12,000 miles of transmission lines needed for 20% wind production by 2030.

[joshcryer]

Found this fascinating report while researching transmission lines for wind power.

Here's the part (it is on page 114 in Adobe PDF, 95 as the written number on the page):

To determine how much transmission would be needed for the 20% Wind Scenario, the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s (NREL) Wind Deployment System (WinDS) model was used (see Appendices A and B). The approach, described in Appendices A and B, used the WinDS model to determine distances from the point of production to the point of consumption, as well as the cost-effectiveness of building wind plants close to load or in remote locations and paying the transmission cost. To account for the cost of transmission that would be required by coal and other resources, the analysis added the typical cost of transmission needed to interconnect those resources to the capital cost. This method, although providing balance in the overall cost assessment, is only a first step. More work must be done in regional transmission planning processes to evaluate the transmission required for the desired portfolio of resources.

When determining whether it is more efficient to site wind projects close to load or in higher quality wind resource areas that are remote from load and require transmission, the WinDS optimization model finds that it is often more efficient to site wind projects remotely. In fact, the model finds that it would be cost-effective to build more than 12,000 miles of additional transmission, at a cost of approximately $20 billion in net present value terms. Much of that transmission would be required in later years after an initial period in which generation is able to use the limited remaining capacity available on the existing transmission grid. The transmission required for the 20% Wind Scenario can be seen in the red lines on the map in Figure 4-10. The red lines represent general areas where new transmission capacity would be needed. The existing transmission grid illustrated by green lines. As a point of comparison, more than 200,000 miles of transmission lines are currently operating at 230 kV and above.

The report is here: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy08osti/41869.pdf

[greennina]

1. And that is why wind is wrong

Instead we should cut usage by 20% so we don't have to destroy hundreds of square miles of the earth to mine that much copper.

[kristopher]

2. We need to cut usage AND build out renewables.

Efficiency (negawatts) is the cheapest, most environmentally friendly power there is.

But we still need renewables to get rid of fossil fuels most quickly and economically.

[joshcryer]

4. Efficiency was a big part of the stimulus plan, and Lovins is correct about its need.

I can't wait until LED lighting is very affordable. Though CFLs will do. (Mine recently burned out, after 6 years!)

[joshcryer]

3. Transmission lines are made of aluminum, and this is a much lower number than I was expecting.

Pays to do your research.

[joshcryer]

5. Note that aluminum is one of the cheapest and most abundent elements.

If you didn't know.

[bananas]

8. Superconducting transmissions lines are beginning to be used

There's already a superconducting transmission line connecting Long Island and New Jersey,
and they will be used to connect the eastern, western, and texas grids ("Tres Amigas").
One big advantage is that they go underground.
(edit to add: this is more long-term; in the near term, regular transmission lines will mostly be used; but later in the century, all the overhead transmission lines may be replaced)

Some direct links into the American Superconductor company website:

FAQ: http://www.amsc.com/products/applications/utilities/faq.html

3. How does the cost of a 5 GW Superconductor Electricity Pipeline compare to AC overhead power lines?

Superconductor Electricity Pipelines are very cost competitive with AC overhead lines for long-haul transmission. Superconductor DC cables have lower life cycle costs because of their efficiency advantage.

4. How does the cost of a 5 GW Superconductor Electricity Pipeline compare to ultra-high voltage DC overhead power lines?

The cable and associated infrastructure of Superconductor Electricity Pipelines are more expensive than DC overhead power lines. Cost allocation of transmission lines that serve multiple regions, right of way costs, avoidance of permitting problems, lower losses and ability to have multiple terminals for uploading or downloading green power at various points along a transmission corridor can in many cases outweigh the tower and line cost advantage of DC overhead.

LI-NJ: http://www.amsc.com/products/htswire/LIPAHTSCableProjectBrief.html

Comparison to regular transmission lines: http://www.amsc.com/products/applications/utilities/superconductorpipeline.html

Look on the above link for more on the Tres Amigas interconnect,
here's the press announcement: http://www.amsc.com/amigasannouncement.html

[joshcryer]

10. That is definitely the future, and it shuts NIMBYs up quite effectively.

NIMBYs are starting to cite transmission lines as a reason against wind. Wonder if they can bring the cost down much more, amortize the costs with fiber (going to be digging a trench anyway).

[joshcryer]

6. The image referenced in the quote:

[malakai2]

7. Don't have time to read it just yet

Are they assuming little or no buildout in currently undeveloped areas? I'm looking at eastern Montana, Wyoming, the Nebraska Sandhills, western South Dakota, and much of western and northern North Dakota, as well as southern Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Those areas are sparsely populated and for that reason, and the wind potential in the region, are often viewed as ideal for siting. The existing lines there, especially out of central North Dakota, are dedicated in large part (entirely?) to exporting electricity produced at the five or six coal power plants in the center of the state to more populated areas, like the Huron-Aberdeen-Mobridge area of South Dakota, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Duluth-Superior.

[joshcryer]

9. I'm still reading it, it's really quite good. I haven't seen that addressed, though, no.

I do like seeing Colorado getting its own transmission line to the eastern plateau, and Wyoming feeding in to Colorado.

Colorado is notoriously unclean, coal and natural gas exclusively, we really could use some wind, especially some of the home grown variety.

[TxRider]

11. I'd like to see an overlay of that with the wind energy map

[joshcryer]

12. I made this:

I was curious too (though I kind of had an idea what they were going for, it really stands out here).

[kristopher]

14. Nice job. nt

[joshcryer]

15. Thanks very much. :) Kick for TxRider.

[TxRider]

16. Thanks

Wow the mesa area out in SW Texas really stands out with all the proposed lines.

[joshcryer]

17. I wondered about that, are there a lot of farms being built out there?

And is it a low population area or something?

Note, the wind map I chose was 50 meters, as the site says, 50 meter maps of class 3 can still be very good for wind at 80 meters.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[joshcryer]

19. $64 grand for a square mile of land? Be still my heart...

...:O

[TxRider]

20. Johnny Cash sang a song about the area, "Mean as Hell".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLDJcK6Fn84

Prices have been rising over the last decade.

A lot of big tracts were bought up and people trying to chop them up into little tracts and selling them.

You can still get 50 acres at about $200-$400 an acre in places. And a big tract will come up now and then, I did see a 1.3sq mile ranch for about $400k with some going for over $2500 and acre now.

Great place for solar power living.

[joshcryer]

13. Got the map from here:

http://www.nrel.gov/gis/wind.html