The Chair of FERC is the point of the spear for grid reliability.

[kristopher]

The Chair of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is the point of the spear for grid reliability.

Wind is least expensive option.
Old concept of "baseload" no longer applies.
Do not need coal or nuclear.

Very clear and very explicit statements confirming these points from the person most responsible for ensuring the reliability of the nation's energy supply.

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-1

http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-2


It's in the second half of the interview (the second link).
"Why it is a good thing for utilities that customers consume less electricity – 0:36
How smart grids help increase the penetration of renewables on the grid – 2:12
How electric vehicle owners are being paid up to $3,600 per annum to provide regulation services for utilities while charging! – 2:54
How renewable energy sources can be used as baseload power (no coal or nuclear baseload need ever be built) – 4:34"

Read more: http://greenmonk.net/smart-grid-heavy-hitters-jon-wellinghoff-chair-of-us-federal-energy-regulatory-commission-part-2/#ixzz1Jngo06xQ

[kristopher]

1. This contradicts the most fundamental claims used to justify nuclear fission

Renewables make a superior grid and wind is the least cost option.

The idea that nuclear and coal proponents wave around and call "baseload" is an "old concept that no longer applies" to grid management.

We do not need to ever build another coal or nuclear plant.

I can just see the scrambling right now to find a way to discredit the person that said this - Chairman Wellinghoff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

This isn't the first time he voiced his beliefs on this subject and I'd like to note that you'll find his remarks align with the information at the link in my sig.



Watch the video and then share the cure for nuclear addiction.

!
V

[arachadillo]

2. A Smart Grid or a Stupid Grid Adorned with Electronic Jewelry?

see if this pig flys

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS),
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/16/7240.full
Electric Power From Offshore Wind via Synoptic-scale Interconnection
suggests that a planned, large-scale offshore wind project extending along the entire East Coast (connected via underwater HVDC cables) could provide base-load electricity to East Coast consumers.

The plan stands in contrast to the small scale, ad hoc offshore wind plans being offered today.

Coupling technological advances in electricity transmission capabilities with an economies of scale renewables strategy (wind along the East Coast, Texas and the Pacific Northwest and solar in the Southwest) appears to be the key to a low carbon energy future.

Because the adoption of an offshore wind, electricity generation base-load strategy removes the rationale for building more base-load coal and nuclear plants, some additional benefits of the strategy might include decreasing the problems associated with mercury and uranium poisoning of our lands and waters by coal and nuclear electricity production.

Finally, because the HVDC transmission cables are placed offshore, the issue of eminent domain associated with building transmission corridors becomes moot.

Comparing that vision of energy efficiency and electricity production with the The Electric Power Research Institute's (EPRI) analysis of the costs and benefits of the smart grid reveal a few facts.
http://my.epri.com/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_234325_317_205_776_43/http%3B/uspalecp604%3B7087/publishedcontent/publish/epri_analysis_estimates_costs_benefits_of_fully_developing_smart_grid_da_777189.html

While most average Americans might not understand the concept of the smart grid, ERPIs layout of the smart grid closely resembles the current stupid grid adorned with electronic jewelry. In other words, the ERPI study accepts current transmission and delivery systems as a given, and then provides costs for adding on electronic equipment to make it more efficient.

Consider the fact that the current 184,707 miles of transmission lines in the United States consists of only 3,307 miles of HVDC lines. The authors note that only fifteen additional HVDC lines are being discussed, primarily a patchwork of ten land based lines to accommodate wind in the Eastern United States.

The ERPI study puts a heavy premium on technology such as a flexible AC transmission system (FACTS). While FACTS equipment might make the existing AC transmission system a bit more efficient, those AC lines would still be less efficient than most HVDC lines.

Without rethinking the transmission system to create a more efficient HVDC to AC transmission line ratio, the wholesale adoption of FACTS technology might resemble little more than putting lipstick on a pig. It's good for the lipstick manufacturers, but provides suboptimal results for consumers seeking a low carbon future.

Assuming economies of scale are reached by integrating wind with long distance, energy efficient HVDC transmission cables, as the first study proposes, it might be equally reasonable to suggest that discussions about extending HVDC transmission cables in other areas of the U.S. would also allow for renewables (solar and wind) to serve as base-load sources of electricity.

It's not so much the case that the ERPI reports fails to solve the smart grid problem, it's more the case that the optimal smart grid might look very different from a stupid grid adorned with electronic jewelry.

[kristopher]

3. Header retracted as rude and wrong.

You post is not, "another attempt to miscast the views of experts on the matter by making it look like your distorted personal opinions are actually supported by the literature you cite. I've seldom been the victim of a worse piece of writing in all my experience at DU."

I just, for some reason, didn't absorb your points properly.

I largely agree with your remarks and apologize for my initial very poor reading I gave them.

[arachadillo]

4. quite the critic

"I've seldom been the victim of a worse piece of writing in all my experience at DU."

no one has ever accused me of being capable of writing the next great American novel:)

"in fact there is now in place a regulatory and business framework that is doing precisely what Wellinghoff spoke of."

The plan does stands in contrast to the small scale, ad hoc offshore wind plans being offered today.

As far as I can tell, the Cape Cod wind farm and other small scale offshore proposals can be stand alone.

While Willett, etc.al may have spoken about the potential for a larger strategy, the potential is not reality. At any point in time, inter-state bickering, or a change in the composition of the parties running the federal government could shelve any potential large-scale offshore wind energy plan.

Currently, the ad hoc off-shore proposals are what they are, ad hoc proposals.

"I'm sorry but we do not need to build ANY new nuclear or coal plants."

Why are you apologizing to me? I noted that the adoption of a large scale offshore wind power strategy, coupled with the large scale HVDC undersea transmissions lines would end the need for building any new nuclear or coal plants.

I even went further by suggesting that more offshore wind would provide an avenue for eventually decomissioning current coal and nuclear plants.

In conclusion, while no one has ever accused me of being capable of writing the next great American novel, I will not return your insults with insults.

[kristopher]

5. Thank you.

I reread your post after going elsewhere and I have no idea how I got the message from it that I did. I was completely wrong.

I'm sorry.

[arachadillo]

6. apology accepted

[Throckmorton]

10. and it is what needs to be done

The current arrangement has just too many bottle necks to cope with the need to shift large amounts of power from one region to another in an efficent manner.

The losses in the current 60 Hz transmission system are amazing. 50% of the energy applied to a 500 Kv AC transmission line is lost after 400 miles.

[bananas]

7. There's an Atlanitic Offshore Wind Consortium which will do that

Plenty of articles about it: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=atlantic+offshore+wind+consortium&aq=f&aqi=g1g-b2&aql=&oq=
Also google is building an offshore cable: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=google+atlantic+offshore+wind+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=

[bananas]

8. EPRI reports have an industry bias

The "I" in EPRI is "Industry".

[arachadillo]

9. agreed

EPRI reports have an industry bias, The "I" in EPRI is "Industry"

That was basically my point. Comparing the two different studies shows the first one optimizes renewables using lower cost HVDC cables

the other (EPRI) potentially suboptimizes renewables by using expensive industry electronics.

It may very well be the case that a less expensive smart grid can be built by rethinking HVDC transmission cable placements.

I recall reading about Google's investments in the East Coast offshore wind HDVC cables. Maybe some Google brains could be used to figure out optimal HVDC transmission cable placements elsewhere.