Obama Stimulus Plan - Double Renewable Energy!

Make it so.

 

We really need to not lose sight of efficiency. Renewable energy is hugely important, but efficiency is even more so because it's cheaper and pretty easy to implement (just imagine how much consumption we could reduce by replacing all incandescent traffic lights with LED ones)

 

3,000 miles of electrical lines?? that sure does not sound right or adequate?

 

The 3000 miles of new grid is a bit vague. I would imagine it might start in two parts, 1) CA, 2)TX. I.E. very large population, biggest bang for the buck. (The largest projects are in Texas, the Great Plains, and California, with smaller projects either underway or under consideration in many states.)Wind power in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's what I gleaned from his address today.http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/Documents/Recovery_Plan_Metrics_Report_508.pdf

Jump-starting the transformation to a bigger, better, smarter grid. The upfront investments and reforms in modernizing our nation’s electricity grid will result in more than 3,000 miles of new or modernized transmission lines and 40 million “Smart Meters” in American homes.

I had my meters switched out this past fall. My rates went up so I bet I paid for this.

 

there was talk of a super high efficiency transmission grid needed because long distance power transfers would have very minimal losses that current lines now have (losses can be up to 9% over much shorter distances) but this project was like 30,000 miles of new lines and costing upwards of 90-250 billion over 10 years just to build.

sure would cost a lot, but would solve the issues of having renewable power only being available in the remote areas of the AZ desert (solar) or the Dakota Plains (wind). initial reports say a payback period for investment would be 15-40 years depending on the speed that these alternatives would be connected to this grid...

well, compare that to the "payback" period for foreign oil and 15-40 years does not seem like all that long to wait.

toss in 300,000 to 1.5 million "temp" jobs at a very liveable wage and i dont see why this would not be the top agenda.

if private companies were guaranteed a way to get their power to the masses cheaply and efficiently, i think we would see a lot more solar and wind farm

 

This discussion is missing the point. First efficiency, then go get more. The most cost-effective source of energy is efficiency, then renewables. It doesn't matter what is the source if you are not doing the most with what you already have. You try to hold onto what you already have first, then obtain more. Efficiency is key to vehicles, homes, offices, schools, churches and lighting. This has been researched and tested thoroughly by Rocky Mountain Institute and the US Dept of Defense.

 

There was a bottle neck (not sure if it was fabricated by coal industry / lack of cooperation) due to right of way issues up here / over here when it came to wind.

The article I read some where, stated 2.5 - 3 bil annual for 10 yr investment.

But still, we could eliminate our friends in the middle east and have cleaner power. I don't think they calculate the savings in national security terms just commercial.

I think it would be a timing issue. The technology is there to coordinate wind farms across large areas that have a consistent amount of wind.

 

pushing efficiency is a no-brainer... its immediate, costs nothing to implement so we "are not missing the point"

the american public is no doubt, but by being here in the first place, we take it for granted that efficiency is obviously going to save more than any technology ever could because there is no ceiling to any level of waste.

 

They just passed a coal project at Big Stone power plant to bring on an other unit at Milbank S. Dak with transmission into Minnesota.

Is this what you are talking about as far as making what you have more efficient? New lines for projects on the board with approval, Replace the older lines with those that have less loss while being transmitted.

 

yep thats a start, but the real project is being able to transport the power ANYWHERE....
being able to redirect extra (yes we have excess) hydro power from the pacific northwest to the northeast to prevent a massive power outage AND do it within seconds AND do it efficiently AND do it without any compromises to the integrity of the system or without sacrificing demand in any other part of the country...

iow, a true national power grid.

*edit* sorry, but had to add this... to get power to a neighboring state now requires

permissions
regulatory compliance
fees
charges
scheduling

all those coordinated with over 200 power entities who all control access to their own little piece of the pie. all that has to be eliminated...now, i am not saying that all those little power companies should go away... i am talking about all those little local regs going away

 

Communication and cooperation.

 

Rybold, that's probably it. Running lines off the existing grid into areas where there are excellent renewable resources... wind, solar, or geothermal.

There are two sides to efficiency... making and managing power efficiently, i.e a smart grid an then end use efficiency... LEDs, better refrigerators, etc. I hope that we're taking steps towards creating a smart grid. The grid we have now is really inefficient because it is not intelligent or intelligently designed. Fixing that would be HUUUUUGE step in the right direction.

 

I heard someone on NPR today make a comment that was way smart!

He said,,(paraphrasing a bit) "We don't have an energy crisis, we have an energy hardware crisis!"

His point was alternative energy technologies are here, and reliable etc, but we just need to use MORE of them! If, for example we subsidize PV solar to get more capacity on the grid every one wins,,, same with Wind, tide etc!.

I have always argued that if we were paying the complete and total cost of our energy choices, then PV solar and other RE becomes much more cost effective even without subsidy.

Icarus

 

I'm not sure I understand the 3000 miles of electrical lines... If I have PV panels on my house, I only need a couple of feet to bring it in. If everyone has that on their house or windmills somewhere in their neighborhood, we don't need 3000 miles of transmission lines.

 

That makes some sense. They're spot on about the grid. The biggest problem with the grid we have (there are actually 3 of them, or more is you start splitting hairs a bit) is that it just sort of evolved. The guide lines for it's evolution were ubiquitous, cheap, and reliable. What we really need is a new grid that is architected from the ground up to be intelligent and efficient. Tom Friedman's new book, Hot, Flat, and Crowded has a very interesting chapter about a vision for a new, intelligently designed energy grid. The title of the chapter is "The Energy Internet: When IT meets ET". It makes for good reading. So far, the book has been excellent. I recommend it anyone interested in energy/climate change/economics issues. Your thread on NG and Russia is discussed in the book as well (not the actual thread, but the issues that you brought up ).

 

It's not that easy, unfortunately. Roof top PV is part of the solution, but we still need transmission lines to bring power from its source to places where there is more demand. We need to start decommisioning dinosaur power plants, but to do that we have to replace that supply with renewable supply + efficiency improvements. Remember, the grid HATES big drops in voltage. That's very bad to the health of the grid. To avoid this condition you need to have enough supply to meet the demand. If a large weather system has an adverse effect on renewables in one area, the grid operators must respond by a.) decreasing demand, which we could do with a smart grid or b.) increase supply, ie bringing another power plant on line... or pulling excess renewable power from another area into the affected area. You've gotta have transmission lines to do that. We can't take advantage of our best renewable resources without more transmission capacity.

 

Kansas should be able to power themselves from wind alone...and provide power to neighboring states too. When I lived in Kansas as a boy the little windmill pumps on homesteads and ranches were one of the most common landmarks, and the creak of one of those old things didn't bother me.

It's hard to imagine that it wouldn't be profitable to erect commercial scale wind turbines out there. I would sure undertake that before shelling out for a coal, nat. gas, or nuke facility. You don't even lose the use of the land below/surrounding.

I agree with others about pushing efficiency as the best method. However, this is not either/or. Do both. Neither really accomplishes the goal without the other. Individually they leave us running in place, together they advance us. They are complimentary, not competing. Both efficiency and production improvements will be made primarily as replacement or new construction rather than as retrofit. In many cases retrofits are expensive and less than satisfactory compared to purpose built. So make sure new building standards are efficient ones. Make sure that energy efficient residential and commercial construction are favored. Encourage replacement facilities to be alternative sources.

Take my house for example, I could spend a fortune improving its energy efficiency and it still wouldn't compare favorably to an efficiently designed/constructed house of the same square footage. (And I spent an hour cleaning the refrigerator coils and another hour caulking windows, ducts, and electrical outlet box leaks today...so I'm still in the efficiency fight.) I will shoot for high efficiency replacements every time the opportunity arises, but I'm not going to tear out working equipment for things that won't pay back the cost of capital within 10 years or so. When old gear dies, I'll put in new stuff that meets my long term energy goals...or if the payout is short I'll change it out sooner. For the latter reason I did CFL's four years ago when I first realized bulb prices had dropped enough to easily justify the conversion--and I'm sure I was several years late in the realization that CFL's were finally ready for prime time. (And hey, who among us doesn't love the fact that CFL's seem to last forever? Having a CFL fail is a notable event, while incandescent failures were annoyingly common...and sometimes inopportune.)