9 ms·
Profiteering hampers U.S. grid expansion
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- dylan604 3y agohow much does access to land to run the lines complicate matters? the existing easements for the current capacity seems limited in that they have enough space for the current lines. the lines are spaced to prevent arcing between the 3 phases, so how could they run new lines without getting new routes and new land purchases/eminent domain? but otherwise, yeah, of course these companies are going to do anything to maximize profits. also shocking, water is wet
- toomuchtodo 3y ago> so how could they run new lines without getting new routes and new land purchases/eminent domain? Reconductoring. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39485940 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39485940 https://heatmap.news/climate/clean-energy-grid-reconductoring https://heatmap.news/climate/clean-energy-grid-reconductorin... | https://archive.today/q4wWp https://archive.today/q4wWp
- dylan604 3y agothanks. was unfamiliar with this term. so my next natural question is how do you replace the existing lines while still delivering power using the existing network? i guess that's why linesmen get paid the big bucks since they have to work with an energized wire rather than the standard "ensure the line is dead by turning off the breaker".
- toomuchtodo 3y agohttps://86dave.wordpress.com/86-dave/technology/reconductoring-a-transmission-line/ https://86dave.wordpress.com/86-dave/technology/reconductori... ("Reconductoring a transmission line") https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/pge-reconductoring-project-biological-assessment-revised https://www.energy.gov/lpo/articles/pge-reconductoring-proje... ("Revised Biological Assessment for the Carrizo-Midway 230kV Reconductoring Project") (Start at Page 41)
- downvotetruth 3y agoNot that reconductoring should not be done, but it would be great to leave the existing lines in place and stringing a new set to allow for both AC and DC, which requires only 1 - 2 conductors per circuit. To do that would require a level of coordination and vested interest that likely only Tesla has atm. Berkshire is also a possibility (maybe after Buffett is gone and interest rates are lower) with the huge cash pile that would have made sense to at least pay for electrifying their rail lines given the cross interest with reducing (re)insurance claims.
- dylan604 3y agoWhat are you talking about? One of the main reasons for using AC instead of DC was because of the transmission issue.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- downvotetruth 3y agoAC was chosen because higher voltages are more efficient to transmit; a transformer that works with AC power can be made with some wire and an iron nail. To convert DC power semiconductors are needed that can switch quickly; those didn't exist for about 50 years after electricity was wide spread. toomuchtodo's deleted comment also adds: > (HV)DC requires less conductor per unit distance than an AC line, as there is no need to support three phases and there is no skin effect. AC systems use a higher peak voltage for the same power, increasing insulator costs.
- cawest11 3y ago[dead]
- roenxi 3y agoThis appears to be a bad plan. The "Power, Profit, and Control" section outlines that: 1) The competitors who would profit from the interconnects don't think they are profitable to build. 2) The money is better spent building more power plants. 3) Smaller interconnects are less risky. And the plan to combat this in "Help on the Hill" is to try and force companies to do things that they don't want to do. It'd be much more sensible to deregulate and let the people who profit build the interconnects. I note that the people sponsoring the bills are US democrats. Is this a red-state blue-state thing where the blue states have a power problem? I've heard Texas has cheap energy and an independent grid. Or is it just general policy manoeuvring?
- pests 3y ago> I've heard Texas has cheap energy Easy without regulation.
- syndicatedjelly 3y agoWhat is that supposed to mean?
- spdustin 3y agoTexas runs their own grid, precisely to avoid federal government regulation.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- 7thaccount 3y agoThey're still regulated by NERC and have nearly all the same institutions. For example, ERCOT does the same fundamental job as CAISO. The only difference is they aren't under FERC, and that does matter...just not as much as folks think.
- irjustin 3y agoIt's a separate grid that's managed privately but overseen by tex gov with a lot less strict regulation than the national grids. It seemed great at first because the prices were really cheap, but the lack of good oversight meant the winterization didn't cover the 20 year horizon let alone a 50 or 100 year one. Temps got unusually cold in 2021 which led to huge power outages, deaths and incredible price problems, up to 180x[0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021_Texas_power_crisis
- hansonpeter 3y ago[dead]
- vivzkestrel 3y agoamazing how i just read this a few hours ago on HN https://effectiviology.com/shirky-principle/ https://effectiviology.com/shirky-principle/ and this article seems to be exactly that
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- vegetablepotpie 3y ago> utility companies are not embracing transmission expansion. They don’t want their power plants to face competition or their regional alliances to lose control over their networks Utility monopolies are both vertically integrated, and horizontally integrated over a geographic region. Although this made sense in the 1920s, when this system was devised, it’s causing perverse incentives today. A healthy energy system may still include utilities, but in the 21st century they will not be able to be completely vertically integrated. We are going to need to see them give up generation and cede that to markets.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoEven then, I don't know how you solve the problem of transmission monopolies. I think the only solution is when customer can buy from multiple generators and brokers
- nicoburns 3y ago> Even then, I don't know how you solve the problem of transmission monopolies. Lots of countries have nationalised the transmission network (while leaving the fully or partially privately run), which seems to work reasonably well.
- onthecanposting 3y agoSometimes they can. Your provider probably sources power from multiple generators. Some consumers can get power from brokers who sell closer to market rate, rather than a levelized one. Customers usually save money, but pay newspaper-headline-catching premiums when energy is scarce. To your point, I don't think making physical electrical conductors communal property would be anything less than a disaster. That conductors are most valuable when you have a grid makes the monopoly problem structural in my opinion. I suspect from the indifference to the details and heavy-handed tone of the article that there is some particular agenda. Saying utilities are just greedy is not very compelling when the legal conditions on their operations are much more complex than most compabies to say the least.
- toast0 3y ago
- hammock 3y agoAn alternative perspective: https://www.nrcm.org/programs/climate/proposed-cmp-transmission-line-bad-deal-maine/ https://www.nrcm.org/programs/climate/proposed-cmp-transmiss... A majority of Mainers opposed the transmission corridor for a variety of reasons(1) for years until they finally lost to the business interest, who in this case were the ones “profiteering,” not the ones fighting it. (1) A)Won’t reduce climate-changing pollution, and may actually increase it. B) Cuts 53 miles of new transmission lines through undeveloped forests in Maine’s North Woods, harming brook trout, deer, other wildlife, and the tourism economy. C) Jeopardizes the construction of new in-state renewable energy projects and creation of clean energy jobs. D) Generates billions of dollars of profit for CMP and Hydro-Quebec while offering very little to Maine people and businesses.
- CPLX 3y agoThose reasons sound like bullshit, explanations that were devised by people who decided they didn’t want it as step one, and then then pulled together a committee to draft some reasons.
- KennyBlanken 3y ago...and funded by the fossil fuel industry. The same thing is happening with the wind farms on the east coast; there are a slew of "save the whales" and "save the beaches" groups popping up and the press have found strong financial ties to fossil fuel industry groups. The groups are funded by equipment manufacturers to power plant operators to the fossil fuel processors themselves.
- KennyBlanken 3y agoISO-NE is heavily dependent upon natural gas and to a lesser extent, coal. The new transmission line has a capacity of over a gigawatt, and that energy is going to be entirely hydroelectric which means it will shift power generation off of 3-4 coal/oil plants as well as help with the region's severely constrained natural gas supply; during the winter, there isn't enough natural gas for heating, industry, and electricity generation. The line is estimated to bring a reduction of about 3 million tons of carbon a year. So yes, cutting down some trees for 50 miles is a fair tradeoff to decades of pollution reduction. > offering very little to Maine people and businesses Reducing oil/coal pollution in the region is a pretty big benefit. Slowing global warming is a pretty big benefit. Everyone (claims) to be for doing something about global warming until it means something happening near them. The same BS is happening with the Cape Cod wind farms. The locals are screaming about how the power being generated is going to be "sold" to Connecticut and trotting out unfounded claims about environmental and species impact.
- spacebacon 3y agoPatiently waiting for the article titled “Resident powers neighborhood with a mini reactor”. Subtitle “Earns 200k per month feeding back into the grid.” F it might as well write it at this point. In a small suburban neighborhood where the grass was always greener on the other side, one resident took "keeping up with the Joneses" to a whole new level. Meet Harold Grimsby, a man with a vision—or rather, a nuclear one. Tired of paying exorbitant electricity bills and wanting to make a statement, Harold decided to power his entire home with a mini nuclear reactor. Neighbors initially scoffed at Harold's eccentricity, but their laughter turned to envy when they learned of his genius plan. With the surplus energy produced by his reactor, Harold began feeding back into the grid, raking in a whopping $200k per month. Suddenly, the once ridiculed Harold became the neighborhood's golden boy, the envy of all who dared to glance at their sky-high utility bills. As Harold basked in his newfound glory, the rest of the neighborhood scrambled to keep up. Some attempted to harness wind power with comically oversized turbines, while others invested in solar panels that cluttered their roofs like patchwork quilts. But none could quite match Harold's ingenuity—or his bank account. With every flick of a switch, Harold chuckled to himself, knowing that not only was he lighting up his home, but he was also powering his neighbors' envy. And as the sun set on the suburban landscape, Harold Grimsby, the neighborhood's nuclear pioneer, remained the undisputed king of watts and volts.
- spacebacon 3y agoUpdate, Harold decided to stick with his diesel generator and live happily ever after.
- ufocia 3y agoDon't you mean David Hahn? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn
- spacebacon 3y agoNo, this is a story about Harold Grimsby.
- 3y ago
- ETH_start 3y agoThe government should be directly provisioning natural monopolies like utilities. There is absolutely no sense leaving it to the private sector (though of course the private sector shouldn't be prohibited from providing a private option as well). Private enterprise only works when there can be meaningful competition through low barriers to market entry.
- eru 3y agoYou are mixing up two concerns. (1) In standard economics the way to exploit a monopoly is by supplying less to customers than what a competitive market would provide. That enables you to charge more. There are at least two ways to get around that: you can try extensive regulation, or you can auction off the right to run the 'natural monopoly'. A competitive auction open to all comers will naturally capture whatever extra revenue exploitation of the monopoly could bring. (You can also mix and match.) (2) The second concern is about who should own the entity that provides the service in question. You claim that it should not be the private sector, but don't bring any arguments for it. (The arguments you do bring are applicable to the first concern.)
- ETH_start 3y agoCharging for the right to run a natural monopoly is the ideal way to do it in my opinion, but only so with markets where there is a strict natural barrier to market entry for parties other than the monopolist, which doesn't apply to utilities. It works with land, where if one person owns a plot of land, another person can't own it, which is why a land value tax is so efficient. With utilities, you could only charge for the right to run the monopoly if the government artificially prevents market entry, which is a bad idea IMHO, for all sorts of reasons. Better to have a public option, and a right by anyone to provide their own private option.
- eru 3y ago> With utilities, you could only charge for the right to run the monopoly if the government artificially prevents market entry, which is a bad idea IMHO, for all sorts of reasons. Better to have a public option, and a right by anyone to provide their own private option. You can have that right, and still auction off the right / obligation to run the public option.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]