Analysts report that consumers served by utilities on the nation's East and West coasts pay higher costs for their electricity than we do here.
News flash! That's because "here" (the Midwest) doesn't have a network of expensive, gigantic transmission lines to pay for.
Think about it.
DOE obviously hasn't.
DOE is stuck in 2009, when the idea to lower coastal power prices by building a "national grid" was novel. Now that idea can only be called FAILED.
So, the DOE has a big new idea for "the installation of a network of high-voltage, direct-current transmission lines could boost the availability of reliable, affordable power generated by renewable sources at load centers on the East and West coasts."
Hey, Einstein, building your ginormous dream grid costs money. Lots and lots and lots of money. We're talking billions. And your plan expects that electric customers nationwide will finance that investment over decades to come and pay its private investors/owners double-digit interest throughout its lifetime. No thanks, we simply can't afford it.
Don't you think that adding additional costs to move energy thousands of miles will only increase energy prices, both on the coasts and the Midwest? Building new transmission to reduce costs on one part of the system only produces a leveling of costs across the region. If prices go down on the coast, they will increase in the Midwest.
And maybe, just maybe, the people who live in the Midwest don't want to live in an ugly, noisy, industrial power plant that only benefits the politically powerful players on the coasts. And maybe they don't want to live in and work under a network of new high voltage transmission lines. And they will resist, no maybe about it. They will shout and block and delay your dream grid for years and years, and that costs even more money.
Don't do it, DOE. Quit wasting my tax money on stupid things like TransGrid-X 2030. You already tried this idea once, remember? You called it Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act, and you decided to "partner" on an HVDC transmission line from the Oklahoma panhandle to Memphis. And it failed. It failed spectacularly. It couldn't find any customers to purchase capacity. No income, no project. So what makes you think, DOE, that a new network of HVDC transmission lines from the Midwest to the coasts would be able to find customers? You've already done this experiment once and it failed.
I do note that your "symposium" has participation from companies that would benefit financially from building billions of dollars of new transmission. So you're just acting as a facilitator for private investment here?
Swamp, swampy, swamperson. Get out of the muck! Don't you have enough trouble already with your swampy plan to save coal?
The real cutting edge on transmission is to stop building it and develop a secure system of interconnected local microgrids that can be autonomous self-contained systems that continue working seamlessly whether connected to a larger network or not.
Or maybe you can hold a seance and ask Nikola Tesla what he thinks? That's probably a more productive use of my tax money.
Think about it.
DOE obviously hasn't.
DOE is stuck in 2009, when the idea to lower coastal power prices by building a "national grid" was novel. Now that idea can only be called FAILED.
So, the DOE has a big new idea for "the installation of a network of high-voltage, direct-current transmission lines could boost the availability of reliable, affordable power generated by renewable sources at load centers on the East and West coasts."
Hey, Einstein, building your ginormous dream grid costs money. Lots and lots and lots of money. We're talking billions. And your plan expects that electric customers nationwide will finance that investment over decades to come and pay its private investors/owners double-digit interest throughout its lifetime. No thanks, we simply can't afford it.
Don't you think that adding additional costs to move energy thousands of miles will only increase energy prices, both on the coasts and the Midwest? Building new transmission to reduce costs on one part of the system only produces a leveling of costs across the region. If prices go down on the coast, they will increase in the Midwest.
And maybe, just maybe, the people who live in the Midwest don't want to live in an ugly, noisy, industrial power plant that only benefits the politically powerful players on the coasts. And maybe they don't want to live in and work under a network of new high voltage transmission lines. And they will resist, no maybe about it. They will shout and block and delay your dream grid for years and years, and that costs even more money.
Don't do it, DOE. Quit wasting my tax money on stupid things like TransGrid-X 2030. You already tried this idea once, remember? You called it Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act, and you decided to "partner" on an HVDC transmission line from the Oklahoma panhandle to Memphis. And it failed. It failed spectacularly. It couldn't find any customers to purchase capacity. No income, no project. So what makes you think, DOE, that a new network of HVDC transmission lines from the Midwest to the coasts would be able to find customers? You've already done this experiment once and it failed.
I do note that your "symposium" has participation from companies that would benefit financially from building billions of dollars of new transmission. So you're just acting as a facilitator for private investment here?
Swamp, swampy, swamperson. Get out of the muck! Don't you have enough trouble already with your swampy plan to save coal?
The real cutting edge on transmission is to stop building it and develop a secure system of interconnected local microgrids that can be autonomous self-contained systems that continue working seamlessly whether connected to a larger network or not.
Or maybe you can hold a seance and ask Nikola Tesla what he thinks? That's probably a more productive use of my tax money.
RSS Feed