Building the Electron Superhighway

Should the federal government build or incent others to build a new electron superhighway? In other words, a backbone for a 21st century electrical grid? At NDN's recent event on clean infrastructure, U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee asked precisely that question and it's one more and more energy leaders are asking.

Our current grid, as former CIA Director Jim Woolsey has noted, resembles nothing so much as the road system before interstates were built. Had President Eisenhower not built the interstate system after observing the autobahns in Germany and fretting over the difficulty of moving an army from one end of America to the other, our roads would be a network of streets, shopping boulevards and country roads, slowed by trucks as well as tolls. There would be no easy way to travel between one large city and another and trade and distribution of goods would be drastically hampered.

This is precisely the situation we have today in the world of electricity, where mid-20th century wires are now tasked with carrying 21st century loads and tolls are collected by dozens of utilities along the way. As a result, instead of a national market in electricity, we have a balkanized patchwork of local fiefdoms each with vastly different prices. Electricity producers face obstacles in moving their electrons to market -- hardly an ideal solution.

How would an electron superhighway work? One proposal by the Energy Department would build major high voltage (765KV) trunk lines traveling East to West and North to South, particularly in the underserved center of the country. Like Interstates 10, 40, 80 and 90 which link the East and West and Interstates 5, 55 and 95 (as well as those in between) which link the North and South, these large roads would facilitate long distance movement of power. Relieved of this burden, utilities could focus their resources on localized distribution. While the proposal might cost $60 billion to $100 billion (a weekend's worth of bailout money), the long-term benefits would be tremendous. In fact, the proposal could be financed through a miniscule tax of less than a penny on the average monthly utility bill.

A particularly interesting approach to building an electron superhighway would be to run the cables underground. No one wants a high voltage transmission line running anywhere near their home, leading to complex obstacles to siting new lines. Additionally, underground lines are far more expensive than overhead ones and it is harder to identify problems when they occur. However, new superconducting wire (eliminating almost all the resistance in a wire by cooling it down using liquid nitrogen) that can be laid in a three-foot trench and is already being implemented in Long Island could be run underneath bike paths, along roads and in other unobtrusive places. While this technology, proven in pilot projects and now being tested at scale is new, it could revolutionize long-distance power transmission.

The interstate highway system is not the only model for moving goods. The Internet backbone, though jumpstarted by federal investment, is run privately for profit. Similarly, private companies own the long distance natural gas pipes. And private companies own the railroads.

Of these, the Internet system is probably least illustrative because it remains unregulated. Natural gas is produced at a comparatively limited number of points, simplifying its long distance transportation requirements. America's rail system, a relic of the 19th century, is probably not a model for a ubiquitous electricity network.

It may be that federal ownership is not necessary. However, a national tax on electricity would certainly be easier to implement than hundreds of individual rate cases -- the traditional method for funding investment. Important obstacles to greater federal involvement in electricity remain, however, in the form of state regulators and some utilities that have traditionally opposed a larger federal role.

As America confronts its 21st century challenges, in particular, developing a grid that can facilitate a national electricity market and also accommodate decentralized generation of renewable power, the idea of an electron superhighway merits serious attention. At a very minimum, work should accelerate on how to implement an electricity backbone. As FERC Commissioner Jon Wellinghoff, quoting Albert Einstein, remarked at NDN's clean infrastructure event, "physics is easy, politics is hard."

[Cross posted on NDN Blog]

Comments

[sheila]

sorry, but the whole concept of a heavily centralized electricity grid is ridiculously 19th century Robber Baron. the future is about energy independence, point of use solutions, net zero buildings, and oversized rooftop systems feeding into existing or upgraded - but not NEW - gridlines as a load-balancing mechanism.

first of all, Big Energy ain't gonna let the Feds own it because the whole mythology of "new transmission is needed" is based on THEM owning it and getting a guaranteed 11-12% return with NO RISK since they amortize 100% of the costs ($10 - $15 million per mile, plus eminent domain) across their ratepayers. secondly, this same mythology is based on Big Energy owning inefficient, wasteful, wilderness-killing, remote power plants, controlling the supplies, and setting the ratepayer-hijacking prices.

if we all got our own structures as close to net zero as possible, and those of us who were capable of generating excess power without killing off our open spaces were financially rewarded (via feed in tariffs), there would be NO need for taxpayers, ratepayers and the environment to bear the entire cost of yet another Big Energy Monopolistic Infrastructure.

let's get it right this time. Big "Renewables" and Big "Transmission" are after the same externalized costs and the same privatized profits as Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Gas. the answer is local, point of use conservation, storage and generation, and preservation of our intact ecosystems.

[KillTheMessenger]

Sheila, did you notice that the things you take for granted cost money? Are you aware of the concept that somebody has to pay for these things? And is it reasonable to assume that the end user is the one who has to pay for them?

I think we are in agreement about these things. Yes?

So your beef is essentially with the necessary infrastructure being in private or corporate hands?

Do I get that right? Good.

So the solution to that is either to make ALL essential infrastructure government owned. We can do that. You will still have to pay for the cost. It will still be expensive. And as usual, the government will force you to pay for these services, even if you won't use them. Happens all the time. It's called "tax" and nobody is excluded. You don't pay, you go to jail. With the big old electricity company, if you don't pay, all that happens is that they turn the power off.

OR, YOU go off the grid. There is no law against that. You can do it anytime you like. On your own money and on whatever level of technical complexity you like. The technology is there. If you are willing to pay for it, you can be completely independent of the robber barons.

[sheila]

actually, i prefer my solution. you are, of course, welcome to your opinion about the options, but i disagree.

my, uh, beef, is with centralized, wasteful, monopolistic infrastructure that kills open spaces. if it's government or corporate owned, it's still the least reliable, least cost-effective, least free market solution with the highest financial, personal and environmental costs, and is the least likely to encourage conservation.

you are not actually correct that the "end user" pays their own costs in the realm of energy. usually, costs are totally externalized, usually disproportionately to the benefits received, and are amortized across people and ecosystems who are harmed by them. you get forced from your house by a powerline to feed a different city? you also have to pay for the powerline. nuclear waste dump in your neighborhood? you risk health and security, your property value plummets, AND you pay for the dump, even if you don't use the power.

personally, i think americans would rather have the choice, like in 40 nations, to generate their own power and to sell excess to the grid, rather than to be passive consumers. there is a reason that people are going crazy to install rooftop PV everywhere but here. think about it... you don't have to be a total separatist to want environmentally and economically sound energy policy...

[KillTheMessenger]

Nobody forces you to be on the grid. There are plenty of examples of how people went off the grid completely. I doubt any of them are getting their electricity cheaper, some might be getting it "greener".

It's possible. "All" you have to do is to stomach the up-front investment.

[KillTheMessenger]

Looks like you bought the "ultraconductor" scam hook, line and sinker.

On the other hand, maybe my physics knowledge is just a bit rusty. Would you mind giving me a proper citation to a key paper about "ultrconductors" that has been published in an experimental physics journal?

:-)

[Overtone]

Bipolaron model of room temperature superconductivity for oxidized polypropylene

Liang-You Zhenga, Ying-Nan Chiua and Shan T. Laia,

Department of Chemistry, Center for Molecular Dynamics and Energy Transfer, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064, USA

Vitreous State Laboratory, The Catholic University of America, Washington, DC 20064, USA

Received 9 August 2004;
accepted 12 October 2004.
Available online 18 March 2005.

Abstract

In this paper, a superconductivity mechanism—Bipolaron model for oxidized polypropylene at room temperature—is proposed. The results agree with the experiments. The calculation of critical temperature is Tc=348 K. It also coincides with the prediction Tcnot, vert, similar300–400 K by Ginzburg [V.L. Ginzburg, Physics—Uspekhi 43 (6) (2000) 573–583].

Keywords: Bipolaron model; Room temperature; Oxidized polypropylene
Article Outline

1. Introduction
2. Bipolaron model
3. The calculation of Tc
4. Discussion
References

[KillTheMessenger]

I have seen papers that also predict superconductivity in neutron star matter, and not just at room temperature. But that's theory.

A theoretical model, especially in solid state physics, proves exactly nothing until there is experimental confirmation. Now, since the abstract does not state that they have actual measurements on a superconducting sample (only that they have some measurements which they compare something to), and since I don't have access to this journal right now, I can't tell what it's all about. But I have a strong feeling that since this would have been a sensation in solid state physics years ago I wouldn't have missed it.

Now, of course, if these are theorists who refer to this

http://www.jetpletters.ac.ru/ps/1117/article_16914.pdf

and related material, I have very little hope that this will turn out to be anything else than an old measurement error. Although, the Russian paper correctly says that they haven't proven superconductivity, all they have seen is that the resistance fell below the zero of their instrument, which is NOT how you prove superconductivity.

Since it's two decades since the publication of these papers and still no confirmation seems to exist, I remain skeptical. There was plenty of time to check this out outside of crank space.

[KillTheMessenger]

Did I mention that my cable bridge that's on sale right now has ultraconductor cables? It can transport cars and electricity!

Overtone, you bought into a scam. There is no such thing as an "ultraconductor". At least not yet. Given the claims in the pseudoscience subculture I would even doubt that there ever will be anything that comes even close to this mythical "technology".

Selling ultraconductors is a great business model, though, because a sucker is born every second.

[Overtone]

An “electronet” has been proposed, to modernize our aging transmission grid and extend it to connect remote renewable generation. However, the proposals may assume cryogenically cooled superconductors will be utilized, complicating the system by requiring many thousands of miles of tubing filled with a refrigerant. Ultraconductors have extremely high current densities at ambient temperatures. They require no refrigeration whatsoever.

Ultraconductors can eventually replace copper wire in many types of motors and generators, helping to greatly reduce total energy demand. Due to the resistance heating of wire, power transmission lines in the U.S. lose 11% of the electricity they carry in the form of heat - at a cost exceeding $80 billion annually. Each 1% reduction of these transmission losses would save above $500 million every year. Load leveling on a national basis might save an additional 5% of energy loss and 2% of new plant construction could be unnecessary - adding up to a savings of perhaps $65 billion in avoided cost for infrastructure. In addition, national load leveling will reduce the plant construction needed for growing peak power demands. Thus, an UltraGrid Tieline will more than pay for itself.

Ultraconductors in the form of wire and cable are clearly on the horizon. An UltraGrid system could utilize Ultraconductors operating at ambient temperatures. The economics of an electronet would be far more cost-effective, if Ultraconductors are utilized for the major parts of the system rather than cryogenically refrigerated Superconductors.