[kublikhan]

More low-cost, clean wind energy will soon be available to American homes and business as the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) today approved America’s largest clean energy infrastructure project this century.
DOE’s approval of Clean Line Energy’s Plains & Eastern Line transmission project, utilizing Section 1222 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, enables the project to move forward and is consistent with bipartisan calls to expand our nation’s energy infrastructure. The proposed project will deliver the output of 4,000 megawatts (MW) of clean, low-cost wind energy from the Oklahoma panhandle to customers throughout the Southeastern U.S. – delivering more than four times the electricity output of the Hoover Dam.

“Over 99 percent of all installed utility-scale wind capacity is located in rural areas. By building more projects like this, we’ll be putting America’s abundant untapped wind resources to use,” continued Kiernan.

The Plains & Eastern transmission line is a $2.5 billion dollar private investment that will create the opportunity for over $7 billion dollars in new wind farm development, establishing thousands of jobs and supporting hundreds of manufacturing jobs.

DOE approves critical transmission project to deliver energy bill savings to more Americans

And here I thought efforts to modernize our electric grid would get bogged down in bureaucratic red tape. This seems like a step in the right direction.

[GHung]

[Tanada]

DOE approves critical transmission project to deliver energy bill savings to more Americans

And here I thought efforts to modernize our electric grid would get bogged down in bureaucratic red tape. This seems like a step in the right direction.

I hope you are being sarcastic, I consider 11 years from legislation to actual movement in the desired direction to be pretty tied up with red tape.

[Timo]

I hope you are being sarcastic, I consider 11 years from legislation to actual movement in the desired direction to be pretty tied up with red tape.

Perhaps. Red tape, yes, certainly, but I suspect that the red tape started with the electric utilities that rely on coal production v wind production for their product. Modernization means a colossal change in BAU, and utilities are also a very powerful industry lobby. Politicians are very responsive to powerful lobbies. My point in this is that the 11 year delay might stem from more than bureaucratic red tape. That's still no excuse for the delay, but there are more interests in the game than just government.

[ROCKMAN]

...but I suspect that the red tape started with the electric utilities that rely on coal production v wind production for their product. Modernization means a colossal change in BAU, and utilities are also a very powerful industry lobby."

That might make sense but then how do you explain Texas spending $6 BILLION 4 years ago to expand our grid to take advantage of our wind power? After all Texas is by far the largest coal consuming state with virtually all of being burned locally by our utility companies. Considering how powerful the coal producers and the NG producers are so big in Texas you might think we would be far behind the rest of the country and the feds in wind power instead of being decades ahead.

Maybe it’s a simple at the Texas govt doing what’s best for its citizens. Citizens who have never been hesitant to dump a politician that wasn’t doing the right thing. BTW it was the Texas consumers that voted themselves higher initial electric rates so that they could benefit in the long run from wind power.

[Timo]

Rockman, i can't explain it at all. All i can do is to hypothesize different variables that led to Texas jumping ahead of the curve with regard to wind. For instance, it's entirely possible that the wind industry lobby was able to partially offset the coal industry lobby, and point out the fact that there are virtually no coal jobs in Texas, but wind energy would produce thousands of jobs. In jumping ahead with wind energy, Texas is now the nation's leader, and everyone else now has to play from behind to catch up. That has strategic political advantages for Texas, as well. Also, i'd lastly point out that producing the volume of wind capacity that Texas has over the past decade is vastly different than upgrading HVDC transmission lines to export that energy produced. Now that the DOE has got around to producing these lines, expect Texas to reap exponential benefits now that the infrastructure is being elevated to match their production capacity.

But, as i stated to begin with, these are hypothetical explanations. I honestly don't know any specifics.

[KaiserJeep]

All, the power grid including high capacity AC transmission lines was already present in Texas, the wind farms needed only local interconnects.

There is zero existing HVDC transmission infrastructure other than (short) experimental and development and proof-of-concept segments. 11 years of construction is entirely reasonable - and if that is the goal, it will probably take 20 years to complete.

Scheduling and performing construction is easy. Getting reluctant landowners to lease right-of-way, and dealing with lawsuits is not easy and not readily quantifiable as a schedule.

Never forget that the largest single cost component of nuclear power are the fees paid to lawyers. Nuclear energy and asbestos legislation are both windfalls for the legal "industry". (As if flapping their mouths actually were productive.)

There are still lawsuits dealing with the HV AC transmission lines after decades. Every malformed calf born to every dairy farmer was a lawsuit in the beginning. Now such lawsuits are much rarer, as we establish that EMF does not cause mutations.

HVDC transmission is a whole new ballgame. Same BS, different century.

[kublikhan]

Thanks for the info KJ. The first article I read on this subject was touching on the issue of lawsuits and right of way issues. They are using federal eminent domain to bypass state level objections:

A $2.5-billion transmission line carrying wind power to the U.S. Southeast is coming -- whether state regulators there like it or not. The Energy Department’s approval of the line marks the first time the 2005 statute has been used to bypass state approval and push through an interstate transmission project.

The approval highlights a potential workaround for some U.S. transmission developers who have for years dealt with regulatory delays and roadblocks at the state level while trying to site new power lines. The statute gave the Energy Department authority to clear interstate projects co-sponsored by either of two of its four public power agencies. It’s just the latest twist in the battle over transmission siting between state and federal agencies as U.S. regulators push for stronger, multi-state lines capable of moving renewable power to where it’s needed.
The Energy Department’s decision probably will face lawsuits challenging its authority under the 2005 law to take land for the line, a group of electric cooperatives said in comments filed with it in April. Landowners are already arguing that use of federal eminent domain is unconstitutional because the project isn’t needed.

The $2.5 Billion U.S. Power Line That No State Can Stop

I'm not saying using eminent domain is always the right approach. Sometimes it gets abused for boondoggle projects such as building a fence along the Mexican border or corporate welfare. However I think upgrading our outdated power grid might be one area where I would support such use of eminent domain.

[Newfie]

It's a move in the right direction

[Longtimber]

"Never forget that the largest single cost component of nuclear power are the fees paid to lawyers."
Any links on actual % of Legal costs - A sample plant or Fleet ?

[BrianR]

Does this absolutely demonstrate that there is net positive energy from windmills? And is this a question we should be asking, or will the demonstrable benefits, beyond the economics, such as environmental, be sufficient to outweigh (possibly) net negative energy?

[kublikhan]

Does this absolutely demonstrate that there is net positive energy from windmills? And is this a question we should be asking, or will the demonstrable benefits, beyond the economics, such as environmental, be sufficient to outweigh (possibly) net negative energy?

That was never in question. Wind turbines have long been known to be net energy positive:

The wind turbine pays off the fabrication energy debt in a year. That would be the energy used to manufacture it, and to source all the raw materials from nature. That includes burning coal and coke to make steel - and consuming oil for fiberglass and insulation for copper wires, and copper, concrete, and excavation, grid attachment, etc. Not to mention, transporting raw materials from widely dispersed sources, and transporting finished goods to the wind farm site.

Wind turbine payback
US researchers have carried out an environmental lifecycle assessment of 2-megawatt wind turbines mooted for a large wind farm in the US Pacific Northwest. Writing in the International Journal of Sustainable Manufacturing, they conclude that in terms of cumulative energy payback, or the time to produce the amount of energy required of production and installation, a wind turbine with a working life of 20 years will offer a net benefit within five to eight months of being brought online.

The pair has carried out a life cycle assessment (LCA) of 2MW wind turbines in order to identify the net environmental impact of the production and use of such devices for electricity production. An LCA takes into account sourcing of key raw materials (steel, copper, fiberglass, plastics, concrete, and other materials), transport, manufacturing, installation of the turbine, ongoing maintenance through its anticipated two decades of useful life and, finally, the impacts of recycling and disposal at end-of-life.

It is likely that even in a worst case scenario, lifetime energy requirements for each turbine will be subsumed by the first year of active use. Thus, for the 19 subsequent years, each turbine will, in effect, power over 500 households without consuming electricity generated using conventional energy sources.

Wind turbine payback period claimed to be within 8 months

However just because they are net energy positive doesn't mean the grid can handle the intermittent energy wind turbines produce(Ex: the wind stops blowing but the electric demand is still there and needs to be met from somewhere). It is a small problem when we only have a small amount of wind power in the grid. However this problems grows bigger as the amount of wind grows bigger. Having long distance high capacity transmission lines can help address issues like this so power can be rerouted from areas of the grid that have spare capacity to areas that have no spare capacity.

[Outcast_Searcher]

There is zero existing HVDC transmission infrastructure other than (short) experimental and development and proof-of-concept segments. 11 years of construction is entirely reasonable - and if that is the goal, it will probably take 20 years to complete.

So where do you get 11 years of construction time? This Bloomberg articles says it will be in service in 2020, so I get about 4 years. Are you in denial about any green related energy again?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/ ... e-can-stop

The Clean Line project approved by the Energy Department is backed by ZBI Ventures, National Grid PLC and Bluescape Resources Co. LLC. With the authorization, Clean Line has said it expects to start construction on the 600-kilovolt, direct current line in 2017 and bring it into service in 2020.

This doesn't say wind power is all unicorns and happiness, but at least it looks like progress.

[ROCKMAN]

Timo - No coal jobs in Texas? LOL.You might want to check out some Texas coal sites. The coal mining and burning industry employs almost three times as many people as the wind industry. Also do you realize that those windfarms in OK sit right across the border from some of the biggest in Texas? And are you aware that Texas won't be getting any of the OK power? Same reason other states arern't getting electricity from Texas: there are 3 e- grids in the US: East, West and Texas. That "Lone Star"' on our state flag usn't just for show. LOL. Remember Texas wasn't some territory granted statehood: we were an independent country. For instance that's why no one needsd a fed permit to build a Texas offshore windfarm. Unlike the decade long battle that went on over the east coast proposal. Texas has control over our state waters...not the US govt. Which is why many $BILLIONS in oil/NG has been produced from those leases with every $ going to the state.

And most important: wind power is in no way competing with coal power: despite being tied with Germany for #4 in wind gerneration the coal plants in Texas haven't lost $1 to the wind generators. Wind was never planned to replace coal but rather to supplement it. In fact the largest GHG sequestration project on the planet is underway in Texas. It will receive GHG from the second largest source in the countrty...a lignite fired plant. Texas has had a continuous growth in demand for electrticty. A demand projected to increase greatly in the future.

There's no silly lobbying game going on in Texas...it would be wasted money. The state govt and the voters want to see as much capex spent on both. It's just good business for us.

[Timo]

Timo - No coal jobs in Texas? LOL.You might want to check out some Texas coal sites. The coal mining and burning industry employs almost three times as many people as the wind industry. Also do you realize that those windfarms in OK sit right across the border from some of the biggest in Texas? And are you aware that Texas won't be getting any of the OK power? Same reason other states arern't getting electricity from Texas: there are 3 e- grids in the US: East, West and Texas. That "Lone Star"' on our state flag usn't just for show. LOL. Remember Texas wasn't some territory granted statehood: we were an independent country. For instance that's why no one needsd a fed permit to build a Texas offshore windfarm. Unlike the decade long battle that went on over the east coast proposal. Texas has control over our state waters...not the US govt. Which is why many $BILLIONS in oil/NG has been produced from those leases with every $ going to the state.

And most important: wind power is in no way competing with coal power: despite being tied with Germany for #4 in wind gerneration the coal plants in Texas haven't lost $1 to the wind generators. Wind was never planned to replace coal but rather to supplement it. In fact the largest GHG sequestration project on the planet is underway in Texas. It will receive GHG from the second largest source in the countrty...a lignite fired plant. Texas has had a continuous growth in demand for electrticty. A demand projected to increase greatly in the future.

There's no silly lobbying game going on in Texas...it would be wasted money. The state govt and the voters want to see as much capex spent on both. It's just good business for us.

Point taken. I was thinking about coal mining jobs, but even that might not be accurate. When i think of coal, i think West Virginia and Pennsylvania. Texas doesn't come to mind, but that doesn't mean that i'm right. I'll only say again that i honestly don't have any answer to why Texas opted to go big-time into wind. Everything i offered was speculation, and apparently, it wasn't all that accurate, if at all. I plead ignorance.

[toolpush]

Rockman,


Surely that lignite is not coming from interstate!
Or aren't you counting lignite as coal?

Over our way, we call lignite "brown coal", whether that is geologically correct or not. I believe Texas has very reserves of lignite, just like nearly everything else.

[Synapsid]

toolpush,

Texas burns its own lignite as well as sub-bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming. I'd guess that Texas mines and burns some sub-bituminous too.

I don't know about current numbers but about eight years ago two-thirds of the coal burned in Texas' power plants came from Wyoming. Rockman (peace be upon him) would likely have data more up to date.

I think of lignite as only burned in remote rural districts where inbreeding is a public-health problem but perhaps that view is not correct.

[toolpush]

Syn
We have a tendency to refer to our Tasmanian brethren as a bit inbreed, but they generate most of their electricity from hydro, meanwhile, the state of Victoria has huge reserves of lignite, close to the main population and cultural centres, therefore lignite has been the main source of electricity for many years, with a little help from some hydro for peak use.

There has been some major battles down that way, on the timing of shutting down some the older less efficient lignite plants. I am not sure what the current result is, but some of the older plants certainly do need to be shut down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hazelwood_Power_Station

Getting back to the main point of this thread. It is interesting that the HVDC power line ran into the same issues that the oil and gas pipeline builders have experienced. Basically NIMBYism is alive and well.
I was intrigued how the use of Eminent domain was cheered on by the some contributors.
Maybe a HVDC line from the Marcellus to the North East, could solve the energy issues at both ends there as well? /sarc

[vtsnowedin]

All, the power grid including high capacity AC transmission lines was already present in Texas, the wind farms needed only local interconnects.

There is zero existing HVDC transmission infrastructure other than (short) experimental and development and proof-of-concept segments. 11 years of construction is entirely reasonable - and if that is the goal, it will probably take 20 years to complete.....
......

There maybe zero HVDC transmission lines in Texas but we have a couple of good sized ones coming down from Canada to Boston running through Vermont and New Hampshire. They are trying to build another one called Northern Pass but are running into the usual NIMBY issues.

[ROCKMAN]

Lignite is coal. Crappy wet and low But but still coal. And 40% of Texas electricity, including NG and wind sourced, comes from burning our COAL. LOL. And Texas is by far the largest lignite producer. And will be for many decade: Texas is the "Saudi Arabia. of lignite". LOL.. And why will Texas keep burning lignite for the better part of the next hundred years (which is our current reserve life): the average household electric bill in Texas is $1,800/year. One of the highest in the country despite cheap coal, NG and wind sources.

Some of you are over thinking the situation. The Texas economy and population growth are booming compared to the rest of the country. The businesses moving here want cheap energy: a number of EU heavy industries have relocated to Texas because of our long term energy resources. And the public demand for electricity? If you've ever spent summer in Texas you'll know why: WE WILL HAVE OUR AC! LOL.

I'll say it again so pay attention. The state's politicians push for all the energy sources they can. If they didn't they wouldn't get re-elected. They don't need to be courted by lobbyists. Texas voters are very single minded: make their lives as comfortable as possible regardless of the methods or a politician will end up looking for a new job. Being a politician in Texas is easy: forget political correctness and give the voters what they want. LOL.