HVDC power line project was proposed to connect Central New York to Orange Country, NY. This project was proposed by a private company that was going to invest $2 billion for a line that would have carried (max) 1200 MW of power, and on average 350 MW of power. The costs passed on to consumers would have been about $300 million per year. Good idea? Hardly. Luckily, this bad idea was defeated when the company that proposed it (New York Regional Interconnect, or NYRI) withdrew their application after intense opposition. The opposition had nothing to do with NIMBYism, and everything to do with that fact that it was too costly and a bad deal for consumers.
Here is what was revealed during some investigations.
The transmissions costs alone for electricity transmitted on the line would be more than 10 cents/kWh for the power estimated to be transmitted yearly - more than what some people pay for generated, transmitted and delivered power. When generation and distribution costs are added in, electricity costs would have been nearly 20 cents/kWh to the delivered area. This is for a 200 mile power line! Imagine what the cost would be for a 1000 mile power line - just do the math. Long distance power transmission makes no economic sense. There are better ways to spend $2 billion - like SMART grid equipment to reduce peak demand on a local basis.
The reputed "need" for the power line was to reduce "congestion". Congestion can be defined in a variety of ways - but "economic congestion" is the only one that matters to consumers, that is congestion that actually causes electricity rates to increase for consumers. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) published a report on the congestion costs. The result? Economic congestion was only about $25 million a year along the route the power line would run. Why pay $300 million per year for a $25 million return? No one in their right mind would do that. Would you pay $1000 a year in interest costs for $75 of electricity? Probably not.
It is far more economical to generate power where it is needed and distribute it over a more local transmission grid. Even in locations where real estate costs are high (e.g. New York City metropolitan area), it is still more economical to generate locally. Transmitting power over long distances is not economically viable unless the power is extremely low cost to begin with (i.e. 2-3 cent/kWh hydropower) and even then, there are distance limits before it becomes uneconomical.
The only reason there is so much stress on the electrical grid is due to power companies treating power line transmission capacity as infinite and essentially free - this was not the original intention of the grid. The interconnection was to increase system stability, not transport huge amounts of power long distances. It's being stressed by companies moving power back and forth to no economic benefit to you and I. Think of Enron's machinations and you get the picture - lots of buying, selling and moving of power, but no real economic benefit - just a lot of stress on the transmission lines. This is not what our country needs to do to grow more prosperous.
The real NIMBYs are those who don't want a generating station anywhere near them, won't take appropriate steps to conserve power, and want all their power transmitted to them from far away, at prices that don't make economic sense. Even areas near NY City, for instance, have renewable energy resources that, when accessed and fed into the local grid, are still cheaper than transmitting power from hundreds of miles away. It's just that the citizens in those areas have to make the connection that power used must equal power generated, and that their consumption equates to need for generation near them.
Here is what was revealed during some investigations.
The transmissions costs alone for electricity transmitted on the line would be more than 10 cents/kWh for the power estimated to be transmitted yearly - more than what some people pay for generated, transmitted and delivered power. When generation and distribution costs are added in, electricity costs would have been nearly 20 cents/kWh to the delivered area. This is for a 200 mile power line! Imagine what the cost would be for a 1000 mile power line - just do the math. Long distance power transmission makes no economic sense. There are better ways to spend $2 billion - like SMART grid equipment to reduce peak demand on a local basis.
The reputed "need" for the power line was to reduce "congestion". Congestion can be defined in a variety of ways - but "economic congestion" is the only one that matters to consumers, that is congestion that actually causes electricity rates to increase for consumers. The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) published a report on the congestion costs. The result? Economic congestion was only about $25 million a year along the route the power line would run. Why pay $300 million per year for a $25 million return? No one in their right mind would do that. Would you pay $1000 a year in interest costs for $75 of electricity? Probably not.
It is far more economical to generate power where it is needed and distribute it over a more local transmission grid. Even in locations where real estate costs are high (e.g. New York City metropolitan area), it is still more economical to generate locally. Transmitting power over long distances is not economically viable unless the power is extremely low cost to begin with (i.e. 2-3 cent/kWh hydropower) and even then, there are distance limits before it becomes uneconomical.
The only reason there is so much stress on the electrical grid is due to power companies treating power line transmission capacity as infinite and essentially free - this was not the original intention of the grid. The interconnection was to increase system stability, not transport huge amounts of power long distances. It's being stressed by companies moving power back and forth to no economic benefit to you and I. Think of Enron's machinations and you get the picture - lots of buying, selling and moving of power, but no real economic benefit - just a lot of stress on the transmission lines. This is not what our country needs to do to grow more prosperous.
The real NIMBYs are those who don't want a generating station anywhere near them, won't take appropriate steps to conserve power, and want all their power transmitted to them from far away, at prices that don't make economic sense. Even areas near NY City, for instance, have renewable energy resources that, when accessed and fed into the local grid, are still cheaper than transmitting power from hundreds of miles away. It's just that the citizens in those areas have to make the connection that power used must equal power generated, and that their consumption equates to need for generation near them.
Badfish740
Minister of Fire
- Oct 3, 2007
- 1,539
mbcijim said:
DBoon said:
I attended the listening session that Interior Secretary Salazar hosted in Atlantic City at the beginning of April on offshore drilling vs. offshore wind development along the eastern seaboard. The presentation from the Minerals Management Service (MMS) had some excellent and frankly surprising data. While wind power in the Midwest could satisfy some of the demand locally, the amount of wind energy along the eastern seaboard dwarfs the amount in the Midwest-not to mention the fact that the transmission lines would be much shorter. The Long Island Power Authority, Public Service Electric and Gas (NJ utility) and Cape Wind (Massachusetts) are all itching to get their projects going. Personally, I can't wait. It's exactly the economic shot in the arm we need right now.
mbcijim
Member
Badfish740 said:
I'd love to hear about offshore drilling for oil (for gas for our cars) vs. offshore wind (to light up our house and computers).
For now they don't compete except maybe oil heat for your house being possibly replaced with a heat pump.
For the most part the two are not competitive as one can not substitute for the other.
Badfish740, that sounds like a good seminar, what did you learn to pass on to us regular humans ... or is that just reserved for the goretax people?
DBoon
Minister of Fire
Exactly Badfish740 - generate where you need it, whether it's renewable or fossil fuel. I have no illusions that renewable can satisfy anywhere near 100% of our demands right now, but you've got to put the generating plants where the demand is - not 200 miles away or more. High Voltage Transmission Lines simply cost to much for that to be a viable option.
Badfish740
Minister of Fire
- Oct 3, 2007
- 1,539
rowerwet
Minister of Fire
some of these projects are needed, some could be avoided with some intelegence, like the nuke plants in the long Island NY area that were built but not allowed to go on line due to very stupid policys from people like chuck schumer. there was one plant that was allowed to build but if the power co. wanted to get the construction costs paid off, it could never go on line. So now there is a dead plant almost new, that NYC rate payers are paying for but no power going out of it. One plant on long island itself was forced to put doglegs in the water cooling channels so navy torpedoes couldn't get in, just to name one ridiculous impsition by NIMBYs, the power company finaly had to drill holes through the reactor vessel so it could never be used.
this leaves NYC area with a nuke plant leaking radioactive water into the ground, but it can't be shut down as it is needed to much.
Then there is the power cable that was run from CT under long island sound, but never allowed to be turned on, leaving the area with power shortages every sumer when it gets hot, causing the black outs that hit in the past few years in Aug.
these power lines wouldn't be as nessecary if long island NY had its own plants generating power and possibly selling power to CT, NJ, PA.
this leaves NYC area with a nuke plant leaking radioactive water into the ground, but it can't be shut down as it is needed to much.
Then there is the power cable that was run from CT under long island sound, but never allowed to be turned on, leaving the area with power shortages every sumer when it gets hot, causing the black outs that hit in the past few years in Aug.
these power lines wouldn't be as nessecary if long island NY had its own plants generating power and possibly selling power to CT, NJ, PA.
DBoon
Minister of Fire
The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) requires that Long Island generate 99% of its power on Long Island - it can only bring in a small amount of power from outside. It connects to outside of Long Island through HV power lines to ensure grid stability and/or to export power. NYISO requires that New York City generate 80% of its power within the five boroughs of NY City. It gets the additional 20% of its power from north of NY City and from NJ. By and large, NY City does a pretty good job of being reasonably self-sufficient in power. (Note: I am no lover of NY City). So it is tough to really bash these areas for not siting enough generating capacity in their service areas. By and large, they pull their load.
So who are the real culprits in the NY City metropolitan area? Why, that would be the wealthy suburbs and sprawling exurbs north of NY City who want to consume lots of power and have no power plants near them at all. Why is the Indian Point nuclear generating station north of NY City have such a controversy right now? Not because it leaked a little mildly reactive cooling water, not because people are truly worried that a terrorist attack on it will kill them all, but because the NIMBYs in Westchester County NY want to shut it down and import all their power (quick quiz - how likely is it that you can replace 2000 MW of generating capacity with 5 new 400 MW gas-fired power plants in Westchester County? Not very likely at all). This one plant is 1/3 of Westchester's generating capacity. The situation with Orange County and Putnam County NY is not too terribly different, except that they have no generating plants to shut down to begin with.
Generate and use locally is what is required. Reasonable HV grid interconnections between areas to provide stability. When you hear people wanting to make a business case out of generating electricity 200+ miles away and moving it long distances to some "metropolitan area" (i.e. rich people who don't want generating plants near them), then it's time to let your local representative know that this is not the way to go.
So who are the real culprits in the NY City metropolitan area? Why, that would be the wealthy suburbs and sprawling exurbs north of NY City who want to consume lots of power and have no power plants near them at all. Why is the Indian Point nuclear generating station north of NY City have such a controversy right now? Not because it leaked a little mildly reactive cooling water, not because people are truly worried that a terrorist attack on it will kill them all, but because the NIMBYs in Westchester County NY want to shut it down and import all their power (quick quiz - how likely is it that you can replace 2000 MW of generating capacity with 5 new 400 MW gas-fired power plants in Westchester County? Not very likely at all). This one plant is 1/3 of Westchester's generating capacity. The situation with Orange County and Putnam County NY is not too terribly different, except that they have no generating plants to shut down to begin with.
Generate and use locally is what is required. Reasonable HV grid interconnections between areas to provide stability. When you hear people wanting to make a business case out of generating electricity 200+ miles away and moving it long distances to some "metropolitan area" (i.e. rich people who don't want generating plants near them), then it's time to let your local representative know that this is not the way to go.
No one likes to plead ignorant (except possibly me)..I started this thread, as it came to me in a weekly newsletter,,and thought it was time to get my head out of the sand, and learn something..I appreciate the input however I am still confused as to what the new legislation addresses. Is it addressing the connection to long distance transportation, which seems not to be worthwhile,,or will it aid in local development??Sorry,,jut trying to better understand.
jebatty
Minister of Fire
I made a big coil and placed it under our transmission lines, forgot to put in a step-down transformer and a flux capacitor, and now blew out all the lines in my house. At least I know now how to get free power. LOL.
mbcijim
Member
DBoon said:
Did you mean that Westchester uses 6000MW? And they get 1/3 of it from nuclear?
I have a friend in the nuke industry. He told me there was a plant in Maine that is completely gone now. They tore it down and turned it into a greenfield. Is that true?
mbcijim
Member
Badfish740 said:
I didn't take it that way. I'm just curious how people can even have a debate about offshore drilling vs. offshore wind? I think that was his point. Their are lots of greenies out there (T. Boone Pickens, I just saw a commercial from Alliance for Global Cooling or something like that) spouting one can replace the other. And a lot of people, you included, seem to be taking that at face value.
Oil Energy and Electric Energy have 90% different uses. We could see a very limited gain by switching some use to electric, but by no means are we going to stop using oil tomorrow.
2.beans
Minister of Fire
i work for a power company as a line man. i know of certain areas where the can run lighting using a transformer run by induced voltage, your coil would have to be huge to run stuff in your house, and how would you regulate it as there is fluctuating voltage on high line depending on peak loads. very interesting id like to see it work. ive measured stray voltage/induced voltage on house services up to 60 volts but once any load is applied it dissipates instantly.jebatty said:
DBoon
Minister of Fire
Yes, about 1/3 of Westchester County, NY's generating capacity is nuclear. Obviously, daily use varies, the plant is partially off-line sometimes, some of the electricity is sent south to NY City, but if this plant was shut down permanently, there would be a huge capacity problem in Westchester County.
rowerwet
Minister of Fire
Yes, Maine Yankee is gone, the whole place is now a park or nature perserve, We still have a state bueracrat who makes big money to oversee the nuclear industry in Maine, I think the current one was a friend of the Governor. (the more I hate Mass. the more Maine becomes mass.)
mbcijim
Member
That's interesting. We're 2 hours from NYC and Philly. We have 500 MW of production here, way more than we need. 150 MW of wind and maybe 350 of waste culm (very low grade coal) that's already been mined. It's all green power in my book.
We have plans under way for another 200 MW minimum.
So I guess we're shipping our power to our neighbors? Which is fine by me. Lots of good jobs and created some very wealthy people.
We have plans under way for another 200 MW minimum.
So I guess we're shipping our power to our neighbors? Which is fine by me. Lots of good jobs and created some very wealthy people.
DBoon
Minister of Fire
Hi ML, sorry I missed your question earlier.
The "old" legislation gave the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the power to overrule state decisions on placement or need for HV transmission lines when the lines were "interstate", but only after the review process for the HV lines went through normal state review processes. It was the NY state review of the NYRI proposal that exposed the flawed economics and total lack of need for that project.
The "new" proposed legislation proposes to make it easier yet, bypass some of the state reviews, and give more power to the Federal government to approve these lines. What that will inevitably lead to is a lot of Federal boondoggles that cost a lot of money with guaranteed profits to private energy "investors" and pushed through the system by a bunch of corrupt politicians getting paid off by the "investors". Not a recipe for success. Again, if you put the generation where it was needed - whether it was renewable of fossil fuel generation - you will have the total lowest cost to the consumer.
rowerwet
Minister of Fire
as much as I agree with BDoon, I also think this is needed to connect all those wonderful new windmills to the cities as most of them will be in the boonies thanks to the NIMBYS and just where the wind is best.
mbcijim
Member
DBoon said:
Fantastic idea, only never met a politician who had the balls to allow this to happen. The public would rather pay more money and not have to look at it.
- Status