The NY Times has a piece on the complexities of adding "green" power to the grid. They note:
In the largest grids, such as those in the Midwest or Mid-Atlantic, a regional operator manages the byzantine flow of electricity from hundreds of different power plants through thousands of miles of transmission lines and into millions of homes. Before a developer can build a power plant, the local grid operator must make sure the project won’t cause disruptions — if, for instance, existing power lines get more electricity than they can handle, they could overheat and fail. After conducting a detailed study, the grid operator might require upgrades, such as a line connecting the new plant to a nearby substation. The developer usually bears this cost. Then the operator moves on to study the next project in the queue.
We have been arguing this for years. The current grid was never designed to work this way. Power companies have at best a 19th century mind set, central generating and tree and branch network. If a branch fails, too bad.
If the Greens demand all electric we will experience a horror show. The network will fail, it will lack capacity, and the costs will be unbelievable.
We had US Department of Energy people whose sole purpose is to regulate and pontificate. They lack any technical competence, except the weapons folks. No one has thought through this, and especially at the Secretary level we have just religious zealots which may very well result in total collapse.
Posts
