« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

What Color Is Your Electricity? Green, Brown(out) or Black(out)?

If it\'s wind or solar you want, get used to brownouts and rationing...

The Problem: Wind farms located in the Great Plains will be a long distance from where the electricity they generate will be used. Wind energy is not a steady source of generation like coal or natural gas. A wind- and solar-based system will of necessity be located farther from population centers, requiring more power substations and more transmission lines. The tab for the upgrade to the nation’s electric transmission grid will be $130 billion, which in the old days sounded like a lot of money.

Obstacle: The states that must be crossed with the New and Improved Transmission Grid don’t stand to benefit much. Where once stood amber waves of grain and purple mountain majesties, they’ll get giant raptor cusinarts and miles of ugly electric transmission lines.

The “Solution”: Federalize the siting of the New and Improved Transmission Grid. Take it out of the hands of state and local authorities.


Wind Promises Blackouts as Obama Strains Grid With Renewables

Aug. 7 (Bloomberg) — President Barack Obama’s push for wind and solar energy to wean the U.S. from foreign oil carries a hidden cost: overburdening the nation’s electrical grid and increasing the threat of blackouts.

The funding Obama devoted to get high-voltage lines ready for handling the additional load of alternative supplies is less than 5 percent of the $130 billion that power users, producers and the U.S. Energy Department say is needed. …

The consequences of failing to improve the grid played out last year in Texas, the biggest U.S. generator of wind power with 7,907 megawatts, enough to supply about 6.3 million homes. When winds died in February 2008, utilities had to cut power to factories and offices as output dropped 82 percent. …

The outdated network led to the nation’s worst blackout six years ago this month. It cut power to 50 million people in eight states and the Canadian province of Ontario, causing about $10 billion in damages.

Obama targets 25 percent renewables by 2025, more than five times the current amount, excluding hydroelectric, the Energy Department says. That would add about 272,000 megawatts to the grid’s capacity of 830,000, further straining a transmission system largely built more than five decades ago.

Reality is worse than the article states. Most of the current renewable source of energy is hydro and geothermal. Wind and solar are only 1%. Energy demand will be higher in 2025, if only from increased population. We’re expecting electrical generation to grow by a factor of at least 25, notwithstanding the fact that installed megawatts can only be counted on to deliver one-sixth (1/6) of their design capacity.

So where are all of those new power lines going to go? Not to worry…

One obstacle is the lack of federal authority to choose locations for new lines. Investor T. Boone Pickens, who met with Obama in Reno, Nevada, last August, is helping lead the push to address that.

“I told Obama that it has to be like Eisenhower did in 1956 with the national highway,” Pickens said in a July 7 interview, referring to President Dwight Eisenhower’s expansion of the interstate highway system for economic development and national security. “You could solve this within 10 years. All we need is federal siting authority.”

Public enthusiasm for wind and solar energy is directly related to its reliability. Right now it is a 1% supplement to a system that relies on gas, coal, nukes, hydro and geothermal. Things will be a lot different long before we get to 25% reliance on wind and solar. We’ve all become spoiled by the world’s most reliable electrical energy grid. When the public starts experiencing regular brownouts and rationing, the enthusiasm is bound to wane.

H/T Cooler Heads Digest, the Competitive Enterprise Institute

COMMENTS

  • SteveLA

    Vlad,

    It’s already happening out here in So CA.

    The local Tehachapi mountains have lots of wind mills but are limited by the power lines down to LA proper.

    So what happened, State forces, CALISO was able to push through a new extension/expansion of high capacity power lines through the area over the objection of some of the rural communities in the area.

    It’s not my back yard, so I’ve never studied the issue to think it through, but it does take a lot of electricity to keep my electric tooth brush charged, so I probably side with expansion of the power grid.

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      By casting their lot in with the collectivist Democrats who want the federal government to take over the energy industry and impose solutions, they will soon discover what has happened everywhere else that the government controls the energy industry – that environmental concerns get tossed in favor of corrupt cronies who provide the money to keep the government in power in return for exclusive control.

      We see this in Latin America, in Africa, in the Middle East, in Russia – and we see in China especially how environment takes a back seat to money, power, and corruption.

      (And it’s the particulates from China’s coal plants that are melting the North American glaciers, not “global warming”.)

      In other words, the federal government will be bought by the money that keeps them in power, and the environmental groups will be screwed – along with local residents who don’t have the money or clout to resist – which means that (genuinely) the poor and minorities will get the shaft – and these are the people who vote the collectivists into power.

      The environmentalists likewise will be stuffed by the federal government once they smooth the path for them to get control.

      Your Tehachapi example is just the foretaste – I’m sure that the environmental challenges were short-circuited with the State behind the project – whereas a private agency would have faced years of obstacles.

      • SteveLA

        CA assembly passed mandates for the amount of renewable energy was used in the state v land use environmental rules. In this case the bigger green power push won out.

        I am very pro Wind and Solar power, matter of fact my retirement home with have one or both if I can afford it. Probably not for the environmental reasons, but because I’m a cheap and hate paying electric bills, solar and wind is paying for electric up front at a fixed rate.

        As a bonus, I like Windmills, I also like tilting at them as has been observed many times here on RS…OH MY.

        • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

          …so it’s fine that you’re equipping you retirement home with one or both. Especially if your connection with the power grid is tenuous.

          Just make sure you keep at least 500 feet from one of those new high-velocity machines in case the blades break. You’ve seen the videos, I trust…

          • SteveLA

            Big scale work fine too.

            I’m all for all forms of energy, which was the Republican mantra last election cycle.

            Solar
            Wind
            Coal
            Nuclear
            Oil
            Capturing Hot Air coming from Washington (made that up)

            Bring it on, the more the better of all.

          • drothgery

            Large-scale solar and wind require much better large-scale energy storage and transmission technology than exists, or than anyone is projecting we will have within twenty years. There’s absolutely no reason the government should be funding or encouraging either. Encourage R&D on large-scale energy storage and transmission? Sure; that’s fine. There’s a pretty good case for government funding academic-level R&D that’s unlikley to pay off in the short term. And that’s talking millions, maybe. Not hundreds of billions. But actually wasting money building wind farms and solar plants that can’t provide baseload power? That’s stupid.

        • http://www.fredsnews.com Fred Maidment

          Suffice to say, there’s no reason why you shouldn’t be able to have wind and solar powering your home, without bothering your neighbors. More later.

  • DerKrieger

    “President Barack Obama?s push for wind and solar energy to wean the U.S. from foreign oil…”

    I don’t know why this keeps getting repeated over and over again. Wind and solar, nor even coal, natural gas, or nuclear power will do anything to impact our use of foreign oil. Oil is used as an energy source for transportation. All the others mentioned are used for generating electricity. I don’t see a lot of electric cars in our near future so oil will out of necessity be with us a long time. WTH the press never brings this up drives me nuts.

    I’ve done the math and it will require more windmills than we can possibly manufacture to match even a fraction of our current conventional power base.

    And good luck getting environmental permits for all the underground power lines that will be required. The eco-Marxists in CA managed to kill a solar plant on environmental grounds.

    Wind and solar are just stupid.

  • 10ksnooker

    Does anybody know how easy or hard it is to demolish them? I assume that once people see how stupid this windmill crap all is, they will want them removed to restore what the greens used to call ‘pristine vistas’.

    Odd how that works isn’t it. Pristine vistas can’t be disturbed by a power plant of nuclear power plant, but miles and miles of gigantic bird Cuisinarts just improves the view. What a crock.

  • lurker9876

    “When the public starts experiencing regular brownouts and rationing, the enthusiasm is bound to wane.”

    I wonder how much money will be spent on wind and solar before enthusiasm begins to wane?

    Likewise with electric cars.

    • http://andrightlyso.com/ civil_truth

      …and if the Democrats continue on their course, they will use this disenchantment to blame the evil oil/gas companies and use the shortages to take over the energy industry.

  • http://sidburgess.com sidburgess

    I think I agree with the sentiments of most of the comments here, but I am still troubled.

    What are we all going to be using in 50 – 75 years to produce energy? We can’t sit around and assume that it isn’t our problem. Our grandparents invested scores of billions in the infrastructure we are using today and we have the same obligation – to ensure we are not a total leach to the next generation. I am not suggesting that we merely spend more, rather that we be willing to be realistic and frugal with our energy outlook. I truly believe that relying on oil forever is silly and puts us at great risk. On the other hand, I am not impressed with the results of the CURRENT wind operations. HOWEVER, I am less impressed with the argument that we shouldn’t try anything.

    Solutions anyone?

    • DerKrieger

      This is about generating electricity.

      Regardless, the USGS estimates that the US has 1-2 TRILLION bbls of oil in the Green River Formation shale, several hundred billion barrels in currently off-limits off our coasts including AK. We are finding so much more natural gas now that the price has dropped and many drillers have stopped drilling because they can’t make money.
      We have enough coal at present rates to last several hundred years. If we switch all electricity production going forward to nuclear then we can reserve our coal reserves for transportation fuel. It can be converted quite easily.

      With known sources of fossil fuels alone all of here will be dead before any source runs out. That should provide plenty of time and revenue to explore and transition to true alternatives.

    • http://web.mac.com/mayo99/iWeb/Site/VladBlog/VladBlog.html Vladimir

      Yeah, I have one.

      The marketplace is usually the best solution. The law of supply and demand works quite nicely if you get out of the way, quit tinkering and give it a chance.

      Alternatives will prove themselves as they naturally are able to compete economically. Imposing alternatives by mandate, a la ethanol, is stupid in the extreme.

      • SteveLA

        Vladimir

        There are recent and spectacular failures of the free market of late to show your premise wrong.

        The housing bubble and unregulated financial industry which can best be described as supply and demand poorly regulated by the Feds. Throw in some wrong headed social engineering, some greed and regulators not doing their job, we got the mess we have in housing today.

        The power industry deregulation of the 90′s out here in CA with companies like Enron again poorly regulated that gamed the system and darn near bankrupted the citizens of CA.

        The oil shortages of last year caused not by shortages by by poor regulation and speculators trading in oil futures.

        This idea of all regulation is bad and the free market will sort it out is true in a sense, but market forces have been seen to create a whole heck of a lot of collateral damage to innocents when those forces get around to re balancing markets.

        I’m probably in the camp of we need effective, streamlined and powerful regulator umpires or regulators to keep the collateral damage to a minimum when the free market screws up.

        • http://web.mac.com/mayo99/iWeb/Site/VladBlog/VladBlog.html Vladimir

          “The law of supply and demand works quite nicely if you get out of the way, quit tinkering and give it a chance.

          The housing bubble was due, at least in part, to regulations forcing lenders to lend to people who they knew were bad credit risks.

          CA was at least partly to blame for its energy woes. It has not built any power plants so is dependent on outside sources. And it outsmarted itself by failing to lock in gas & electricity futures, instead playing the spot market for years. It was a strategy that worked well for them, until it didn’t.

          And I haven’t seen Enron around lately – how did that attempt to put the short pants on CA work out for them?

          Speculators make for a more liquid market. In a well functioning market you have a balance of bulls and bears. The problem comes when some smart guy tries to corner the market, and yes, we should have regulation & enforcement against that. But the energy market is huge, and I haven’t seen any evidence (short of the repetition of the idea on the internet, and Charlie Gibson’s insipid 20/20 report) that speculators were the guys behind $140 oil.

          Besides, $140 oil was followed within 6 months by $35 oil. Funny how that works.

          • SteveLA

            Vlad

            So the collateral damage to innocents caused by any of the examples you site, those are of no concern to you? You seem to dismiss what those episodes did to real people who had no part in the Greek tragedy of the failures in the market and the correction to correct those mistakes, well other than run a business, raise a family or just get by while big business and the free market hose them.

            Regulation is not a bad word, but too much regulation is. I think the working man and woman get that, but one of the blind spots for Republicans is that there is a mantra that all regulator oversight is bad and must be abolished. People who have been harmed by big business playing fast and loose would probably disagree and the Donks get that.

            Reagan by the way was against over regulation, not all regulation and I still tend to think he got it right.

          • 6eorge Jetson

            The only rational explanation for “speculators” being a cause of the spike in oil prices to $140 was a large short position that was recognized improperly and forced into covering by strategies that if true broke existing regulations. (If you know the short is unlikely to meet it’s margins, you can bid up the price by buying and then sell at an even higher ridiculous price when the short is forced to cover.)

            And I would argue that the housing bubble was not a “failure of the markets” left to themselves but rather a failure of government intervention in the markets (Greenspan holding rates too low, Fannie/Freddie creating a critical mass of suckers, we the taxpayers, guaranteeing subprime cash flows to the whole creation pipeline.)

            Conservatism is mindful of history and wisely skeptical of assumed perfect execution.

          • SteveLA

            Consumers knew that they were paying $4.00/gallon for gas last summer, do the reasons you state answer that anger or explain what the answer is to prevent sudden non production related spikes in the future? Drill and Drill now is all you got?

            For those of us with houses underwater, mine is not quite but close enough to be worrisome, do I care why the failure occurred or who is to blame? Probably not, as I think most people deal with the here and now, not the coulda woulda shoulda.

            Blame is a nice thing I suppose and scores some political points, but learning from bad things that happened in the economy and proposing sensible regulations and legislation to prevent it from happening in the future, that resonates with people.

          • 6eorge Jetson

            Easy money (Greenspan) can have bad consequences? Nope. Bernanke opened the fireplugs.

            GSEs distort the market by transfering risk but not the profits from private participants to taxpayers? Nope. Fannie/Freddie are about to get another installment of their quarterly 10 billion.

            The only folks that have learned anything are the market participants themselves, those who are very skeptical of this environment and are demanding higher yield spreads/lower stock prices to put their capital in play.

          • dennism

            People have a tendency to look at their own problems and overgeneralize them to the whole.

            And it’s strange how this culture of victimhood lets SteveLA argue in effect “my house is under water, I know, you don’t.”

            It’s doubtful that SteveLA’s problems have anything to do with $4 gasoline or financial speculation. Same is true for California.

            California could drill now. It has an offer of $100 million laying on the table. It won’t solve every problem California has, but like the old lady said when she peed in the ocean “every little bit helps.”

            I read an article yesterday about how the wind generators are ruining habitat for the lesser prairie grouse. Pushing the species to the edge of endangerment. Actually, we call them prairie chickens here. No federal siting commission is going to make any progress in an area where they threaten a species of grouse. Chickens maybe, but not grouse.

        • aesthete

          Than any of the alternatives. In the theoretical world of “Just do what works”-landia, I could see a number of regulations that would be effective in having the free market run more smoothly, but in the real world, such regulations rarely become law because they have no organized support and unpopular effects and implications. OTOH, the regulation that we have on the books is either largely a) extraneous, and are analogous to establishing a rule that dictates that there will be no dancing on tables in a theater that has no tables, or they are b) harmful on the whole, but beneficial to a specific group which is organized and capable of influencing public officials. Then there are some that fall somewhere in between those two (minimum wage, for instance).

          Besides that, their benefits are usually hidden and spread out, while their costs are clear and hit a specific group hard. This makes the enacting of effective regulation very difficult, and makes me wary of supporting most regulation.

        • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

          markets creating more supply and demand than a free market would have produced by forcing a lowering of credit standards for loans; guaranteeing the risk; and threatening lenders with false allegations of race discrimination if they didn’t participate.

          I am a witness to all the above.

  • 6eorge Jetson

    We could build transmission lines supported by massively thick, aesthetically pleasing single white poles. Or put them underground.

    But we don’t as it is no where near cost-effective.

    • SteveLA

      The engineer in my knows that we can do better in terms of how the electrical grid works, better technology and all that sort of thing, but I don’t see anyone, DONKS or R’s proposing a national program to develop new technologies.

      I probably depart from some in that I do see a role for the Federal government in basic research and experimentation in technology like power transmission and or power generation.

      • 6eorge Jetson

        IMO, the govt does have a role where there is no profit incentive to produce.

        IMO, what the govt does not have is a role to play in forcing non cost-effective technology/production/delivery mechanisms on the public by fiat.

      • http://web.mac.com/mayo99/iWeb/Site/VladBlog/VladBlog.html Vladimir

        The Chinese are making a commitment with their stimulus to a high tech power grid.

        Over here, of course, the natural instinct of the Dems will give them the power to set the thermostat in my house.

  • Richard Mullins

    You left us here in Texas in 2006 with some brownouts(never thought that would happened) and your study gave a reason for O to harp on Cap and Trade. Your still committed to all that Transmittion line in the Panhandle Plains, but don’t force Washington to make Nuclear easier to build. You’re going to leave us in a lurch as far as energy is concerned. You capitulated to eco-nuts when you shot down TXU’s building of Coal fired power plants and now you want are money for your crap.

  • fisk2521

    Ever hear of Wind Turbine syndrome???? Me neighter until I read this testimony from a Testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee By Dr. Nina Pierpont, MD PhD on March 7, 2006

    Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
    MD, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1991
    PhD, Population Biology, Princeton University, 1985
    BA, Biology, Yale University, 1977
    Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics

    http://www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html

    Dr. Pierpoint points out that government agencies are trying to the brakes on willy-nilly wind turbine construction out of essentially ?concern for wildlife?. (Seems to be a running theme – - worry for wildlife but not for human beings).

    She speaks of the need to focus on human health and pass regulations regarding this technology. The wind turbine industry is, of course, paying scientists to deny any health issues?.strange don?t you think?where have I heard such accusations before?

    Read her testimony at http://www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html
    It is a compelling read; she defines what a syndrome is medically and how it is determined. The the Wind Turbine Syndrome she lists the following symptoms:
    1) Sleep problems: noise or physical sensations of pulsation or pressure make it hard to go to sleep and cause frequent awakening.
    2) Headaches which are increased in frequency or severity.
    3) Dizziness, unsteadiness, and nausea.
    4) Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, and depression.
    5) Problems with concentration and learning.
    6) Tinnitus (ringing in the ears).
    Her credentials are linked to at the bottom of the page?? impressive.
    The home page of this article is http://www.savewesternny.org/index.html
    It is about ?Wind Farm Madness? and includes much information regarding the knee jerk reaction we get from Obama.

  • fisk2521

    Ever hear of Wind Turbine syndrome???? Me neighter until I read this testimony from a Testimony before the New York State Legislature Energy Committee By Dr. Nina Pierpont, MD PhD on March 7, 2006

    Nina Pierpont, MD, PhD
    MD, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1991
    PhD, Population Biology, Princeton University, 1985
    BA, Biology, Yale University, 1977
    Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics

    http://www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html

    Dr. Pierpoint points out that government agencies are trying to the brakes on willy-nilly wind turbine construction out of essentially ?concern for wildlife?. (Seems to be a running theme – - worry for wildlife but not for human beings).

    She speaks of the need to focus on human health and pass regulations regarding this technology. The wind turbine industry is, of course, paying scientists to deny any health issues?.strange don?t you think?where have I heard such accusations before?

    Read her testimony at http://www.savewesternny.org/docs/pierpont_testimony.html
    It is a compelling read; she defines what a syndrome is medically and how it is determined. The the Wind Turbine Syndrome she lists the following symptoms:
    1) Sleep problems: noise or physical sensations of pulsation or pressure make it hard to go to sleep and cause frequent awakening.
    2) Headaches which are increased in frequency or severity.
    3) Dizziness, unsteadiness, and nausea.
    4) Exhaustion, anxiety, anger, irritability, and depression.
    5) Problems with concentration and learning.
    6) Tinnitus (ringing in the ears).
    Her credentials are linked to at the bottom of the page?? impressive.
    The home page of this article is http://www.savewesternny.org/index.html
    It is about ?Wind Farm Madness? and includes much information regarding the knee jerk reaction we get from Obama.