Renewable energy writers are also suffering from Covid Ennui, if this transmission wish list is any indication. The article profiles seven possible transmission projects "for renewables" and posits that if any of them are built it could "unlock a renewable energy bounty."
Unlikely, and here's why. The article is based on a foundation of stale lies the renewable energy industry continues to peddle.
Unlikely, and here's why. The article is based on a foundation of stale lies the renewable energy industry continues to peddle.
- ... big U.S. transmission projects seeking to carry wind and solar power from where it’s most cost-effectively generated to where it’s needed the most.
Where it's needed the most? Where is that, exactly? Who "needs" renewable energy the most? And why is this renewable energy not generated near "need"? It's no longer true (if it ever was) that most renewable energy is generated far from load. The places "where it's needed most" all seem to be dense population centers on both coasts. And guess what? These places on the east coast are going gung-ho on building offshore wind and transmission to connect it. This generation can be built within 12 miles of the cities "where it's needed most," although most of them are proposing to put it at least 30 miles offshore so they don't have to look at the generators. The biggest battle seems to be connecting it at the shoreline. Does it even make sense to avoid that battle in favor of new transmission from the west, thousands of miles long? No, it does not. New transmission to ship renewable generation to the east coast no longer makes sense, and furthermore, the ones "who need it most" aren't buying it. Giant transmission lines from the Midwest are pretty much dead.
But, but, but...
But, but, but...
- The case for new multistate transmission lines has never been clearer. A growing number of states and utilities have set 100-percent-clean-energy goals, albeit with no obvious path to generating all that power close to home. The gap is growing between the transmission network’s capacity and the need to link wind farms in the Great Plains and Intermountain West, solar farms in the Southwest and hydropower resources in eastern Canada to other regions hungry for carbon-free energy.
Some states that have set renewable energy targets actually have no idea where their "clean" energy is going to come from? Isn't that a rather naive notion? These states are not setting targets and then sitting back to wait for the energy industry to find ways to deliver it to them. It is the energy industry that is eagerly proposing that these states get their renewable energy targets met with new generators in other regions and new long-distance transmission lines. The states actually do have plans to make their goals happen, and they don't rely on passive sloth while the energy industry finds ways to meet the goals. The energy industry is eager to provide these states with renewables from other regions using new transmission lines because that's how the industry makes money. The industry figures if they can only make these states captive consumers of renewables from other regions that they can reap huge profits. That's the only "need" and it's actually just greed. There is no "need" to link wind farms in the Great Plains to "regions hungry for carbon-free energy." These hungry regions actually aren't that hungry. They brought their own lunch to the picnic. The "hungry" regions want to develop their own renewables and the economic boost that comes from them, not send all their energy dollars to some other region. They may be hungry, but they're not starving.
- Transmission projects can be derailed at many points in their decade-long timeframes from conception to completion. Failure to gain regulatory approval from every state they cross, public opposition from environmental groups and communities worried about their negative impacts, or the refusal of any landowner along their path to cooperate are ever-present risks and have led to several high-profile project failures.
Wait a minute here... you actually think that one objecting landowner can derail an entire transmission project? You make it seem like new transmission easements are voluntary on the part of landowners. Are you truly unaware that transmission developers have proposed using eminent domain to acquire easements for multi-region projects that benefit other regions? I'm not sure who you think believes this lie. Also the idea that environmental groups oppose transmission "for renewables" is ludicrous. Environmental groups love new transmission "for renewables". They only oppose transmission for energy sources they don't like. It's about the energy sources, not the transmission.
The real reason big transmission "for renewables" has failed is because these purportedly "hungry" regions don't want to buy the generation. Transmission for renewables doesn't have customers. Utilities have not signed up for service on new merchant transmission proposals. This is the reason Clean Line failed. It had no customers. And even though they sold off their projects, the projects will still fail because they have no customers (looking at you, Grain Belt Express).
And then the article purports that there are at least 7 projects still "moving ahead." My take on this list is that maybe only 3 of these 7 projects have any chance of actually happening. The viable ones? They're buried on existing rights of way.... SOO Green, The New England Clean Power Link, and the Champlain Hudson Power Express. But buried projects are more expensive, and that may price them out of the game when a hungry region can build its own renewables at a competitive price.
What is renewable, "clean" energy worth to the hungry, anyhow? Do they only want to be "clean" when they can foist the cost of their cleanliness onto other regions? Is there a price point where a hungry region decides to just be dirty instead? Instead you've got energy companies competing to be the cheapest option, and they're cutting costs by building cheaper generation in other regions and using eminent domain to acquire easements for new overhead transmission. It's not that this energy is any cheaper, it's just that someone else is paying its true cost. Overhead transmission on new rights of way is the hardest transmission to build because it receives the most opposition. Opposition is costly in both time and money. Transmission with opposition can linger for years before being cancelled, and the longer it lingers, the more likely it will be cancelled. Successfully building transmission after decades of opposition is a myth from a history book. It's not going to happen in this decade.
When is the renewable energy industry going to quit fighting to build what they want, and start building what the customers want? Maybe right after they quit lying to themselves. Hungry regions want to build their own renewables. The only long-distance transmission that's viable is buried on existing rights of way. Renewables need to be priced at their true cost.
The real reason big transmission "for renewables" has failed is because these purportedly "hungry" regions don't want to buy the generation. Transmission for renewables doesn't have customers. Utilities have not signed up for service on new merchant transmission proposals. This is the reason Clean Line failed. It had no customers. And even though they sold off their projects, the projects will still fail because they have no customers (looking at you, Grain Belt Express).
And then the article purports that there are at least 7 projects still "moving ahead." My take on this list is that maybe only 3 of these 7 projects have any chance of actually happening. The viable ones? They're buried on existing rights of way.... SOO Green, The New England Clean Power Link, and the Champlain Hudson Power Express. But buried projects are more expensive, and that may price them out of the game when a hungry region can build its own renewables at a competitive price.
What is renewable, "clean" energy worth to the hungry, anyhow? Do they only want to be "clean" when they can foist the cost of their cleanliness onto other regions? Is there a price point where a hungry region decides to just be dirty instead? Instead you've got energy companies competing to be the cheapest option, and they're cutting costs by building cheaper generation in other regions and using eminent domain to acquire easements for new overhead transmission. It's not that this energy is any cheaper, it's just that someone else is paying its true cost. Overhead transmission on new rights of way is the hardest transmission to build because it receives the most opposition. Opposition is costly in both time and money. Transmission with opposition can linger for years before being cancelled, and the longer it lingers, the more likely it will be cancelled. Successfully building transmission after decades of opposition is a myth from a history book. It's not going to happen in this decade.
When is the renewable energy industry going to quit fighting to build what they want, and start building what the customers want? Maybe right after they quit lying to themselves. Hungry regions want to build their own renewables. The only long-distance transmission that's viable is buried on existing rights of way. Renewables need to be priced at their true cost.
RSS Feed