The rallying cry of green energy pundits has always been, “More solar! More wind!”
While renewable energy is often talked about as the solution to reducing our carbon footprints (and ending a host of other ills associated with traditional energy production), one factor is often neglected in this conversation: our ability to transmit this energy. As it currently stands, the United States is incapable of transmitting all the energy it needs through our current power grid. Adding electricity from solar and wind power could weaken the grid further, causing spotty service and increased blackouts.
According to a a report issued by the North American Electrical Reliability Corporation, “greenhouse gas issues and electric utility reliability are on a collision course.” In other words, carbon-reduction incentives designed to improve our environment will likely cause problems in our power grid, meaning that rules put in place to better our environment may leave us in the dark.
The problem isn’t creating power; it’s moving it.
Essentially, our present power lines are too small and too few to carry the electricity needed to keep the country powered up as it has been. Our system was never designed to transfer power over long distances. If we are to rely on green power from far-flung wind farms in Texas and solar farms in Arizona to power the rest of the nation, we need to improve the technology involved in transmission and possibly do a massive and costly overhaul of our current system.
Why is this the case? The reason for this is complicated, but the short of it is this: While utilities all across the country have carbon-reducing incentives, certain geographic locations are predisposed to solar or wind farms. If renewable energy plants are built far from where demand is centered, the total quantity of power flows would rapidly increase, overloading transmission lines.
In addition, our current transmission system is inefficient. Experts say we lose 8 to 9 percent of all energy we produce through “line loss,” which is energy waste resulting from moving electricity over long distances. According to the Department of Energy, the energy savings from improving efficiency by just 5 percent would be the same as permanently eliminating the fuel and greenhouse gas emissions from 53 million cars.
One solution is to go digital and build a “smart grid.”
Our power grids were built in the 1950s, an age before computers, the internet, and cell phones. To get an idea of how the grid works, think back to how telephones used to be run. An operator would physically move plugs around to make a phone call. Now phones are operated by a computer. The grid is still in the plug-and-operator phase, and some groups, like the Sierra Club advocate building a “smart grid.”
Presently, there is a lack of communication in the grid. “Digital will allow us to monitor a lot of points in the system from a central point, which you can’t today,” James E. Rogers, president and chief executive of Duke Energy Rogers told the New York Times. Right now, there is no central grid operator, or “national grid,” for that matter. Rather, the United States is divided into three regional grids, which are, in turn, divided into smaller reliability councils, independent system operators, and utilities. Each of these operates on its own system.
Without good, real time communication there is a risk of power surges, like the one that caused the 2003 blackout that darkened the Eastern United States. In order for a system to function properly, constant voltage needs to be maintained. If the voltage drops too low, there are service interruptions; if the voltage is too high, the systems overload, also causing problems.
A smart grid would monitor power across the country and help ensure that there aren’t complications.
Under this plan utilities would switch out their current fragmented computer systems and centralize their systems. Homes and appliances would be outfitted with “smart meters,” which would be in constant conversation with the grid about how much energy is being used. If customers allow it, utilities could cut power to non-essentials, like pool filters, when electricity consumption gets too high, and “smart appliances,” like dishwashers could begin cycling when electricity demand isn’t at its peak. The meters would be located inside, telling consumers how much energy is being used on an easy-to-read screen.
For a more in-depth look at how a smart grid works, check out this pamphlet from the Department of Energy and this illustration from the New York Times
Another solution? Build more power lines
Considering the staggering costs (estimated in the trillions of dollars), and stakeholders in the situation, building new lines is easier said than done. There are hundreds of thousands of miles of transmission lines running through the United States; however, only 668 miles of new power lines have been added since 2000, says the DOE.
Though we all love our fans in the summer and heaters in the winter, the public isn’t receptive to this solution. Citizen groups and preservationists have a tradition of fighting new power lines, saying that their presence causes harm to natural resources, and the electromagnetic fields that come with them cause adverse health effects. Proposed power lines through the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area and another through multiple states including West Virginia have been met with strong opposition from citizens along with Sierra Club chapters.
Institute a national energy infrastructure program
Typically, the federal government left it up to states to manage their portions of the grid, but now that the scale of renewable energy is growing, some say the federal government should take the lead in order to improve reliability across the country. Opponents say the market should solve this.
To sum it up…
Our system was built on old technology that limits our ability to transition to green energy.
If we are going to “green the grid,” swift and immediate action is necessary. Renewable energy can become a larger part of our energy portfolio—but not before our grid gets an upgrade.
What are your thoughts on greening the power grid? Do you agree with the proposed solutions mentioned above? Have your own? Share your comments below.
Related Links:
Building A Better Electric Grid
Report Calls for Overhaul of Power Grid to Handle Sun and Wind Power
How to Untangle the Power Grid, Digitally
Karen G. says:
Transmitting power is not a problem if it is generated on the roof of the building that needs it.
Shorter distances mean less losses so rather than large centralized power plants, think of local decentralized systems.
Adam W. says:
Karen - a good point, but one that only works in certain places at certain times. Every house in Southern California could power itself through solar panels on the roof. Not so for the majority of the country. Any rancher in the Midwest who opens up his or her farm to wind development can easily power their own property. Problem is that the power they generate from these farms still needs to be transported to other farms in the area and then to major cities - something which will require an updating of the grid.
There is no doubt that local power is a very good goal, but even in my perfectly efficient world I don't imagine it will be possible for all areas of the US to be self sustaining during all parts of the year. Power will ebb and flow as the sun shines or the wind blows - an updated energy grid will ensure that we can all have power, all the time, and always from renewable resources.