Recent Comment
Share
A new idea for a large substation based in Clovis, New Mexico has the potential to solve one of the biggest hurdles to clean energy growth: transmission. The SuperStation, as its being called, would link the three largest grids - the east, west and Texas - allowing renewable energy producers to sell electricity across the country instead of just within their own grid.
The basic setup of the SuperStation would be a huge substation using superconducting cables to transmit electricity. The cables would carry 5 GW of electricity to and from the substation where it would be converted from AC from the grids to DC and then back to AC on its way back out. The cables are chilled to 300 degrees below zero which lets them carry more electricity, more cheaply. Tres Amigas, the company that hopes to build the project, would charge a fee for the SuperStation's use.
As more renewable energy projects are planned and built, it's infrastructure like this that will ultimately allow that clean electricity to make it into our homes. This project is expected to encounter lots of red tape because of the heavy regulation of power transmission, and it comes with a $1 billion price tag, so, for now, we can only hope it makes it.
Hits: 7419
Comments (14)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by Global Patriot, October 15, 2009
This is a potentially positive step forward, but I would like to see a comprehensive solution to improving the electrical grid and accommodating alternative energy.
-
- +1
-
-
written by BruceMcF, October 15, 2009
... regular HVDC, which has losses of under 5% for 1,000 miles, that sounds pretty good.
Of course, there is a lot of confusion of the energy lost in converting heat to electricity and the energy lost in transmission - if the power is generated directly as in wind turbines, it does not face the thermodynamic energy losses of converting, say, coal to steam to power.
Of course, there is a lot of confusion of the energy lost in converting heat to electricity and the energy lost in transmission - if the power is generated directly as in wind turbines, it does not face the thermodynamic energy losses of converting, say, coal to steam to power.
-
- +1
-
-
written by dave, October 15, 2009
We have to begin to look at things differently, this me me me mine mine mine attitude has to go. Realistically 1 billion is not that much when you remember over the past 7 years we've spent around 15 billion a day at war. Not really sure what this number is but it’s a LOT. 15 billion times 365 = 5.47500 × 1012 and that’s just one year. Imagine the possibilities of what we could do with that kind of a budget! Hell, we may even be able to solve poverty and put an end to homelessness. Just a thought…
-
- -1
-
-
written by Envirofemme, October 15, 2009
whilst I agree with the above comments it's nice to know that people are really starting to think about positive changes we can make to the way we live...
potentially this could make a massive difference!
potentially this could make a massive difference!
-
- +1
-
-
written by hyperspaced, October 15, 2009
And how would you freeze the cables to superconducting temperatures? With ENERGY!
Create energy ON SITE!
Create energy ON SITE!
-
- -2
-
-
written by Flahooler, October 15, 2009
"...and it comes with a $1 billion price tag, so, for now, we can only hope it makes it."
$1 billion isn't that much money in the grand scheme of power distribution projects. However, I see another more significant problem with this idea. Utilities around the country are already recognizing that creating a robust, efficient power grid means de-centralizing both generation and distribution. A massive substation like this creates a single point of failure.
A more reliable solution would involve a network of smaller, interconnected substations to link the three major grids together. These substations then provide redundancy for one another, and each station can be designed to handle a smaller portion of the load improving reliability and reducing cost.
Technologies such as superconducting cables are great for the laboratory, but they haven't yet reached the point of feasibility for real-world applications.
$1 billion isn't that much money in the grand scheme of power distribution projects. However, I see another more significant problem with this idea. Utilities around the country are already recognizing that creating a robust, efficient power grid means de-centralizing both generation and distribution. A massive substation like this creates a single point of failure.
A more reliable solution would involve a network of smaller, interconnected substations to link the three major grids together. These substations then provide redundancy for one another, and each station can be designed to handle a smaller portion of the load improving reliability and reducing cost.
Technologies such as superconducting cables are great for the laboratory, but they haven't yet reached the point of feasibility for real-world applications.
-
- +1
-
-
written by MIck, October 16, 2009
how do they expect to get to 27 degrees BELOW absolute zero? (-273 degrees)
-
- +1
-
-
written by Stanley Hamada, October 16, 2009
In general it would seem that this proposal would be a quick and possibly efficient way to get the power coordinated. However from a national security stand point anyone could fire rockets or mortars and knockout the facility for a reasonable amount of time to affect the country.
-
- +0
-
-
written by Matthew MCDonough, October 17, 2009
I guess she is talking degrees fahrenheit. That puts it at -184 C or nearly 90 K.
Is this cold enough to achieve superconductivity?
Is this cold enough to achieve superconductivity?
-
- +0
-
-
written by Kirsty, October 20, 2009
I can't believe this crap...
written by hyperspaced, October 15, 2009
And how would you freeze the cables to superconducting temperatures? With ENERGY!
Create energy ON SITE!
------------------------------------------------
Exactly indeed. People would be better off burning their own coal supplies on site and using a green micro boiler to convert the steam's energy into electricity.
People denigrate coal for being unclean, but it really is quite clean when processed
written by hyperspaced, October 15, 2009
And how would you freeze the cables to superconducting temperatures? With ENERGY!
Create energy ON SITE!
------------------------------------------------
Exactly indeed. People would be better off burning their own coal supplies on site and using a green micro boiler to convert the steam's energy into electricity.
People denigrate coal for being unclean, but it really is quite clean when processed
-
- +0
-
-
written by Michael, October 21, 2009
the question unasked is what do you intend to sustain? the conversion of energy is a huge energy expense and it is obvious that it should be used if possible without conversion. A grid as described is a wonderful means of exchanging surplus energy but therein lies the question --surplus to what? If a self sufficient home we to transact a surplus kwh, then less than half of it would be delivered to a destination home that needed it. What would you charge the energy lost to originator or the energy gained at the destination? The idea of a grid as the arbitrator of value is interesting but its efficiency comes at a cost -- a local cost. M
-
- +0
-
-
written by Erik, October 24, 2009
I am so happy to see this development in the United States. The country is going to need a robust interconnected transmission grid if it is going to handle the influx of renewable energy. By creating this station there will be many more sources of electricity contributing to the grid, which if harnessed correctly will allow energy sources such as wind power to be integrated.
I hope that this is just the first project for the United States. According to Wikipedia in 1995 the T&D losses for the grid was 7.2% With the project as a catalyst we may see new investment in the grid and a reduction in those losses.
1 billion that is spent to reduce the losses on the grid, to reduce by say 1% would mean we could reduce the amount of coal we need to burn in our country. We will have a much larger effect on the environment by upgrading our transmission than by simply focusing on wind or sun.
I hope that this is just the first project for the United States. According to Wikipedia in 1995 the T&D losses for the grid was 7.2% With the project as a catalyst we may see new investment in the grid and a reduction in those losses.
1 billion that is spent to reduce the losses on the grid, to reduce by say 1% would mean we could reduce the amount of coal we need to burn in our country. We will have a much larger effect on the environment by upgrading our transmission than by simply focusing on wind or sun.
-
- +1
-
-
written by Ada, November 17, 2009
I like Chrisitan Louboutin shoes very much, it made me more confidence.Hold it! Thanks!!
-
- +0
-
-
Write comment
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
It doesn't mention what the line losses would be on these lines, but typically up to 50% of the energy produced never makes it to the destination, while over anywhere from about 77% to over 95% of the energy created ON SITE (meaning your own roof or yard) gets to the destination. So, while chasing after the BIG picture (owned by utilities and large corporate interests) should also move forward, I much prefer Distributed solar, wind, and other clean technologies where YOU, the home or business owner control the system.
A rooftop system "allows the energy into your home" directly and efficiently!