An Untapped Source of Energy: Southwest ...

[ussimperius]

An untapped source of energy: Southwest still needs power lines to become solar hub

Posted: September 18, 2012 - 11:48pm
By SUSAN MONTOYA BRYAN
Associated Press

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) — Pick any stretch of road slicing through the American Southwest. The sun beats down on the asphalt like nowhere else and heat waves distort the landscape.

It's here, in these open expanses, that experts say is a massive untapped source of energy that could meet the nation's growing needs. But only if developers can get it out of the desert.

Even as renewable power projects get a boost from the federal government, a lack of transmission lines prevent states such as New Mexico — where the sun shines more than 300 days a year — from converting the obvious potential into real watts that can charge smartphones and run air conditioners thousands of miles away.

Aside from Phoenix, the nation's sixth largest city, and Las Vegas, which glows around the clock, the region's rural stretches — the ideal places for acres of solar panels — have few energy demands. And sending solar power from there to population centers isn't as simple as loading coal into boxcars and shipping it cross country.

"We have incredible renewable energy resources," U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu said during a visit earlier this year to a solar research lab in New Mexico. "The bad news is they're where there are not many people. We need a distribution system that can accommodate that."

Transmission lines are key to developing the region's solar resources. The problem is existing lines are maxing out, especially as the push intensifies to bring online more renewable energy. Building new lines can take years or even decades of cutting through a tangle of bureaucracy.

Spanning some 200,000 miles, much of the nation's existing transmission system is aging and will need replacement before 2030, according to preliminary findings of a new Department of Energy study on transmission congestion.

President Barack Obama reminded the nation during the Democratic National Convention that renewable power sources will play a key role in his "all of the above" energy plan. And nearly 5 gigawatts of solar and wind projects — enough juice to run about 3 million homes — were fast-tracked this summer by the federal government.

The Obama administration has also sped up permitting and construction of seven proposed transmission projects in 12 states, but industry experts say reaching into rural areas to tap more renewable resources remains a big hurdle.

Transmission gridlock is looming on the horizon in sunny Arizona, where the state's transmission capacity would be overloaded by just half of the proposed projects currently in the works. In the Northeast, wind generation has already been curtailed due to a lack of transmission capacity, according to DOE researchers.

Utilities such as PacifiCorp., which serves more than 1.7 million customers in six Western states, are already pouring billions of dollars into transmission projects.

Hundreds of miles of lines are planned from Wyoming south to New Mexico and west to Arizona and Nevada, where nearly 7,500 megawatts of renewable energy requests are already in the queue.

By 2015, the industry nationwide is expected to spend around $66 billion on improving transmission reliability and building capacity, according to the Edison Electric Institute, an association of electric companies. But more would be needed to meet all of the nation's needs.

In New Mexico, there were 18 utility-scale solar projects in the pipeline during the last fiscal year compared to none in 2010. But major transmission proposals that would crisscross the state are still in the permitting phase.

Some progress has been made in the last two years, but the lofty goals set years ago by former Democratic Gov. Bill Richardson to develop megaprojects and make New Mexico the "solar capital" of the U.S. have yet to be realized. Part of it has to do with competition.

"There are projects being developed in Arizona. There are projects being developed in California. And the states that have an interest in developing solar tend to have their own resources," said Jason Marks, a New Mexico public regulation commissioner.

"They're wanting to keep the money that they're spending in their own economies," he added.

Making solar power into a reliable export to populated states is "the biggest game in town," according to Abbas Ghassemi, an energy expert at New Mexico State University.

"For most of these states, they're looking at it for economic development and job creation," Ghassemi said, underscoring the reasons why solutions such as cost incentives and utility quotas haven't helped states like New Mexico catch up to California and New Jersey, an unlikely solar leader.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer recently said the success of the industry is a key asset to her state's economy. Her comments came after learning Arizona moved up in the national rankings, becoming second only to California for the number of photovoltaic panels installed at homes and businesses during the second quarter this year.

Nationally, the Solar Energy Industries Association reported more than 20 utility-scale photovoltaic projects were completed during the second quarter, marking the largest quarter ever for solar panel installations.

At the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in Colorado, scientists have modeled what the U.S. would look like in 2050, and they say it's possible for renewable energy to make up 80 percent of the electricity generated, even with existing technologies. (UI - This is out of control to me I wrote a paper in college a couple of years ago and the percentage of energy that could come from renewable energy was only at 60% IIRC)

Whether that comes to pass will depend on the price of technology, transmission capacity and policies and regulations that encourage renewable energy development.

With more polls showing Americans favoring renewable energy and politicians looking desperately for ways to boost the economy, Adam Browning, executive director of the California-based nonprofit Voter Solar Initiative, said the will seems to be shifting.

"Renewables provide a powerful solution that's really about tapping into great American values of self-reliance, of technology mastery, of creating new industries that put people to work," he said. "I really feel there's a great political narrative to this."

lubbockonline.com/filed-online/2012-09-18/untapped-source-energy-southwest-still-needs-power-lines-become-solar-hub#.UForaq6h29s

Maybe its because I'm naive and young, but I always wonder with infrastructure repairs that are needed, and a government that wants to "get people to work" why not FDR it and pour money into these jobs that seem - at least to me - to have a lot of huge net benefits (more people working, economic stimulus, reducing our dependency on foreign oil, etc.). What are the negatives to big infrastructure projects like this?

[pixy0stix]

The downside to this is well... a lot.

Environmental impacts is one thing. The lines have to go somewhere, and they'll be crossing territory that will be impacted. Also, the sun fields tend to disrupt the current environment, not to mention the high pollution costs of making the solar collectors.

Up front costs are also nothing compared to the upkeep costs of these fields. Solar collectors are fragile and are in constant need of replacing.

As it is, solar collection is not a way I would go for renewable energy. Before we even upgrade our infrastructure, we need to change the technology used to harness the energy.

[cahabalily]

Also not taken into account is that traditional photovoltaic systems malfunction around 120 degrees Fahrenheit, so many solar arrays aren't producing energy during peak hours.

Pixy is correct that they are traditionally fragile, but new technology integrates pliable silicon (think of silicon bakeware) that the voltaics are sprayed on. These systems can be picked up and moved, walked on, rolled up, etc. **Learned this in a seminar put on by a solar energy company in our region, as it is somewhat related to my field**

I think the country has to move towards renewable energy, but I don't know that they're going about it the right way. As Pixy said, harness it first and then upgrade the infrastructure.

[ussimperius]

Sept 19, 2012 15:54:28 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

The downside to this is well... a lot.

Environmental impacts is one thing. The lines have to go somewhere, and they'll be crossing territory that will be impacted. Also, the sun fields tend to disrupt the current environment, not to mention the high pollution costs of making the solar collectors.

Up front costs are also nothing compared to the upkeep costs of these fields. Solar collectors are fragile and are in constant need of replacing.

As it is, solar collection is not a way I would go for renewable energy. Before we even upgrade our infrastructure, we need to change the technology used to harness the energy.

What way would you go?

My thought process is that current solar panels are fragile, but if a real incentive was given to companies to make technology that was able to be used in commercial grade energy production that wasn't so delicate and that could effectively transport said energy to different cities, then innovation could occur within the industry and we may not have the same hang ups that we do now. I mean, technology gets better all the time and sure solar panels now may suck, but what about 5 years from now? 10 years from now? Manufacturing processes get better and more refined and if the demand is for a solar panel that is rugged with a low pollution output during manufacturing, I think that the market will find someone to meet that demand. Capitalism and all that.

Upkeep of any infrastructure is a cost, but again - for a country that supposedly wants to get people to work, wouldn't funding this industry create steady jobs that we sorely need? Wouldn't this cost be mitigated by the number of people that would be working and infusing the economy with more money since they have spending power that they may not have had before?

I'm also wondering if the environmental impact of electrical lines is the middle of the desert is greater then the impact of carbon emissions released by the use of natural gas and the like. It seems to me that the impact would be lower. You know, the lesser of two evils and whatnot.

This wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission#Losses not the best source I know) says that as of 2007 our energy losses were 6.5% which could definitely be improved upon. But it's also not the 27% that India is losing with it's grid (http://cleantechindia.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/indias-electricity-transmission-and-distribution-losses/). So it could be better, of course, but I think that through spurring of a new electrical industry we could refine and revise a lot of our current infrastructure to make it better.

[debatethis]

I feel like there's a joke about blowhard AZ politicians as an energy source in here somewhere.

[ussimperius]

Sept 19, 2012 16:27:51 GMT -5 debatethis said:

I feel like there's a joke about blowhard AZ politicians as an energy source in here somewhere.

Why stop at AZ?

[debatethis]

Also, my parents are living this experience right now. Their town in AZ voted to put in a solar farm to generate jobs/revenue/electricity for the local region, but no one will buy the electricity bc the lines in the area can't handle that much voltage. Additionally, it has absolutely killed the water table for surrounding ranches in order to keep it cool.

[pixy0stix]

Sept 19, 2012 16:33:41 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Additionally, it has absolutely killed the water table for surrounding ranches in order to keep it cool.

I skimmed an article the other day talking about potable water waste due to electronics. It was really interesting.


To answer the question which way would I go, I think we need to further explore the realm of nuclear energy, quite frankly. Or greater enhance the ability to harness wind power.

I just don't want us to go the way of water power and cause irreparable damage to the environment.

[debatethis]

Sept 19, 2012 16:39:29 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Sept 19, 2012 16:33:41 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Additionally, it has absolutely killed the water table for surrounding ranches in order to keep it cool.

I skimmed an article the other day talking about potable water waste due to electronics. It was really interesting.


To answer the question which way would I go, I think we need to further explore the realm of nuclear energy, quite frankly. Or greater enhance the ability to harness wind power.

I just don't want us to go the way of water power and cause irreparable damage to the environment.

I'd agree with this completely. Have you ever driven through the wind farms in Indiana? They're awesome. This is obviously just Wiki but it's a good starting point. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Indiana

[lahoagie]

Sept 19, 2012 16:39:29 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Sept 19, 2012 16:33:41 GMT -5 debatethis said:

Additionally, it has absolutely killed the water table for surrounding ranches in order to keep it cool.

I skimmed an article the other day talking about potable water waste due to electronics. It was really interesting.


To answer the question which way would I go, I think we need to further explore the realm of nuclear energy, quite frankly. Or greater enhance the ability to harness wind power.

I just don't want us to go the way of water power and cause irreparable damage to the environment.

I agree with nuclear energy. Renewable power is great (hell I have a job because of it) but it is usually an unreliable power source. So for every MW you have on the grid, you need to have an equal amount of reliable MW's on the grid (think coal or gas generation).