We, America, need DC lines from the west coast to east coast. Personally I don’t care if they are owned by the feds. It just needs to be part of the move to sustainable energy.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
DC transmission lines
- Thread starter CrazyRabbit
- Start date
Yes. It should be noted with that HVDC you can't just tap into it the way you can with AC. It's inter-regional distribution.
However, be careful what you wish for. Generators want to sell at the highest price possible. Once you make that connection, generators in the cheaper location will prefer to sell to more expensive location. The result can be that prices rise in the cheaper location.
This is something that happened in Norway as it became more connected. As a result plans for a 2nd proposed connector to the UK were abandoned.
So if you have cheap electricity and want to keep it, make sure you have excess renewables.
However, be careful what you wish for. Generators want to sell at the highest price possible. Once you make that connection, generators in the cheaper location will prefer to sell to more expensive location. The result can be that prices rise in the cheaper location.
This is something that happened in Norway as it became more connected. As a result plans for a 2nd proposed connector to the UK were abandoned.
So if you have cheap electricity and want to keep it, make sure you have excess renewables.
Watts_Up
Well-Known Member
1. Can you clarify what you call "DC transmission lines" ?
Do you mean:
High-voltage direct current (Wikipedia)
A high-voltage direct current (HVDC) electric power transmission system
(also called a power superhighway or an electrical superhighway)
uses direct current (DC) for electric power transmission,
in contrast with the more common alternating current (AC) transmission systems.
2. If so, what problem do you try to solve ?
I suspect that what you may try to recommend would be to transfer excess of solar energy
from the west coast to the east coast because the east coast will be already in the dark?
DC high voltage has some advantages over AC high voltage but is also more complex and costly to implement:
Converting from AC to DC
The challenge, however, is that to transmit via HVDC, two converter stations are needed.
First, the AC power must be converted to DC to begin the transmission process,
and then when it gets to the desired tie-in destination,
the DC power must be converted back to AC to be utilized on the grid.
Last edited:
ucmndd
Well-Known Member
Think more generally. The bulk efficient transfer of renewables from where they are generated to where they are needed.
Solar from the southwest. Hydro from the northwest. Wind from the plains. Wherever it is to wherever it’s needed.
UkNorthampton
TSLA - 12+ startups in 1
It's almost always good for renewables somewhere over a large area. Still (wind), dull (solar) days are rare over a large enough area. Overbuilding renewables with some storage is likely to be cost effective (Tony Seba). Sunny west/east coasts at different times extends solar generation window.
I would imagine DC battery storage as buffers in many locations, including trans-continental (Australia>Singapore, Morocco to UK), continental (North America, Europe), country, regional, city/town, locality and within commercial or domestic buildings/sites. This means that peak power can be lessened and (comparatively) trickle charge/discharge evens out surplus and demand. Some real-time, much is predictable.
High Voltage Direct Current networks are becoming more common, tech challenges solved eg switchable 2-way transmission possible.
So to answer the question of what problem is being solved: intermittent renewables being completely reliable and cheaper bountiful electricity.
Transmission helps; batteries help. But you really need to talk to South America and get transmission lines built from there too.
Anyone with solar and all electric knows the real issue is the shorter days and colder temps in the winter. And that impacts all of the US at the same time and there is no realistic battery to fix that. Hydro from the pacific NW might help but those WA folks are not going to be happy about paying 5X for electricity. The hydro is not scalable. So spreading it out all over the US in the winter will be quite challenging. There is of course hydro in Canada/Niagara but that has the same issue of not being scalable.
Yes wind certainly helps. But converting all heating to electric will take a very large amount of wind to power. Not to mention the cars with less efficiency in the winter. And trucks with worse aerodynamics pushing cold air. It is a lot of power.
Seba - 70 MMB/D by now. We did 101.7 for 2023 - the highest ever. He is way too optimistic. We have to build 20X what we have today just to reach parity and 40-60X to overbuild. That also is neglecting all the energy it takes to build the batteries (and the wind and solar and transmission lines).
Also, we have known we need transmission lines improved for decades. And where are they? Our system of government doesn't allow for that much regional cooperation not to mention the environmental impacts and reactionary states blocking things. We have 1/2 the states banning cities from banning natural gas and you want them to cooperate to build transmission lines?
Sunzia - 10 years or 12 years or maybe 15 in the making. $12B for ... 3.5 GW. That is .5% of US electricity use or about .15% of total energy use. So multiple that transmission line cost and time line by 100 to get an idea of what we need (that would be to transmit 15% of total energy which is very optimistic that this is all we would need). It is also just 550 miles, through some of the most empty areas of the country, when to cross time zones, you need 1000s of miles.
We don't have the government structure to accomplish this. We are nowhere near the public opinion to change the government structure. That is the real problem. This is no longer a technical or economic problem, it is a government one.
Anyone with solar and all electric knows the real issue is the shorter days and colder temps in the winter. And that impacts all of the US at the same time and there is no realistic battery to fix that. Hydro from the pacific NW might help but those WA folks are not going to be happy about paying 5X for electricity. The hydro is not scalable. So spreading it out all over the US in the winter will be quite challenging. There is of course hydro in Canada/Niagara but that has the same issue of not being scalable.
Yes wind certainly helps. But converting all heating to electric will take a very large amount of wind to power. Not to mention the cars with less efficiency in the winter. And trucks with worse aerodynamics pushing cold air. It is a lot of power.
Seba - 70 MMB/D by now. We did 101.7 for 2023 - the highest ever. He is way too optimistic. We have to build 20X what we have today just to reach parity and 40-60X to overbuild. That also is neglecting all the energy it takes to build the batteries (and the wind and solar and transmission lines).
Also, we have known we need transmission lines improved for decades. And where are they? Our system of government doesn't allow for that much regional cooperation not to mention the environmental impacts and reactionary states blocking things. We have 1/2 the states banning cities from banning natural gas and you want them to cooperate to build transmission lines?
Sunzia - 10 years or 12 years or maybe 15 in the making. $12B for ... 3.5 GW. That is .5% of US electricity use or about .15% of total energy use. So multiple that transmission line cost and time line by 100 to get an idea of what we need (that would be to transmit 15% of total energy which is very optimistic that this is all we would need). It is also just 550 miles, through some of the most empty areas of the country, when to cross time zones, you need 1000s of miles.
We don't have the government structure to accomplish this. We are nowhere near the public opinion to change the government structure. That is the real problem. This is no longer a technical or economic problem, it is a government one.
There are more than enough wind and solar resources for the USA to electrify everything. Utility-scale solar generation December 2022 was 7,033GWh. June 2022 was 16,058GWh. US winter solar resources really aren't that bad, and winter/spring wind generation is complementary. So it's more about having complementary wind and solar generation, added to a bit of hydro, plus enough storage to get through the dunkelfalute.
And, the shorter and colder days don't impact everybody the same way at the same time. In hotter parts of the country electricity use is lower in winter than summer. And if you look a temperature graphs it's clear that there are regional variations. That cold February storm that hit the Midwest was in a winter where the Northeast had above-average temperatures.
The challenge with HVDC is largely arguing about who pays for it, not whether it can be built. You could have votes not to allow power to come through, but you're more likely to get that opposition when you're not addressing issues systemically. That's what I believe happened in Maine, with voters trying to block a connection that would sell power from Quebec to Massachusetts. The annual pipe capacity was greater than Maine's current annual electricity demand.
I don't think it's anything to do with government structure. It's party policies. Countries with political consensus see rapid shifts to electrify.
How many other countries have 50 parts with diverging economies, motivations and ideology. Party policies are partly a reflection of that which is a reflection of our structure.
It is hard for the federal government to force a landowner in Kansas to allow a transmission line over his property. The number of property owners is quite large and getting 100% is not going to happen. This is structure.
There is enough solar resources to do anything. But sun hitting the ground is not the same as the infrastructure to capture it. A 50% drop off in solar is partly because most solar is built in the southern part of the US. Build it in the North and the drop off is worse.
Almost every part of the country has less efficient driving and trucking in the winter even if they don't need much heat. But the majority of the country needs to heat their homes and office buildings.
We can't make this work with our current government structure. We obviously can't have consensus with out current structure.
It is hard for the federal government to force a landowner in Kansas to allow a transmission line over his property. The number of property owners is quite large and getting 100% is not going to happen. This is structure.
There is enough solar resources to do anything. But sun hitting the ground is not the same as the infrastructure to capture it. A 50% drop off in solar is partly because most solar is built in the southern part of the US. Build it in the North and the drop off is worse.
Almost every part of the country has less efficient driving and trucking in the winter even if they don't need much heat. But the majority of the country needs to heat their homes and office buildings.
We can't make this work with our current government structure. We obviously can't have consensus with out current structure.
Maine's solar resources in December are 50% of the resources in July. If there's a challenge it's that you'll probably want a more vertical angle. So, best economics probably just means build a higher multiple.
But generally in those places where you have a large drop off of solar in winter you also have more hydro resources available or may have more wind resources. Otherwise, bring on some HVDC.
If you are worried about high electricity consumption from electric transportation, it implies you now have access to a metric crapton of cheap batteries. Batteries make it easier to ramp up renewables. The batteries in the vehicles would also offer great possibilities for demand response, or even V2x.
Heating is a major demand, but if you're going renewable, you're going to heat pumps in densely-populated areas, and heat pumps mean you'll cut the primary energy demand significantly. Still could have high peaks, but instead of worrying too much about how you'll have enough generation, it's more of an energy storage issue. Generation is cheap, fuel is expensive.
Initially you just use cheap gas generation, and then shift as renewable storage alternatives arise. But we're not even close to it being a pressing problem. Right now, you just keep building.
That landowner in Kansas may already have wind turbines. Granting an easement that can increase the value of their land would be sensible. (It's not the landowners that complain about wind power.)
Yes - more vertical in Maine helps but that hurts overall generation. So you need to build more and you need space. Also - vertical is pretty hard - roofs aren't vertical.
The US as a whole is so far away from Maine. Politically, economically etc. Even still 75% of homes are still heated with fossil fuels. But - yes - that is world's better than the rest of US.
I never said the land owner in Kansas complained about wind power. They may not like the power lines. And if 1 person owned the entire route from Kansas to Nashville it would be easy. Install turbines and the power lines. But that isn't the reality.
I realize that I sound like a naysayer. But how long has it been a good idea to build transmission lines and lots of wind/solar? How long has it been the right economic answer? And how many long distance lines have actually been built in that time period. I have come to the conclusion that we can't do it without changing our systems entirely. We have run out of time and if we keep saying that it will get done because it makes economic sense and all will be good, we are fooling ourselves. We are on the cusp of electing someone who thinks wind turbines cause cancer - and a large number of people will vote for this person - including the majority in land locked states. And you want transmission lines with eminent domain? Ha!
The US as a whole is so far away from Maine. Politically, economically etc. Even still 75% of homes are still heated with fossil fuels. But - yes - that is world's better than the rest of US.
I never said the land owner in Kansas complained about wind power. They may not like the power lines. And if 1 person owned the entire route from Kansas to Nashville it would be easy. Install turbines and the power lines. But that isn't the reality.
I realize that I sound like a naysayer. But how long has it been a good idea to build transmission lines and lots of wind/solar? How long has it been the right economic answer? And how many long distance lines have actually been built in that time period. I have come to the conclusion that we can't do it without changing our systems entirely. We have run out of time and if we keep saying that it will get done because it makes economic sense and all will be good, we are fooling ourselves. We are on the cusp of electing someone who thinks wind turbines cause cancer - and a large number of people will vote for this person - including the majority in land locked states. And you want transmission lines with eminent domain? Ha!
Similar threads
