Extract: As we shift away from fossil fuel and as the number of wind turbines increases, more and more people are calling for a Supergrid - high capacity links carrying electricity between the major electricity consuming and generating areas. But we don't need to wait for Federal Government to design, fund, own and operate such a Supergrid. Instead, we need to urge local areas to each implement appropriate policies.
As the number of wind turbines increases around the world, there are increasingly louder calls for a Supergrid. Let's first have a look at what's happening in Europe. On average, wind power generates 20% of Denmark's electricity and this looks set to increase. On windy days, wind turbines generate even more electricity than Denmark needs. Some of this wind power is then sold on to Germany. This is possible because their grids are interconnected.
In Spain, earlier this month, there was so much wind in Salou and nearby areas that the wind turbines in the area produced 1,500 megawatts per hour. This was too much power for the local grid to handle, so one third of the wind turbines had to be disconnected and their electricity went to waste.
As more wind turbines get installed in Europe, it becomes ever more obvious that better interconnection of the various national grids can improve load levelling and increase efficiency and reliability of electrical supply in all countries.
In September, a high-voltage direct current (HVDC) 700 megawatts capacity 580-kilometers submarine cable link (pictured left) was completed, connecting the power grids of Norway and the Netherlands. Norway already produces more hydropower than all the electricity it uses, while neighboring Sweden caters for almost all its electricity needs through nuclear plants and its own hydroworks. This new link allows the Dutch grid to tap into Norwegian hydropower at times of peak usage, which will become increasingly useful as the number of wind turbines grows in the Netherlands.
The European Commission (EU) is now proposing a European Supergrid, featuring submarine cables between most Western and Northern European countries, as well as electricity and gas connections from Mediterrenean and North-African countries. Plans like this have been around for years. The Trans-Mediterranean Renewable Energy Cooperation (TREC) has discussed plans to carry solar energy to Europe since 2003, pointing at images like the one below, while Airtricity has been proposing a European Wind Energy Supergrid for some time. The fact that the EU released its blueprints for a Supergrid just before a summit between the EU and Russia, also highlights the political significance of the proposal.
The red squares show how much area solar power theoretically needs to supply the entire
electricity demand of - left to right - the World, European Union and Germany
Grand-scale plans have been proposed in the U.S as well, notably by Chauncey Starr who in 2002 called for a supergrid delivering both electricity and hydrogen. More recent proposals are the Pickens Plan and the Solar Grand Plan. Such a Supergrid could be expanded across the borders with Canada, since Canada generates enough hydro-power to supply two-thirds of its electricity. Furthermore, there is plenty of potential for solar power in Mexico. 
Of course, the U.S. itself has substantial solar power and hydro facilities and less than 0.8% of all electricity used in the U.S. was imported in 2007. But interconnecting power resources beyond national borders is tempting - it can substantially increase efficiency and reliability for all and it becomes ever more attractive as wind energy looks set to increase dramatically in the near future.
We do need to plan for electric vehicles, hydrogen-powered ships, electric heating, electric arc furnaces, clean concrete, pyrolysis of organic waste, CO2 capture from ambient air, desalination plants, greenhouses, etc. This means we need to plan for increasing demand for electricity.
We need a smart grid that allows electricity to flow anywhere and either way, depending on supply and demand at the time. We need a grid that can draw from an abundance of distributed power sources, in order to service numerous users far and wide, each with their particular need.
We also need power that is stored in a variety of ways, such as in batteries of electric vehicles, in the form of hydrogen, molten salt, pumped-up water, etc. As I suggested earlier, we could use the Great Lakes as a reservoir not only of water, but also of energy. At times of peak supply of wind and solar power, surplus power could be used to pump water back from a lower to a higher lake, in order to use hydro-power at times when supply of other types of power is low.
However, to achieve all this, we do NOT need a Supergrid that is paid for and owned, designed and operated by bureaucrats and politicians. Instead, we need - for lack of better wording - a 'Superb Grid' that evolves by allowing market mechanisms to give shape to the political commitment to deliver clean and safe solutions.
We do need a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases, but we need local implementation to make it work. Local areas should implement policies that reduce greenhouse gases and that replace polluting products with better alternatives. If a local area decides that the most economic way to obtain clean and safe energy is by importing this from interstate, then surely such an area will put in place the necessary infrastructure to receive this energy. Feebates can be tailored to achieve all this most effectively. Such policies don't need politicians to run companies, select specific technologies and operate the facilities; those politicians are typically too ignorant about the technologies to do so in the first place. Instead, such policies merely need to insist that the alternatives will be safe and clean; market mechanisms can further sort out what works best where.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 42
As Tom Friedman has written, these technologies exist - just not to scale. With the in-coming administration and congress, I look for policies that will propel the scaling of these technologies instead of suppress it.
How do you see this super grid differing from the grid which is already in place? We ship electricity all over the country at the present time to supplement what may be needed in various places.
At the present time I realize that there is an accumulation of transmission facilities located at a single large generating facility such as a hydroelectric power plant. Something similar would be needed near a large wind farm wold it not?
One of the big challenges facing wind power is getting the approval for the actual installation of turbines where they might be seen from anyone's back door! But it seems to me that the transmission of power could be accommodated as quickly as the generation could be brought on line.
Renee: ..wind farms - don't they harm birds?
In the past, many wind turbines were built in areas that were populated or visited by many birds, while turbines were all too often mounted on lattice towers that attracted birds seeking nesting or resting places. Large offshore wind turbines cause fewer damage to birds than numerous small turbines with fast spinning blades, as I wrote in the article More Wind Power!. There are now also smaller turbines for installation in residential areas that have the shape of spheres and cylinders, making them more visible to birds, less noisy and more effective at low wind speeds and the need to mount them on high towers.
Wind turbines replace coal-fired power plants, which are polluting the air. Wind turbines can also power an electrified fleet, without the pollution that's now blown into the air from the exhausts of gasoline vehicles. This pollution kills many more birds than wind turbines do. Birds would thus benefit from a switch to wind turbines in several ways. Furthermore, spills from oil tankers kill many birds, penguins and fish. Many birds are also killed by collisions with trains and vehicles - including the big trucks and trains now carrying oil, gasoline and other fossil fuel - and by planes.
Most birds are actually killed by collisions with buildings, in particular when flying against windows. For some statistics, have a look at the graph at: sibleyguides.com/mortality.htm.
If you take all this in account, birds are far better off with a shift away from fossil fuel towards wind power. Yes, there may be even less bird damage if we switched entirely to solar power and geothermal power, but the urgency to shift swiftly and effectively to clean and safe power in the light of global warming means that we shouldn't exclude wind energy. My conclusion remains that we should urge local areas to each implement appropriate policies, and I strongly recommend feebates.
I believe the current grid should evolve by efficiently using opportunities for storage and generation of power in safe and clean ways, at places that may be remote from urban areas, yet have special attractions, such as solar plants in deserts, offshore wind turbines, etc. In many cases, transmission of power will be similar to the way power is distributed from a single large hydro facility over a large area.
However, I also believe there is a huge scope for micropower, i.e. a multitude of small facilities such as solar panels on rooftops, heat pumps and small wind turbines, together generate huge amounts of power. Read this BBC report called Micropower could fuel UK homes, which now dates back more than four years. Also take into account storage in car batteries and in the form of hydrogen. As discussed, batteries of electric cars can be recharged during the day from solar panels on top of their parking place, or at night from the grid. In both cases, they can feed electricity back into the grid at times of peak demand.
The 'Superb Grid' will not evolve solely by adding solar farms, wind farms and transmission capacity. We also need to take into account all sorts of micropower and allow for a more distributed grid, with smart metering both ways, time of usage fees, etc. At first glance, micropower may seem more expensive, but the biggest part of the electricity bill is not the generation of power, but delivering the power, in other words the grid itself.
With feebates that benefit safe and clean solutions, market mechanisms can sort out what works best where. A strong political commitment to feebates will make it attractive for investors to build the facilities we need, it will allow businesses to work efficiently on the basis of supply and demand, and it will give consumers the confidence to make the often long-term commitments to the solutions that suit them best.
The only problem with the micro power of which you s peak is that many, if not most, of the potential users could not afford the initial investment. My Ophthalmologist put in solar panels last year and she tells me that they produce 25% of their electrical power. She tends to like to do things "green!"
You mention existing technology and in that light, I have put in the fluorescent replacements for light bulbs for the most part. I've found they do not work for outside. That was a big disappointment to me as we have seven outside lights that are on most of the night. Also, any light on a dimmer cannot be the fluorescent variety and we have ten of them on paddle fans. That's a total of seventeen lights that we must use the incandescent bulbs for.
As I said, a strong political commitment to feebates will give consumers the confidence to make the often long-term commitments to the solutions that suit them best, it will also make it attractive for investors to build the facilities we need, and it will allow businesses to work efficiently on the basis of supply and demand.
James: "..they do not work for outside..."
What do you mean, James? Do they not provide strong enough light?
James: "any light on a dimmer cannot be the fluorescent variety..."
You can use a compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulb on a dimmer switch, but you must buy a combination, i.e. one CFL-bulb will be specifically made to work with specific dimmers (check it out or buy a combo package). GE makes a dimming CFL-bulb (called the Energy Smart Dimming Spirals®) that is specially designed for use with its dimming switches. Also check for Philips dimmable CFL models at Home Depot.
The compact florescent bulbs fail in a very short time outside. At least in our climate. If it was always warm they would probably be viable but I've tried repeatedly to use them and if they last a month they are doing good.
On a dimmer, they tell you right up front on the package normally, not for use with dimmers. I've not seen the ones of which you speak that are made for dimmers. The ones I've purchased have been nearly prohibitive in cost so that may be why they are not in the stores here. If they are made to work with specific dimmers then one would have to know what kind of dimmer he had and/or rewire as needed to utilize them. I certainly could not afford to rewire. But I expect that the special lamps would be prohibitive in price.
BTW, I've been using the compact florescent bulbs for many years and none of them ever give the life they claim so when figuring any cost savings, discount it for that as well as I've never been able to tell the difference in my bill when I changed my house over to them In fact, the principle reason I changed was I hate to change light bulbs! But they are definitely more expensive to use than incandescent.
I really have to point this out again, but the "feebate" plan is never going to fly! You are a very good visionary and thinker, try to utilize that skill to come up with another method. People won't accept it and politicians wont put it through because of the public not wanting it. I know it is important to you but that is the way I see it.
As to feebates, I do respect your view, James, but I still don't see what objections you have. People will accept feebates better, because they give people more choice and they are more economic, as they are more efficient in achieving the desired shift than other proposals. I don't see how a cap-and-trade scheme can be more successful.
"Visionaries Unite to Unite the rest" ... (+=-)>(+/-)
I'm sure you are correct about the future of the CFB lights!
I don't have a big personal thing about the feebates. I just know the American people and what they will and will not accept and it has nothing to do with logic. You can scare the hell out of people by talking about taking from one to give to another and that is exactly what feebates employ! Therefore, it is more expedient to find a means that the people will accept and won't hang their congressperson for voting in. I tend to look at things from a purely practical viewpoint and that ain't a gonna happen!
The feebates that I propose are policy instruments to reduce greenhouse gases. They should be seen as part of a global commitment to reduce greenhouse gases. It's wrong to say that Feebates (or any other policy that seeks to reduce greenhouse gases) are "taking from one to give to the other". Nobody had any prior rights to harm other people by emitting unlimited amounts of greenhouse gases into the air. Compensating for harm inflicted in the past is another issue. Feebates merely discourage further pollution and encourage better alternatives.
The issue at hand is to choose the most effective methods to reduce greenhouse gases. Obama looks set to implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. By the way, McCain also wanted a cap-and-trade program and the European Union has had its Emissions Trading Scheme for years, allocating rights to emit specific amounts of greenhouse gases. My point is that feebates are more effective, so we will all be better off with feebates.
I once wrote an article with the title 'Most Effective Policy' (MOP), discussing ways to compare policies for effectiveness. The article and the term MOP seem applicable in this case, since I believe that feebates are the most effective way to mop up greenhouse gases. However, if you disagree, I'd love to hear more.
Didn't Buckminster Fuller express this idea back in the 1950s?
http://www.buckminster.info/Ideas/10-EndEnergyDistribGrid.htm
http://www.geni.org/
GENI "global energy network institute" is dedicated to linking renewable resources around the globe in an effort to save the planet from global warming.
Back in the 50s though Buckminster Fuller's reasoning was to raise the planets third world countries out of poverty, he knew the answer was 'MORE' energy.
Any who, a grand idea but considering the challenges, not likely to come about, it's much more reasonable to work with what we have and advance within our existing system than trying to change so drastically.
Here is an article that shows the results of carbon taxes in the E.U. and explains how the earlier attempts have been shelved due to their deliterious effects on the poor and the economy, and they are looking for alternative ways to reduce C02 output.
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=695c8e47-3139-4d02-82f6-a3e627bb9470
Canada has just (or is about to) inplimented a carbon tax program that will have minimal effect on the poor and the economy but it is so mild that the environmentalists are having fits.
Fact is any fee imposed on carbon will have a negetive effect on the economy and the poor.
James,
LED lights are rapidly coming down in price and I don't think they have the temperature restrictions that CFLs do, not sure about dimming though.
Also on CFL life span, buy the name brand CFL's, the off brands will have much shorter life spans on average although as a property manager I watched these things pretty closely and I have seen some of the name brands fail pretty early also.
I'd love to get some suggestions as to what the best policy is regarding lights. Some suggest that, if all electricity was produced in clean and safe ways, there's no need to worry about what type of lights people use, they can work out cost, reliability and other criteria and choose according to their needs. The problem is, of course, that only little of our energy is clean.
From an environmental perspective, we should instead have developed more solar and wind power and enhanced the electrical grid, as I wrote, e.g., in Reinventing the Wheel.
As I wrote in the article above, it's clear that we need look at ways to upgrade the electric grid and, above all, we need a smart grid. Harold Lasswell is well known for his communications maxim: "Who (says) What (to) Whom (in) What Channel (with) What Effect?" and his definition of politics: "Politics is who gets what, when, where, and how."
Similarly, in regard to the electric grid, we could ask the following question: "Who pays What to Whom, for how many Watts through What Channel?" And just like Lasswell made some smart additions, we should also apply further questions in order to make a smart grid work, such as "With What Effect, Why, Where, When, and While paying in What Ways?"
With regards to wind turbines-- I have heard some concern that a large number of them, spread throughout the world, could change air circulation patterns enough to have an effect on global climate. Do you know anything about this?
Your idea, like many, are good in theory but when faced with reality they will not work. Society will not allow the poor and elderly to take the brunt of the effects of higher energy prices brought about by any tax or fee, monies will be spent to protect them which makes any tax or fee ineffective in doing anything but harming society.
I'm not concerned about this. If large number of wind turbines slow winds a little bit, that's not a bad things, since global warming is expected to increase wind speeds, so the overall effect would be that winds remain more the same.
The people have spoken Dan, and they do not want a continuation of the disastrous policies of the Bush administration, which has prevented states like California from enacting policies to shift to cleaner cars. The Bush administration will soon be gone, Dan, and your Palin-type of logic and fear-mongering is out of step with reality.
Wind power is already cheaper, Dan, than coal, oil, nuclear and most natural gas-fired generation, so more wind turbines will only lower overall cost of electricity. Wind power was sold to the grid in 2006 at an average price of under $0.05/kwh, while the average price paid by consumers to the grid was $0.10/kwh. Six wind farms provided wholesale power at under $0.03/kwh. The cost of wind energy is now about 3.5 to 4 cents per kilowatt hour and declining.
Last year, Ausra put the cost of its solar concentrated power in 2007 at 10 cents per kWh and estimated cost to fall to under 8 cents per kWh in 3 years time.
Electricity from solar facilities and wind farms could be transported nationwide over high voltage direct current (HVDC) lines, with line losses of about 3% per 1000 kilometers (620 miles), adding $0.01 - $0.02/kwh to the local price of electricity.
Many people pay far more than 10 cents per kWh for their electricity. Let me quote what Lyndon Rive, CEO of SolarCity says in a recent article: "Most energy customers in San Francisco pay an electricity rate that depends on how much power they use -- the higher the usage, the steeper the bill." Rive says that "rates vary from 12 cents per kilowatt-hour to 36 cents per kilowatt-hour." Rive says that most of its customers have paid 23 cents to 31 cents per kilowatt-hour for the electricity, prior to going solar. "But with the addition of the city incentive program, even consumers paying 12 cents per kilowatt-hour today can reduce their electricity bill by installing solar cells. For as low as $25 per month, you can get a 2.4-kilowatt capacity system," Rive said.
San Francisco now gives incentives of between $3,000 to $6,000 to homeowners who install solar panels, as well as $10,000 to businesses and nonprofits, and $30,000 to nonprofit affordable housing. The program runs for a decade. The program comes in addition to a state rebate program of $1.90 per installed watt and the 30% federal investment tax credit (ITC) for solar energy.
The San Francisco Bay Area has done the sums and is set to spend $1 billion to build recharging points and battery swapping stations for electric cars.
The Bush administration is still sabotaging efforts to shift to clean and safe energy. It has long sought to shield oil speculators, coal-fired power plants and manufacturers of gas guzzlers from cleaning up their act. The result is that a city like San Francisco has ended up with a patchwork of policies, including car fuel efficiency standards, rebates, subsidies and tax credits for solar power. Obama is set to introduce a cap-and-trade program that will increase fuel prices and the cost of coal-fired power plants.
My point is that feebates are more efficient and effective in facilitating the desired shift, by making polluting products more expensive and making better alternatives less expensive. Everyone will benefit from the lower prices for better alternatives, from the reductions in pollution, from reductions in imported oil, and from the increase in job opportunities that comes with the shift.
If proceeds of fees were handed over to the poor, then indeed the overall effect would be small. But the feebates that I propose aim to reduce greenhouse gases, so proceeds of fees on fossil fuel fund rebates on clean energy, such as solar and wind power. Similarly, fees on gas guzzlers fund rebates on clean cars. This will facilitate a shift towards electric cars. Wind power could recharge car batteries at night (when demand for electricity is low), and those batteries could feed surplus electricity back into the grid, thus helping to keep the cost of electricity low at times of peak demand, thus reducing overall costs for everyone.
But as I said, every fee or tax imposed on carbon has had a detrimental effect on the poor and elderly and the economy of the society in which it was imposed and great amounts of the money collected by these taxes and fees were used to shield the poor from the effects of those fees, in these countries unemployment rises substantially because the most energy concentrated sectors are hit the hardest, transportation, manufacturing.
Most countries in the EU that had instituted a carbon tax or fee has either frozen, reduced or phased out their carbon taxes in favour of better measures.
We don't even need to discuss it, the experiment has been done and it failed.
The cost of wind power,
The same reference you quote except that it is the 2007 issue shows wind power in the USA wholesale price from 4.5 to 6.8 with the average being just above 5 still a good price, and I'm glad to see the growth so strong.
http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/43025.pdf
Kinda makes yah think, with the alternative energy sector growing like it is there is not much sense in imposing economy busting carbon taxes and fees.
"Rive says that "rates vary from 12 cents per kilowatt-hour to 36 cents per kilowatt-hour." Rive says that most of its customers have paid 23 cents to 31 cents per kilowatt-hour for the electricity,"
Yes electricity prices vary and in California electricity costs are high, but the average in our country sits at 11.21 cents a KWH.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table5_3.html
"San Francisco now gives incentives of between $3,000 to $6,000 to homeowners who install solar panels, as well as $10,000 to businesses and nonprofits, and $30,000 to nonprofit affordable housing. The program runs for a decade. The program comes in addition to a state rebate program of $1.90 per installed watt and the 30% federal investment tax credit (ITC) for solar energy."
And That's exactly the way we should go incentives, not restrictive taxes and fees and in fact that's exactly what we are doing we are incentivising the alternative energy market rewarding people for their participation in the maket and for buying the products, and that is why the sector is growing at such an explosive rate, and any tax or fee will slow that growth possibly to a crawl.
"If proceeds of fees were handed over to the poor, then indeed the overall effect would be small."
There is no doubt that much of them would be as that is one of the responsibilities of our elected officials to help us watch out for the least in our society.
It is a global energy network and, like the internet, it will change our culture, society and how we do business. More importantly, it will alter how we use, transform and exchange energy.
Enough solar energy falls on the surface of the earth every 40 minutes to meet 100 percent of the entire world's energy needs for a full year.
There is no energy supply problem, there is an energy distribution problem -- and the emerging solution is a new world wide web of electricity.
For more information, see http://www.terrawatts.com
I see your brand new, welcome to gather.
As I read the updated document, Dan, the average price of wind power is under 4 cents per kWh (with a range from 2.4 cents per kWh to 5.5 cents per kWh, page 16). The average price should be even lower, since Texas is underrepresented in the database, while prices are lowest in Texas.
Prices do include some government incentives and renewable energy certificates, but overall, but prices will also typically include interconnection costs and, in some cases, transmission expansion costs that are needed to ensure delivery of the energy to the purchaser. Anyway, this makes wind power the cheapest alternative, cheaper than coal, oil, nuclear and most natural gas-fired generation, as GE says when marketing its wind turbines.
Dan: "Kinda makes yah think, with the alternative energy sector growing like it is there is not much sense in imposing economy busting carbon taxes and fees."
All politicians in Europe and the US (including McCain) plan to reduce fossil fuel consumption, Dan, by implementing a combination of policy instruments such as cap-and-trade, standards and carbon taxes. But if you want the most economic and efficient alternative, then you should support Feebates.
Dan: "..the average in our country sits at 11.21 cents a KWH."
Sure, for many people it's not financially attractive to put solar panels on their roof and feed the electricity to the grid. On the other hand, for many people it is attractive and it would be attractive for many more people if utilities paid them a better price for that. A few months ago, San Francisco utility Pacific Gas & Electric proposed a 6.5% electricity price hike, and we can expect further rises in future.
Dan: "That's exactly the way we should go, incentives, not restrictive taxes and fees.."
I support rebates, Dan, but the money for such programs must come from somewhere and funding rebates by adding a fee on polluting items makes most sense. Tax credits may enrich some smart company executives and speculators, but the poor and elderly don't pay much taxes, so they benefit less from tax credits.
The chart I was looking at was a several year compilation of wind energy prices.
You suggest that E.U. countries are moving back towards carbon taxes and fees, but the article I referenced claims that is not so, that many of the E.U. countries have abandoned their cap and trade scheems and are looking for less harmful C02 restrictions.
Do you have any references?
"then you should support Feebates."
Well Sam,
That's the rub, I don't believe we need any of them, and as I've stated many times either would be a suficent drag on the economy to actually restrict the advancement towards alternative energy.
But rather than drag this out until you get mad and delete my posts I'll retire from this discussion.
I did like your post though and I did give you a ten.