California to rachet up wind power by 65% - one small problem...

[NNadir]

...there's nothing with which to connect it.

The massive 1,500 megawatt wind power deal announced Thursday by utility Southern California Edison (EIX) and a subsidiary of Australian company Allco Finance will crank up California’s wind energy capacity by 65 percent. That will go a long way in helping the state meet a mandatory target of generating 20 percent of its electricity from renewable sources by 2010. But renewable energy projects like the huge wind farms to be built in SoCal’s Tehachapi region face a big hurdle: insufficient or non-existent transmission lines to connect the windy and sunny parts of California to the power grid. Yesterday, as the Tehachapi project was being announced, the California Energy Commission released a report warning that, “the lack of transmission infrastructure to access remote renewable resources is the most critical barrier to meeting California’s 20 percent target by 2010.”

“Despite efforts by utilities and the renewable industry in working groups for the Tehachapi wind area and Imperial Valley geothermal and solar resources areas,” the report continued, “California’s efforts to spur investments in renewable transmission infrastructure have not yet been successful. Unless these challenges are resolved, renewable transmission projects will continue to languish.” The energy commission identified the Antelope Transmission Project as crucial if big Tehachapi wind farms like those envisioned by Southern California Edison are to be built. The Antelope transmission project would allow 700 megawatts of wind power to be sent to the Southern California power grid.

http://www.wind-watch.org/news/2006/12/23/big-california-wind-power-deal-faces-gridlock/

Bummer. Devil's in the details I guess.

I wonder if, upon failure to meet the 2010 "mandatory" renewable "mandate" they will mandatorily shut off power to parts of California?

[TreasonousBastard]

1. The transmission lines will be built...

this sounds like some drum-thumping PR to get them to hurry up about it.

[HereSince1628]

2. Really. If you couldn't distribute the product why would you enter a contract

to build a windfarm? Businesses are into profit not loss.

[NNadir]

4. Businesses are often into marketing and public relations.

It would hardly be the first time that a business represented that it was doing one thing while actually is doing another.

For instance in the electricity business, people often build one demonstration scale IGCC coal plant to obscure the fact that they are building many more huge normal coal plants.

Germany for instance, is building vast new coal capacity and is misrepresenting what it is doing by building a little IGCC coal plant that "could" sequester carbon dioxide (if they had a place for it.) The tiny IGCC plant - which will actually sequester zero carbon dioxide but "could" - is designed to divert attention from the 8 full size normal power plants they are building.

California burns a shit load of natural gas, a dangerous fuel that is destroying the atmosphere. They are building another 1,828 MWe of new natural gas electricity.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/planned_capacity_state.xls

Why?

[HereSince1628]

5. Well, there's no doubt businesses play in the public arena.

And there is no doubt that in the current loose reign regulatory environment they play as fast and loose with the public as they can.

[XemaSab]

9. Hey... I'm currently working on a transmission project

and that's simply not the case.

[NNadir]

11. OK then. You know and I don't.

I defer to your direct experience and appreciate your correction.

[NNadir]

14. Now that I have deferred to your report on this matter, I would be

interested to hear your comments on this post:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=88306&mesg_id=88318

True or untrue to your knowledge? (The part about the August 2006 heat wave and wind power.)

[Solo_in_MD]

3. Given the amount of windmills already there, there has to be basic infrastructure in place

That can be doubled up if needed. The easements are already there which is often the biggest issue.

[NNadir]

7. Easier said than done, I think.

[Schema Thing]

6. Can't they just bring it down to the cities by pack mule?

[NNadir]

8. I wonder...

[XemaSab]

10. Our company alone has several MASSIVE

transmission line projects from the desert to the city.

It's good times. B-)

[oldhippie]

12. Could you describe them?

I'm genuinely curious.

[XemaSab]

15. What do you want to know?

:shrug:

[cally]

13. I'm curious if the problem is getting the easements

Do you know if most of the companies developing transmission lines have the easements?

[XemaSab]

16. I think a lot of it is on BLM lands or in existing easements.

We've got a few proposed routes in case one route or another becomes problematic. :P