8 ms·

I'm not convinced by the article on a few points: - powerlines work as a grid, NYC to Texas happens to cross several other cities which heavily mutualizes cost

I'm not convinced by the article on a few points: - powerlines work as a grid, NYC to Texas happens to cross several other cities which heavily mutualizes cost of the infrastructure. The question is not will those lines be profitable for the 2h NYC need power. It's the overall need that matters. - energy transport represents 6% of current electric cost. To make the grid irrelevant for economic reason would suggest that energy price will changed from an order of magnitude. - energy transport also innovates and improves. If you are interested, this report from the MIT has a section about the future of the grid: http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/MITEI-The-Future-of-the-Electric-Grid.pdf http://energy.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/MITEI-The-F...

baybal2 6y ago
Very valid points, though the net cost of grid connection varies wildly even in developed countries, and even more so in not developed. A rural electric grid may well be losing doubled digit percentage of electricity to crappy transformers, and low voltage. And you may get 90%+ efficient delivery if you live in a dense megalopolis.
kordlessagain 6y ago
> economic reason would suggest that energy price will changed from an order of magnitude The cost of running power lines is an order of magnitude more expensive than the cost to transmit power over established lines.
- legulere 6y ago
  Established lines also need to be maintained and rebuilt after a while.
  - akiselev 6y ago
    A large part of the initial expense is right of way. Buying up/renting property or acquiring easements and defending the inevitable lawsuits is an ever increasing cost thats starting to rival the labor and material cost of the work. Maintenance is cheaper and will only continue to get cheaper relative to development costs unless there's a substantial change in the legislation governing that litigation.
  - briffle 6y ago
    There is a dc line from east of Portland to near LA, the pacific inter-tie. It was built as 2 wires in the 70s, carrying 1.4GW. Since then, over many changes, it was upgraded to 3.1GW. that involved equipment changes at both endpoints, but the lines and towers are still the same, 50 years later.
pjc50 6y ago
Yeah. If this makes economic sense and takes off, then it will come first to places that are already at the fringe or off grid. Scottish islands, Hawaii, and so on. It will come last (if ever) to cities.
- pydry 6y ago
  It kind of is. Hawaii had a proposed grid connection between Oahu and Maui canceled while two solar farms with batteries are being built.
PeterisP 6y ago
Can you elaborate where you get the 6% number from? At least for me the energy transport cost is separated out (as the energy production and energy distribution are separate companies/services) and comes out to something like 40% of pre-tax electricity cost. 6% is in the ballpark of electricity loss during transmission (and even that is on the low end - depending on how the last mile delivery is done, the lower voltage cables and transformers near the consumer can easily push it up to 10%+), but that isn't the main part of the cost, that is dominated by the cost of building and maintaining the delivery infrastructure.
- batmansmk 6y ago
  I think our numbers are not incompatible. Consider the French market which I understand better than the US one and has a monopoly. 28% is the transport cost of electricity overall - the figure 40% you have probably comes from average RETAIL price of electricity in some low density zones. Let's check the average cost, gross and retail, just because I'm an engineer and care about the viability of a solution from a pure technical standpoint :). In 2019, RTE spent 426M euros/year in long distance transportation of electricity on a 20B electricity market - we have to remember that transport also includes the real estate (80M), admin (161M), local grid (789M) according to https://www.rte-france.com/en/finance/key-figures-financial-publications https://www.rte-france.com/en/finance/key-figures-financial-... Those figures are stable year over year. Year over year may seem insufficient as it doesnt consider the initial investment, but remember we already have most of the grid in place already, so that's what matters to me. The "trick" is to make use believe that local removes transport cost, but the truth is that we still need a local grid and space to put it, which is the bulk of the cost. Overall I consider the grid to be a low cost solution we put in place years ago when we were poorer and things cost a ton because of the manual labor - but now we already got it so why not considering it only for its cost to maintain and expand and not overall cost to "deploy" as the article did.
Hypx 6y ago
One alternative idea I've been thinking about is immediately convert all renewable energy into hydrogen gas. Then the hydrogen is piped to where it's need, or stored in underground caverns for later use. Power generation becomes entirely local via fuel cells. Since hydrogen can be stored for long periods of time, the intermittency problem goes away. Although there would be a near-term loss of efficiency, the sheer simplicity of the solution is remarkable. It even eliminates the issue of down power lines cause fires, which is a major issue in California today.
- Dig1t 6y ago
  I think there are 2 problems: 1. Hydrogen is hard to contain and store cheaply; it's so light it escapes containers easily 2. Hydrogen is kind of explodey
  - Hypx 6y ago
    You store hydrogen in underground caverns. This is both simple and very cheap. Hydrogen isn't flammable unless it is mixed with oxygen. That's the same with any other chemical fuel.
- voodootrucker 6y ago
  If you're curious about more viable energy storage solutions: https://youtu.be/kAB3-lzxvkE?t=277 https://youtu.be/kAB3-lzxvkE?t=277 (hydrogen is covered)
- jimmyswimmy 6y ago
  Metal hydrides have been proposed as a possible solution. We talked to a small R&D firm years ago that had proposed putting power stations in remote areas where energy is immediately converted into a metal hydride; in their case, magnesium hydride. I remember the process of reforming magnesium hydroxide back was fairly energy intensive, perhaps too much to be considered efficient. The benefit of storing magnesium hydride is it's much easier to store safely in large volumes than hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas leaks through everything, it's just so small. On the other hand, you have to collect spent material (presumably at "gas stations") and return it to the energy farm, which is more complex than the one-way delivery system you'd have with hydrogen. Still seemed like an interesting idea.
epistasis 6y ago
Your numbers are incorrect for T&D, even back in 2016 they were 36% of costs, not 6%, and T&D percentage of costs has been increasing. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32812 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32812 Also, you report from MIT is 10 years old. The past decade has shown the most transformative decade of grid-related technology development in the past century, and the MIT report from 10 years ago didn't anticipate any of it. I don't blame them, most people were caught way off guard. But there's no reason to read it today except to study the history of what people were thinking back then. We are in an entirely different age.
omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
IIRC, electricity transport and distribution costs can vary significantly. They can be relatively high in densely populated areas because of transmission limitations/congestion, and they're also high at the edge of existing infrastructure because running additional lines can be costly. As an example, transmission and distribution costs were roughly equal to generation costs in CA in 2016. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/About_Us/Organization/Divisions/Office_of_Governmental_Affairs/Legislation/2017/AB67_Leg_Report_PDF_Final_5-5-17.pdf https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/Ab...

baybal2 6y ago

Very valid points, though the net cost of grid connection varies wildly even in developed countries, and even more so in not developed. A rural electric grid may well be losing doubled digit percentage of electricity to crappy transformers, and low voltage. And you may get 90%+ efficient delivery if you live in a dense megalopolis.

kordlessagain 6y ago

> economic reason would suggest that energy price will changed from an order of magnitude The cost of running power lines is an order of magnitude more expensive than the cost to transmit power over established lines.

legulere 6y ago
Established lines also need to be maintained and rebuilt after a while.
- akiselev 6y ago
  A large part of the initial expense is right of way. Buying up/renting property or acquiring easements and defending the inevitable lawsuits is an ever increasing cost thats starting to rival the labor and material cost of the work. Maintenance is cheaper and will only continue to get cheaper relative to development costs unless there's a substantial change in the legislation governing that litigation.
- briffle 6y ago
  There is a dc line from east of Portland to near LA, the pacific inter-tie. It was built as 2 wires in the 70s, carrying 1.4GW. Since then, over many changes, it was upgraded to 3.1GW. that involved equipment changes at both endpoints, but the lines and towers are still the same, 50 years later.

pjc50 6y ago

Yeah. If this makes economic sense and takes off, then it will come first to places that are already at the fringe or off grid. Scottish islands, Hawaii, and so on. It will come last (if ever) to cities.

pydry 6y ago
It kind of is. Hawaii had a proposed grid connection between Oahu and Maui canceled while two solar farms with batteries are being built.

PeterisP 6y ago

Can you elaborate where you get the 6% number from? At least for me the energy transport cost is separated out (as the energy production and energy distribution are separate companies/services) and comes out to something like 40% of pre-tax electricity cost. 6% is in the ballpark of electricity loss during transmission (and even that is on the low end - depending on how the last mile delivery is done, the lower voltage cables and transformers near the consumer can easily push it up to 10%+), but that isn't the main part of the cost, that is dominated by the cost of building and maintaining the delivery infrastructure.

batmansmk 6y ago
I think our numbers are not incompatible. Consider the French market which I understand better than the US one and has a monopoly. 28% is the transport cost of electricity overall - the figure 40% you have probably comes from average RETAIL price of electricity in some low density zones. Let's check the average cost, gross and retail, just because I'm an engineer and care about the viability of a solution from a pure technical standpoint :). In 2019, RTE spent 426M euros/year in long distance transportation of electricity on a 20B electricity market - we have to remember that transport also includes the real estate (80M), admin (161M), local grid (789M) according to https://www.rte-france.com/en/finance/key-figures-financial-publications https://www.rte-france.com/en/finance/key-figures-financial-... Those figures are stable year over year. Year over year may seem insufficient as it doesnt consider the initial investment, but remember we already have most of the grid in place already, so that's what matters to me. The "trick" is to make use believe that local removes transport cost, but the truth is that we still need a local grid and space to put it, which is the bulk of the cost. Overall I consider the grid to be a low cost solution we put in place years ago when we were poorer and things cost a ton because of the manual labor - but now we already got it so why not considering it only for its cost to maintain and expand and not overall cost to "deploy" as the article did.

Hypx 6y ago

One alternative idea I've been thinking about is immediately convert all renewable energy into hydrogen gas. Then the hydrogen is piped to where it's need, or stored in underground caverns for later use. Power generation becomes entirely local via fuel cells. Since hydrogen can be stored for long periods of time, the intermittency problem goes away. Although there would be a near-term loss of efficiency, the sheer simplicity of the solution is remarkable. It even eliminates the issue of down power lines cause fires, which is a major issue in California today.

Dig1t 6y ago
I think there are 2 problems: 1. Hydrogen is hard to contain and store cheaply; it's so light it escapes containers easily 2. Hydrogen is kind of explodey
- Hypx 6y ago
  You store hydrogen in underground caverns. This is both simple and very cheap. Hydrogen isn't flammable unless it is mixed with oxygen. That's the same with any other chemical fuel.
voodootrucker 6y ago
If you're curious about more viable energy storage solutions: https://youtu.be/kAB3-lzxvkE?t=277 https://youtu.be/kAB3-lzxvkE?t=277 (hydrogen is covered)
jimmyswimmy 6y ago
Metal hydrides have been proposed as a possible solution. We talked to a small R&D firm years ago that had proposed putting power stations in remote areas where energy is immediately converted into a metal hydride; in their case, magnesium hydride. I remember the process of reforming magnesium hydroxide back was fairly energy intensive, perhaps too much to be considered efficient. The benefit of storing magnesium hydride is it's much easier to store safely in large volumes than hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas leaks through everything, it's just so small. On the other hand, you have to collect spent material (presumably at "gas stations") and return it to the energy farm, which is more complex than the one-way delivery system you'd have with hydrogen. Still seemed like an interesting idea.

epistasis 6y ago

Your numbers are incorrect for T&D, even back in 2016 they were 36% of costs, not 6%, and T&D percentage of costs has been increasing. https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32812 https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=32812 Also, you report from MIT is 10 years old. The past decade has shown the most transformative decade of grid-related technology development in the past century, and the MIT report from 10 years ago didn't anticipate any of it. I don't blame them, most people were caught way off guard. But there's no reason to read it today except to study the history of what people were thinking back then. We are in an entirely different age.

omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago

IIRC, electricity transport and distribution costs can vary significantly. They can be relatively high in densely populated areas because of transmission limitations/congestion, and they're also high at the edge of existing infrastructure because running additional lines can be costly. As an example, transmission and distribution costs were roughly equal to generation costs in CA in 2016. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/About_Us/Organization/Divisions/Office_of_Governmental_Affairs/Legislation/2017/AB67_Leg_Report_PDF_Final_5-5-17.pdf https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/uploadedFiles/CPUCWebsite/Content/Ab...