You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Science & Technology
Green Power = More Transmission Lines
2010-03-29
California will need 55,657 gigawatt-hours of new renewable generation to meet the state's 20 percent standard by 2013 and more than 100,000 GWh to meet the 33 percent standard by 2020, according to the ISO report.
Independent System Operator
Since large-scale renewable resources, like wind and solar generation, are located far from cities, California will need many new power lines to deliver power long distances to reach its renewable energy targets.
But these would have disasterous consequences, so they can't be built in California. So how do they get to 33% green goal?
According to the ISO's preliminary studies, meeting the 33 percent renewable goal will require more than 800 miles of 500-kilovolt transmission lines in operation by 2020. The ISO said the weather-dependent, intermittent nature of wind and solar resources place new demands on the electric system to prevent power disruption.
Another cost of green energy.
Another major regulatory change under consideration in the state is a once-through-cooling water use regulation that will affect more than a dozen coastal power plants that currently use ocean water for cooling. The ISO said the change, if implemented, may force the retirement or repowering of nearly 19,000 megawatts of existing generation - more than one-third of the grid's installed capacity - located near coastal communities by 2024.
So close the power plants close to the people and build wind farms hundred of miles away?
Posted by:Bobby

#8  At least California has managed to come up with a novel piece of Green idiocy. Shutting down coastal power stations because of 'heat pollution' of the oceans.
Posted by: phil_b   2010-03-29 20:38  

#7  No, this electricity will be forbidden by executive order of the POTUS from experiencing any line loss. And will also have to buy health insurance.

And, d'uh, that's $1 trillion in my scenario. But who's counting.
Posted by: Matt   2010-03-29 18:31  

#6  I assume the 55 and 100 K-GWh numbers are demand side. Which means that they will need EVEN MORE at supply side because of the resistance in the long power lines, no?
Posted by: Free Radical   2010-03-29 17:40  

#5  Assuming $1B per gig of construction costs for wind power, which is crazy low, you're looking at the potential for $2 trillion to build this thing by 2020. Not to mention any hiccups you run into when you try to scale up to 100,000 gigs.

I suggest a cheaper and equally effective alternative would be to supply every Californian with a full-color photo of some wind turbines turning silently in a green field with fluffy clouds floating by. That's really what they want.
Posted by: Matt   2010-03-29 12:23  

#4  We are seeing an increase in transmission lines here in Kansas, especially in the west where the Eastern power grid meets the Western.

P2K, you are correct when you say Import the power. Shortly before the fall of Enron there was a day that all the power being generated in the United States was being used or spoken for. Power that normally sold for $40/MWH was going for in upwards of $1500 dollars. But CA being the "green state" it is and needing the power due to all it's people; would only buy "clean" hydro power from Canada. Nevermind that our coal plant in Kansas was sending power North to help keep their grid balanced from the giant sucking sound coming from those around Los Angeles.

More transmission lines will help get wind power, when it's available, to the markets that need it. However, that's a risky and expensive venture, based soley on the wind driven generation.

Each of these wind turbines takes steel, concrete, and manpower just as a coal plant does. The wind turbines (3 MW) just installed aound Concordia, KS each have a base that contains 500 cubic yards of concrete.

The new plant we are attempting to get built will be physically located in the Eastern graid but supply power to the Western grid. We'll have a recitifier station that will syphon off about 100-150 MW's for use on the Eastern grid.

To be able to do this, two 750kV transmission lines will be built from Holcomb to Colorado. One will go NW towards Limon and the other basically straight west to Pueblo. These lines will open up avenues for many of the new winds farms to reach their markets.

Now if we could only work out the scheduling of when the wind blows..........

Posted by: Everyday a Wildcat(KSU!)   2010-03-29 11:00  

#3  Move the people to Tehachapi Pass and the Geysers geothermal field. Green power sources and no long transmission lines. Yeah, I know there are no jobs, but that won't matter if we just move the unemployed.
Posted by: Glenmore   2010-03-29 10:08  

#2  "California will need to import 55,657 gigawatt-hours of new renewable generation to meet the state's 20 percent standard by 2013 and more than 100,000 GWh to meet the 33 percent standard by 2020, according to the ISO report."

As we type at the Rant, fixed it for you. Do you really expect the Granola bunch to allow the exploitation of resources and construction of power plants in their own neighborhoods? /rhet question. And they do need 'THEM' to blame when they have to pay for imported power as prices rise. You know, THEM, the people from out of state.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2010-03-29 10:05  

#1  More whale oil - it's renewable...
Posted by: M. Murcek   2010-03-29 09:03  

00:00