I wonder if the tribes have enough autonomy to build transmission lines quickly. Just the Navajo Nation can build enough solar/wind and transmission lines within their reservation and probably connect to the grids in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah and Arizona. US is incredibly slow in building transmission lines, takes decades.
And, if they have enough autonomy to import Chinese panels (50% cheaper), a network of these nations can blanket the entire country with renewables.
I know it took my local utility about 5 years just to run about 30 miles of HV wire from me seeing "announcment of public commentary" -> studies -> "final notice of commentary on route" -> building starts. The building itself took about 6 months, as it ran along a road I travel a lot. That's a long time for 30 miles of HV towers.
Even as energy production prices from solar trend towards zero, end user energy costs is still going to be lower bounded by transmission costs.
California in particular is getting a nasty taste of this, with many customer's bill being mostly transmission costs. However, this is largely because they're paying for PG&E's lawsuit payouts and regulatory required upgrades.
Energy can be free, but reliable and safe transmission will likely always be expensive.
Panels are a commodity at this point. I hate to say it but mineral extraction, processing and panel manufacturing will be way more expensive than importing from China.
Prerequisites for manufacturing panels here at an even remotely competitive price includes reducing labor costs and extracting/refining minerals at scale.
I absolutely agree we should onshore solar production but simply onshoring manufacturing isnt the first step. Frankly im not even sure the labor cost is even solvable. Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages
I would imagine that inside the land they control building lines could be quick but if they are exporting power (which I think is the main idea) they are not going to be able to have the autonomy to build the external lines they need.
> Having said that, we're going to be producing a large amount of power. So I'm not sure that all of it will be able to be consumed within Colorado.”
That’s a surprisingly vague statement on a billion dollar project. I’d expect there would be spreadsheets and models estimating production/consumption locations for decades out and the company would be quoting a percentage figure even if that was a guesstimate.
I’d note that in 2024 $1bb isn’t THAT much money. Further the constraints will likely have more to do with distribution infrastructure outside their control.
And an AP1000 reactor costs about $6.8 billion to build, and substantially higher operating costs. 68% of the power for 14% of the price seems like a pretty good deal to me, there's a reason people are investing more in solar than nuclear, it's just more cost effective.
That's a serious overestimate. Figuring a 90% capacity factor for the reactor and 20% for the solar installation, it's 1005MW delivered power for the former and 151MW delivered for the latter. That's 15% of one reactor, or put another way, it would take about six and a half of these solar installations to provide the same power as one reactor.
Too bad no one wants to build AP1000s even though there is a site in FL with all approvals and the new Biden subsidy. That's how badly the two projects fucked up.
Promote electric vehicles, heat pumps, inductive cooktops, and other decarbonization that would increase electricity demand since you've got a plethora of electricity? Nope.
Incentivize home energy storage and invest in grid level energy storage and encourage purchasing EVs that can be used as grid batteries? Nope.
Invest in better grid-level interconnects to export electricity? Nope.
Work with the community to attract industry that uses lots of electricity and approach commercial/industrial users to find ways to decarbonize? Nope.
Ban customers from new grid-intertied solar: YES.
Engage in scare-mongering about solar causing fires and being dangerous or causing grid instability when grid-intertie systems have a slew of safety mechanisms? YES.
Absolute morons.
Also buried in that article: they signed a contract with their wholesale provider mandating that they can only generate 5% of their own electricity. The article claims, but does not explain, how this doesn't limit solar generation - there's a bunch of hand-waiving about how "it doesn't prohibit homeowners from generating solar power."
That contract goes until 2050. Who looked at the electricity market and said "you know what? Let's sign a multi-decade contract, that seems smart!"?
Energy production is a huge moneymaker that also happens to be government owned/taxed to a large degree in many countries. Solar panels and batteries are at the point where they will completely disrupt this entire industry.
Many incumbents will try their best to prevent it, and to be fair it's not entirely for malicious reasons. Energy taxes and income from power plants pay for a lot of community value. The income has to be replaced somehow if it is removed.
I think that solar + various storage options are technically already the best solution for energy supply, and this kind of political inertia is the main obstacle to overcome in order to make it a reality.
Keep in mind, that contract was signed way back in 2000 and things were pretty different back then. I also believe it was signed by a primarily conservative LPEA board.
The financial backer of the project (London-based Canigou Group) says they're looking into using the electricity for water -> hydrogen -> ammonia pathways, which is a way around the energy transport problem (the best places for solar are often not co-located with human populations).
Methanol is another valuable endpoint, the Chinese version of this (CEEC Songyuan) is using the same approach but intends to make both ammonia and methanol.
It's a PBS special about the history of the Boston subway (which was one of the first in the nation).
To give you an idea of what construction safety was like back then, they would routinely encounter gas lines, cut them WITHOUT turning off the gas, and keep working.
Obviously, this led to lots of explosions but also very quick construction. If you are optimizing for speed over safety/environmental/etc it's pretty surprising how quickly you can build something.
Safety usually isn't the problem. It's the public notice periods, feedback collection, final notices, environmental impact studies, lawsuits over whether the environmental impact studies were sufficient, possible need to get the government to invoke eminent domain, studies over which potential version of a project needs the least disruption, and so forth.
Near where I live is a bridge over a river that needs replacing. The county had to study three different ways to do it, weighing environmental impact, traffic disruption, total cost of each option, and so forth.
The planning and regulatory portion of the project is easily 75% of the timeline, and that's for a fast one due to the condition of the bridge itself. If it were less urgent, it would have likely taken even longer.
Meanwhile collapsed Minneapolis I-35W bridge (remember that? Gusset plates, etc?) got replaced in something like 7 months, they picked a colorado company and started construction very quickly. Of course a half dozen local construction companies filed suit but the bridge was built really fast.
Right next door to that bridge are three other projects: a cliff/dirt collapse/erosion/retaining project that kept the river parkway closed for like 4 years, and two bridges being reconditioned that have been closed for 3. Those went through the "normal" channels.
> they would routinely encounter gas lines, cut them WITHOUT turning off the gas, and keep working
That's still done today, evidently! A few months back, there was a small gas leak in my neighborhood. When they knocked on my door to say they'd be working in the area, the repair crew leader was kind enough to indulge my questions.
I asked them if my gas would be shut off. They said no, they do the work while the gas is still on!
And they must have been cutting into the gas line because they replaced a section that ran under the street. They used a backhoe to dig huge holes on both sides of the street and then fed a flexible pipe through.
> I asked them if my gas would be shut off. They said no, they do the work while the gas is still on!
My understanding is that most "last mile" gas lines are pretty low pressure and low flow. On purpose, so that if theirs a leak they aren't releasing massive amounts of gas into the atmosphere in a hurry, so the concentration doesn't raise to dangerous levels.
Then when they are working on the lines and in those pits to make connections, they have detectors to tell if there's a dangerous build up, and ventilation to ensure it doesn't happen anyway.
The system generally being low pressure is why sometimes during really cold periods when demand is high, the gas company has to adjust field regulators to increase flow so that demand can be met. They normally run at low enough flow that if everyone's furnace and stove and water heater all run at once, the lines would effectively run out of gas.
part of the issue in 2024 is that the ground is a lot fuller than it used to be, so it takes more time. In some cases, like in New York, step one is figuring out where any of that stuff even is, because for privately owned infrastructure the maps are not public or even shared with government, and in some cases the infrastructure is so old that the maps are not accurate, if they are even available.
we now build projects to relocate utilities (so that you don't have to shut down a subway line to replace an adjacent water pipe) but that stuff is costly and everyone is prepared to sue the other in case of a mess-up. but there is a lot of the physical version of tech debt; New York is still replacing wood and lead piping, for example.
Readit News
And, if they have enough autonomy to import Chinese panels (50% cheaper), a network of these nations can blanket the entire country with renewables.
Deleted Comment
Even as energy production prices from solar trend towards zero, end user energy costs is still going to be lower bounded by transmission costs.
California in particular is getting a nasty taste of this, with many customer's bill being mostly transmission costs. However, this is largely because they're paying for PG&E's lawsuit payouts and regulatory required upgrades.
Energy can be free, but reliable and safe transmission will likely always be expensive.
Prerequisites for manufacturing panels here at an even remotely competitive price includes reducing labor costs and extracting/refining minerals at scale.
I absolutely agree we should onshore solar production but simply onshoring manufacturing isnt the first step. Frankly im not even sure the labor cost is even solvable. Will probably always have to utilize low foreign wages
Dead Comment
That’s a surprisingly vague statement on a billion dollar project. I’d expect there would be spreadsheets and models estimating production/consumption locations for decades out and the company would be quoting a percentage figure even if that was a guesstimate.
Assuming 4 trillion kWh. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/use-of-elect....
edit: Oh, and that $6.8 billion looks optimistic. This project with two AP1000s looks like it costs $30 billion. https://www.ans.org/news/article-3949/vogtle-project-update-...
Deleted Comment
Edit: 3.58B, not 12 from another comment. Still, pretty large investment for Philippines.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhadla_Solar_Park?wprov=sfti1#...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edifice_complex
https://www.durangoherald.com/articles/la-plata-electric-put...
Incentivize home energy storage and invest in grid level energy storage and encourage purchasing EVs that can be used as grid batteries? Nope.
Invest in better grid-level interconnects to export electricity? Nope.
Work with the community to attract industry that uses lots of electricity and approach commercial/industrial users to find ways to decarbonize? Nope.
Ban customers from new grid-intertied solar: YES.
Engage in scare-mongering about solar causing fires and being dangerous or causing grid instability when grid-intertie systems have a slew of safety mechanisms? YES.
Absolute morons.
Also buried in that article: they signed a contract with their wholesale provider mandating that they can only generate 5% of their own electricity. The article claims, but does not explain, how this doesn't limit solar generation - there's a bunch of hand-waiving about how "it doesn't prohibit homeowners from generating solar power."
That contract goes until 2050. Who looked at the electricity market and said "you know what? Let's sign a multi-decade contract, that seems smart!"?
Many incumbents will try their best to prevent it, and to be fair it's not entirely for malicious reasons. Energy taxes and income from power plants pay for a lot of community value. The income has to be replaced somehow if it is removed.
I think that solar + various storage options are technically already the best solution for energy supply, and this kind of political inertia is the main obstacle to overcome in order to make it a reality.
https://www.canigougroup.com/news/evaluation-of-green-hydrog...
Methanol is another valuable endpoint, the Chinese version of this (CEEC Songyuan) is using the same approach but intends to make both ammonia and methanol.
It's a PBS special about the history of the Boston subway (which was one of the first in the nation).
To give you an idea of what construction safety was like back then, they would routinely encounter gas lines, cut them WITHOUT turning off the gas, and keep working.
Obviously, this led to lots of explosions but also very quick construction. If you are optimizing for speed over safety/environmental/etc it's pretty surprising how quickly you can build something.
Near where I live is a bridge over a river that needs replacing. The county had to study three different ways to do it, weighing environmental impact, traffic disruption, total cost of each option, and so forth.
The planning and regulatory portion of the project is easily 75% of the timeline, and that's for a fast one due to the condition of the bridge itself. If it were less urgent, it would have likely taken even longer.
Right next door to that bridge are three other projects: a cliff/dirt collapse/erosion/retaining project that kept the river parkway closed for like 4 years, and two bridges being reconditioned that have been closed for 3. Those went through the "normal" channels.
That's still done today, evidently! A few months back, there was a small gas leak in my neighborhood. When they knocked on my door to say they'd be working in the area, the repair crew leader was kind enough to indulge my questions.
I asked them if my gas would be shut off. They said no, they do the work while the gas is still on!
And they must have been cutting into the gas line because they replaced a section that ran under the street. They used a backhoe to dig huge holes on both sides of the street and then fed a flexible pipe through.
Here's a video about something kind of similar: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCMs__ZnOfA
I'm sure today's techniques are different and much safer, so I don't think it negates your point that they used to do risky stuff.
My understanding is that most "last mile" gas lines are pretty low pressure and low flow. On purpose, so that if theirs a leak they aren't releasing massive amounts of gas into the atmosphere in a hurry, so the concentration doesn't raise to dangerous levels.
Then when they are working on the lines and in those pits to make connections, they have detectors to tell if there's a dangerous build up, and ventilation to ensure it doesn't happen anyway.
The system generally being low pressure is why sometimes during really cold periods when demand is high, the gas company has to adjust field regulators to increase flow so that demand can be met. They normally run at low enough flow that if everyone's furnace and stove and water heater all run at once, the lines would effectively run out of gas.
we now build projects to relocate utilities (so that you don't have to shut down a subway line to replace an adjacent water pipe) but that stuff is costly and everyone is prepared to sue the other in case of a mess-up. but there is a lot of the physical version of tech debt; New York is still replacing wood and lead piping, for example.
- digging down a small amount (in contrast to London where they dug DEEP under everything else)
- rerouting ALL of the existing pipes etc (you can find photos of the rerouted gas lines)
- Putting in the subway
- Putting everything back