Climate policies can lead to second-round effects and a larger output-inflation trade-off, as illustrated by less-credible monetary policy. Climate-induced natural disasters have differential and opposing effects on inflation and growth through multiple channels, such as increasing or decreasing global climate damages caused by greenhouse gases (CO2) and damage to local air quality in the United States. The greenhouse effect occurs when certain gases, such as carbon, accumulate in Earth’s atmosphere.
Climate change is increasingly affecting the objective, conduct, and transmission of monetary policy, but climate-related shocks and trends are still generally absent from the canonical models used by monetary policy. Even slight increases in average global temperatures can have huge effects, with higher temperatures increasing food and headline inflation persistently over 12 months in both higher- and lower-income countries. Effects vary across seasons and regions depending on climatic norms, with further impacts from daily temperature variability and extreme precipitation.
The study examines the relationship between inflation and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in three major economies: the United States of America (USA), the United Kingdom, and China. The results suggest that climate change poses risks to price stability by having an upward impact on inflation, altering its seasonality, and amplifying the greenhouse effect. Carbon pricing translates into fossilflation by pushing up energy and electricity prices.
High temperatures lead to a sharp rise in food prices, but medium-term inflationary pressure is also affected by climate policy. Changes in temperature increase energy price volatility, and climate policies put a price on the emission of greenhouse gases.
📹 Why the US isn’t ready for clean energy
Making clean energy isn’t enough: We also have to move it. Subscribe and turn on notifications () so you don’t miss any videos: …
What would happen if the greenhouse effect increased?
The principal consequences of climate change include coastal flooding, desertification, glacial melting, and the emergence of destructive hurricanes.
What is causing worldwide inflation?
Inflation is a long-lasting phenomenon that often results from lax monetary policy. The quantity theory of money suggests that if the money supply grows too large relative to the size of an economy, its purchasing power falls and prices rise. This relationship is one of the oldest hypotheses in economics.
Pressures on the supply or demand side of the economy can also be inflationary. Supply shocks, such as natural disasters or high oil prices, can reduce overall supply and lead to “cost-push” inflation, while demand shocks, like stock market rallies or expansionary policies, can temporarily boost demand and economic growth. However, if the increase in demand exceeds an economy’s production capacity, it results in “demand-pull” inflation. Policymakers must find the right balance between boosting demand and growth when needed without overstimulating the economy and causing inflation.
Expectations also play a key role in determining inflation. People or firms build these expectations into wage negotiations and contractual price adjustments, which partly determine the next period’s inflation. If people base their expectations on the recent past, inflation would follow similar patterns over time, resulting in inflation inertia.
What triggers high inflation?
Inflation is a long-lasting phenomenon that often results from lax monetary policy. The quantity theory of money suggests that if the money supply grows too large relative to the size of an economy, its purchasing power falls and prices rise. This relationship is one of the oldest hypotheses in economics.
Pressures on the supply or demand side of the economy can also be inflationary. Supply shocks, such as natural disasters or high oil prices, can reduce overall supply and lead to “cost-push” inflation, while demand shocks, like stock market rallies or expansionary policies, can temporarily boost demand and economic growth. However, if the increase in demand exceeds an economy’s production capacity, it results in “demand-pull” inflation. Policymakers must find the right balance between boosting demand and growth when needed without overstimulating the economy and causing inflation.
Expectations also play a key role in determining inflation. People or firms build these expectations into wage negotiations and contractual price adjustments, which partly determine the next period’s inflation. If people base their expectations on the recent past, inflation would follow similar patterns over time, resulting in inflation inertia.
What problems are caused by the greenhouse effect?
Climate change is causing warmer temperatures, severe storms, increased drought, a warming ocean, loss of species, insufficient food, increased health risks, poverty, and displacement. Fossil fuels, such as coal, oil, and gas, are the largest contributors to global climate change, accounting for over 75% of global greenhouse gas emissions and nearly 90% of all carbon dioxide emissions. These emissions trap the sun’s heat, leading to global warming and climate change.
The world is now warming faster than ever before, changing weather patterns and disrupting the natural balance, posing risks to humans and all life forms on Earth. Most electricity is generated by burning fossil fuels, producing carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide, which trap the sun’s heat. However, over a quarter of electricity comes from renewable sources like wind and solar, which emit little to no greenhouse gases or pollutants into the air.
What does the greenhouse effect mostly lead to?
Greenhouse gases cause Earth’s surface to warm, but aerosol pollution in the atmosphere can counteract this effect. Fossil fuel combustion produces sulphate aerosols that reduce sunlight, cooling the Earth. These aerosols also negatively impact human health and other climate systems, such as rainfall. Understanding the difference between weather and climate is crucial for understanding the causes of climate change and its impacts.
How does greenhouse gas emissions affect the economy?
Climate change poses significant risks to Australia’s economy, including property loss, infrastructure costs, and financial instability. The Murray-Darling Basin, one of Australia’s largest agricultural regions, is likely to face significant challenges from climate change. Banks, investors, asset managers, and governments are developing sustainable finance approaches to manage climate risks and incorporate environmental, social, and governance issues into business and investment decisions.
The NSW 2040 economic blueprint aims for a sustainable environment with reliable and affordable energy. Australia has a strong economy with key exports including mineral resources, agriculture, tourism, and education. The state economy, NSW, is the largest in Australia, valued at over $600 billion in 2019-2020 and accounts for about 30 of the country’s economic output. The NSW 2040 economic blueprint and other key NSW government documents aim to create a sustainable future.
What can cause inflation to rise?
Aggregate demand can increase due to increased spending by consumers, businesses, or the government, or net exports. This leads to an increase in demand for goods and services relative to their supply, allowing firms to increase prices and margins. Firms may also seek to employ more workers to meet this demand, offering higher wages to attract and retain employees. This increase in demand also increases household incomes and consumer spending, further increasing aggregate demand and the scope for firms to increase prices.
When aggregate demand decreases, firms may pause hiring or make staff redundant, putting upward pressure on the unemployment rate. Conversely, when aggregate demand increases, firms can offer lower wages, putting downward pressure on household incomes, consumer spending, and prices, resulting in a decrease in inflation.
The economy’s potential output, or full capacity, is the supply of goods and services that can be sustainably produced. When aggregate demand exceeds the economy’s potential output, it puts upward pressure on prices, while when it is below potential output, it puts downward pressure on prices.
How does global warming affect the economy?
The potential for extreme weather to impede economic growth is significant. The damage caused to the capital stock and labor supply, the reduction in labor productivity, and the increase in inflation resulting from the rise in food, energy, and insurance costs all contribute to this risk.
How does the greenhouse effect affect the economy?
A study has found that the US and China, the world’s two leading emitters, are responsible for over $1. 8 trillion in global income losses over 25 years from 1990. Russia, India, and Brazil also caused economic losses, with each causing over $500 billion in losses. The cumulative losses amount to $6 trillion, equivalent to about 11 percent of annual global GDP. The research, led by Christopher Callahan, Guarini ’23, provides a scientific basis for climate liability claims, as it quantifies each nation’s culpability for historical temperature-driven income changes in every other country.
How does climate change increase inflation?
Climate change can raise prices through various channels, including supply shocks, trade disruptions, policy spillovers, and increased price volatility. These effects are more pronounced in countries with significant agricultural sectors or net food importers. Central banks’ ability to achieve price stability, financial instability, and market interest rates may also be affected. This challenges the effectiveness of conventional monetary policy.
Stabilizing prices in the face of severe climate-related shocks requires increased policy coordination and a re-appraisal of conventional monetary arrangements. The July Monthly Briefing of the World Economic Situation and Prospects provides more information on this issue.
How does temperature affect inflation?
The study reveals that an increase in monthly mean temperatures leads to a rise in inflation rates in summer, contrasting the overall deflationary effect during other seasons. The effects are stronger for warmer euro area countries, while Germany’s effects are less significant. The research is based on data from Elsevier B. V., its licensors, and contributors, and uses cookies for the purpose.
📹 Climate Change Could Affect Global Agriculture Within 10 Years
Average global crop yields for maize, or corn, may see a decrease of 24% by late century, with the declines becoming apparent by …
It is actually what we have in Northern Europe, an energy exchange called Nord Pool. The countries are connected to each other through high voltage power lines and it works really well. So it doesn’t matter what the origin of the energy is (wind, solar, nuclear, gas or hydro), it is all put on the market and sold to the lowest price at the moment. Denmark and Germany are some times hitting more than a 100% power from wind, so it is good that the excess power go to good use.
US should just look upnorth for a great model. Quebec is the #1 standard when it comes to efficient and stable grid. The use of 735kV lines makes it able to transport 4 times the amount of power of a 315kV line, while having less loss in power. There is also a lot of effort put into stabilising the grid in case something goes wrong at a plant.
Can we also talk about how important nuclear energy will be in this transition; and how solar panels are 10-15% efficient and have to be changed every 20-30 years which means lots of rare metals leaking into vulnerable communities and the environment. The future is mass transit, walkable cities and nuclear
Absolutely this is important, but I feel this model focuses primarily on centralized power generation. Maybe with a decentralized system (each house/building having solar panels) you can’t solve all power generation needs, but maybe its 50% or 25%, that’s a major reduction in the amount of power needed to be generated by central plants, and thus a major reduction in transmission needs. Even 5% would still be a huge deal.
I’m surprised they didn’t talk about the economics of buying and selling electricity. The best way to get electricity from renewable energy from the producing areas to where people live is by making it as cheap and easy to exchange as possible. That’s how solar electricity from Arizona can provide power to Illinois when it’s not windy and vice versa when it’s cloudy in Arizona. However that means states can’t make money when they export the electricity, which hurts their economy. Pretty big factor in why the US isn’t ready for clean energy.
This is the moment where nuclear steps in. Emission free, can be placed where needed to replace big fossil installations in plug&play manner, stable electricty source. And if we start investing in it, it might even stop being obnoxiously expensive – just like solar and wind got cheaper with scale. On the other hand, if you subtract the transmission investment cost (that is not that necessary as it is for wind and solar) from the nuclear, its price tag hurts less.
There is a lot of focus on renewable energy but Nuclear is also carbon free. I feel like there was a missed opportunity around talking about how Nuclear fits into this. Better yet, I would love a article on why there is such a focus on wind and solar as a clean energy and nuclear isn’t often considered.
This seems exactly backwards, and I’m extremely skeptical of a map of ‘Solar Potential’ sites in America that rates Minnesota higher than Arizona. The Princeton study applies some kind of ‘constraint’ to where these items can be sited, but I cannot find their definition of ‘constrained site’. It’s backwards because rooftop solar is by far the smartest play for generation (doesn’t displace ecosystem, shades the building to keep it cooler, very near point of use), and micro-grids are absolutely what I see experts saying we should be developing, not beefing up long-range transmission lines. This article is probably sponsored by Sempra or something. Traditional power companies love the idea of centralized generation, massive transmission, and beholden consumers. Renewable energy offers a completely separate path of local ownership, local control, local benefits. We should take that opportunity, which means rooftop solar and municipal/cooperative wind turbines. Even if your village’s wind turbine isn’t in an ‘ideal’ location, you still get it’s power dumped into your town. If you combine this with micro-gridding, a regional catastrophe (like a hurricane) becomes a lot less damaging to people as power can be restored in more places early in recovery.
Yea for Vermont. The only reason they can push for so much “green” energy is because they don’t have to rely on it. If their neighbors were just as dedicated to windmills and solar panels, they would all be browning out during the summer months because they couldn’t meet demand. Wind doesn’t generate power when the winds don’t blow and solar doesn’t generate power when it’s cloudy or at night. In addition, these are high cost generation systems that are not able to compete without subsidies. A little honesty from Vox would be a very welcome change of pace.
In my country South Africa, a reasonably large country, we have a very well interconnected national grid with high voltage power lines as most of our electricity historically came from one province (to the far east of the country), where all the coal mines are. These lines span and supply far major cities like Cape Town 2000km to the west. Our national grid lines also travel as far north as Central Africa as we are the largest producer and supplier of electricity on the continent. We have technology from decades back called high voltage direct current lines which bring electricity to our central capital Pretoria from our hydropower station at the top of Mozambique. I guess we are fortunate to have the existing high capacity national grid infrastructure to assist us in the roll out of our new renewable energy plants.
Currently in the Netherlands, we are facing this exact problem. Thousands of households put solar panels on their roofs, but on sunny days, the safety system turns them off, because the grid can’t handle all of the electricity. The result: all those people thought they could save on their energy bills and help against climate change, but instead they pay to use coal energy on a sunny day. It’s ridiculous.
5:56 that is the problem with literally everything in the US. a certain party does not want us to progress into the future and save ourselves so they’ll make it impossible to get anywhere, just so they can blame the other party for the fact nothing got done. this game has been going on for several decades now and we’re all losing.
What we really need are HTSC (high temperature super conducting) HVDC (high voltage direct current) power lines snaking around the country moving huge amounts of power around. These would be compact and in the ground because high temperature superconductors are awesome that way. This would have the added advantage of it is easy enough to build in redundant loops so that it would be a very resilient grid. When building at such scale to power the whole country, this is especially important. When getting to these high power levels, these sorts of superconductors can carry over 150x the power of copper and not need any cooling. While the issue is flipped to keeping the superconductors cold so they are operational, the energy loss as you scale to higher power levels grows slowly as in the cable with all of the insulation around it slowly gets a little thicker while the amount of power you can shove over the line grows dramatically and so quickly gets into the realm of economical when talking about huge amount of power. Especially with HVDC you don’t have to worry about skinning and you only need two conductors in a coaxial configuration and the job is done. There is not even any external EMF in the coaxial configuration for the tin foil hat people to complain about. You could bring a sensitive meter along to prove this point. Another elephant in the room is green energy storage. I think what we really need is to build a new 100 GW scale pumped hydro storage between the two Great Lakes of the largest height difference.
Storage is not well represented here. There’s a tradeoff between storage & many transmission lines. Storage can make a transmission line more efficient as most transmission lines are not fully utilized 24×7. By transmitting energy when the lines are underutilized, retaining energy in storage facilities & discharging these local storage units at times when the transmission lines are “full”, we can reduce the incremental need for new transmission lines. Also, as others point out, the tradeoff between centralized & distributed generation is not well explained.
I love this piece. Here in Indonesia, the generation and distribution of electricity are still playing catch-up with the ever-growing demand of modernization and economic development. In fact, the supply of electricity is one of the issues which hampers the nation’s development. That policies here are implemented based on the political will of the government doesn’t help either.
$320b over 10 years to build a new interconnected high voltage grid in the US? Sounds like we can pay for this by making a very small cut to our military budget. For reference, the DoD budget is $733b for 2021. We’re talking about a 4% budget reduction over 10 years to fully pay for a new energy grid. Sounds like a no-brainer to me.
Build more nuclear, and use renewables to support. Trying to cover base load exclusively with renewables is a fool’s errand which introduces more problems than it solves. Use nuclear for 80% of base load, build renewable infrastructure for 30-40% of base load, and you’re set. Nuclear HAS to be part of any green energy plan, period. It’s time to stop being scared of things you don’t understand and get real about solving problems.
In Brazil the states are not authonomous as in US, here we have the National Operator who manages all generation and distribution power from the plants, and the power grids are connected all around the country (exept for a tiny portion of the most northern state with a few people that just receive energy from the neghbor country cause is not viable to construct a grid to connect them to the national grid).
Expanding the grid represents a computationally difficult and possibly impossible to solve stability problem. True, with a greater grid coverage, the renewable energy sources that are not load following can be relocated to where needed and when lacking can be compensated for by areas where they are available but ultimately it will take load following power generation such as molten salt reactors or hydroelectric or copious energy storage to make a large reliance on non load following power generation such as solar and wind successful.
We’ve started to use T-Pylons here in the UK which are less of an eyesore on the landscape and take up less land. These might be worth looking at to implement your new grid infrastructure. You also need some form of green energy storage otherwise, when it’s windy in Illinois in the middle of the night, what do you do with the extra electricity? I guess the other option is to have smart charging at home for EV’s so they can utilise any additional electricity being generated as it will be cheap (a win/win).
When the article is saying that cables need to be thicker form more energy, that is true, but the label is showing the voltage getting higher as the wire increases. Technically higher voltage results in smaller wire as less current is needed for a given amount of power. The label should show KW or Amperes under the arrrow.
That graph of cable cross-section vs. voltage looked really funny to me. If you control for a power line’s capacity they’re actually inversely related! Power is the product of voltage and current. Current is determined more by the load of the circuit than anything else, so the only variable we can control here is voltage. This can be accomplished by selecting transformers with higher step-up ratios. In a perfect world the transmission line would be lossless, but in reality it loses power due to the resistance of the cables, and that power loss is directly proportional to the resistance of the cable and proportional to the load current SQUARED. This means if you need a cable to carry double the power you can either halve its resistance by doubling its cross-sectional area or you can halve the power loss due to transmission by increasing the transmission voltage by about 41%. If you’re constrained by material you may not even have a choice, increasing the transmission voltage may be the only option. This is the route China has taken with its ultra high voltage transmission lines. The problem with increasing transmission line voltage is in the maintenance and safety of the line; like you say in the article, you need to keep the area underneath and around the transmission lines free of vegetation to prevent wildfires. Naturally this area gets larger with a higher voltage line. Any equipment that has to switch at high voltage will also need to be designed for the higher voltages, which is a fixed expense.
@Vox I’m sure you can pass this idea onto the right people, I was thinking of something that should be easier to get that 1% to agree to. A mix between SMALL towers and underground. Everywhere you would’ve put a large tower, put a small tower and thread the cable underground to the next tower, slap a mesh cage or something around the tower to prevent wildlife and passerbys from accidentally touching the cables that are coming out of the ground. Small towers are less of an eyesore and underground cabling further reduces the unsightly part of it, using small towers instead of underground exchanges make maintenance/replacement easier as you only need to pull the cable out (obviously with whatever safety measure are deemed necessary).
You know what would be really great? Create a cross-country high-capacity cable that doubles as two things: 1) an electric passenger railroad and 2) and electrical mail transport conveyor. That way, it has significantly higher capacity due to much of the energy being used for pragmatic purposes. It’s efficient because much of the electricity is used at the location of the cables. The conveyor can be suspended very high, while the passenger rail stays at ground level. This would consolidate three highly-used features onto one land ownership title.
How do you get all those raw materials for concrete foundations if there is a sand shortage and illegal black market for sand. Raw material for the metal used in the structures and wires? How do you feed the physical manpower through these rural places where there are no hotels or shopping areas or other accommodations? Contractors not seeing their families for weeks or months if they have to work out of state or camp out near transmission lines.
Why does Vox act like nuclear energy doesn’t exist? It would much easier to make more nuclear power plants instead of those high voltage power lines, that are horrible for the environment. Also we wouldn’t as much electricity everywhere if we switched to hydrogen powered engines instead of EV’s. Nothing in this article seems like smart and sustainable way to tackle climate change
I think we’re missing a big component here in nuclear power. It’s is also completely carbon free and the amount of power that can be generated in a small area is so much more space efficient. Modern nuclear tech is so much safer than old plants. Furthermore it would be a great alternative for all of those places on the map that aren’t ideal for solar and wind power reducing the need for massive transmission lines to bring power from the middle of the country. We need to get rid of as many carbon sources as quickly as possible.
“We have to move from gas cars to electric cars.”, ah yes, from one inefficient transport form to a slightly less inefficient one… you guys know light rail and e-bikes exist, right? Still electric, but a fraction of the energy spent per person. If you want to be part of the overall solution, at least make the assumption be another solution that makes people rethink how they’re living, rather than feeding into the problem.
Very important! This is something we are facing a lot now in the Netherlands that our electricity net can’t handle the rate that we are electrifying and producing renewable energy. Expanding the infrastructure is a step in the right direction, but other innovations like cable pooling, energy hubs and smart grids will likely also help in the future!
Regardless of infrastructure, renewable energy is bad for the planet as well as fossil fuels just in a different way…the best source of energy we have right now is nuclear…and before anyone says “oh what about chernobyl”, that was cause by the USSR who didn’t care for the safety of the workers…here in the states we have OSHA and other safety organizations. as for the nuclear power plant in japan, that was caused by a typhoon and an earthquake the amount of radiation leakage was tiny, the people died because again earthquakes and typhoons
Its too bad we didn’t invest much more heavily in making energy storage technologies better and cheaper starting 30 years ago. You don’t need nearly as many transmission lines if you have energy storage dispersed all over the place. It would have also have made electric cars a reality much sooner, made your cellphone last way longer, etc.
love the article. I am in western NY and bad weather is a problem for the grid that goes down quite a bit. The current grid system needs to be updated and switch to smart grid . even UHVDC can be used . china did it. 1.1 mega volts DC .we are at the point of needing grid storage . not only do we need to mover the power we need to store it as well . it is the power demand that is a problem . the time we need power is not always when it is made .having the need for Peaker plants on standby .
I think we need to be bit more cautious about solar energy. I was just thinking that an average solar cell remains useable for 20-25 years after which it needs to replace. Currently used solar cells are not recyclable, so imagine how much un recyclable waste are we going to generate after 20 years. That waste is not normal waste, it’s very toxic as it contains minerals like lithium and germanium. So it’s good that we are focusing more on renewable sources but we also need to study their impacts too, how sustainable are they and how can we improve that. Issues like these are with every renewable source of energy. Dams cause ecological shift and earthquake, tall wind farms can impart bird migration, solar farms also impact birds and that solar cells waste.
Why don’t we talk about nuclear energy?? I find it infuriating how often it’s left out when even listing renewables and I think it perpetuates the myth that it’s bad in some way. If we could get some funding for updates designs rather than 60,70 year old tech, there’s no real worry about safety or cleanliness
This article does an excellent job translating the problem in a way that is relatable to the majority of the common man. As was pointed out in the article, most transmission lines are loaded near 100% of their capacity already at present (typical is 85% to 97% capacity on the highest usage days). Using a technique referred to as Optimal Power Flow, most utilities have been able to stretch the ability of their grids to near 100% (very little slack capacity) as electricity usage has risen over the decades, & along with better forecasting models, this has allowed them to make minimal upgrades to the system only where necessary & economical and thus maximize their profits in a wise business manner. However, this leads to the a big problem when society & gov’t suddenly wish to make a rapid transition of very energy hungry tasks like transportation to an electrified system. Consider that the typical daily energy usage of a house (approx 20-30kWh) is exactly the same amount that the Tesla 3 SR (one of the most efficient EVs at .26kWh/mi) needs just to travel 115 miles (Lucid & Hyundai Kona also close to this). The average efficiency of non-Tesla EVs manufactured in 2021-2022 is 0.34kWh/mi, which equates to 88 miles (Efficiency data of cars & performance cars from 2021-2022 (excluding trucks)). A daily commute of 40 miles thus would use anywhere between 10-14 kWh per day, which is approximately 33-50% of the typical daily home electric usage. A Ford F150 Lightning (.45kWh/mi) will get 66 miles per 30kWh, or use 18kWh for 40 miles, nearly 90% daily load if house averages 20kWh/day or 60% if house averages 30kWh/day.
Loved the article but you should’ve mentioned how the switch to electric cars isn’t enough. Like you said we’ll be using electricity more that’s why we need more transit options like trains, light rail, in order to lower that electricity demand. Everyone using an electric car is not how we’re gonna solve the climate crisis.
What if there is no sun, temperature is below 0 and the wind is not blowing? Like in Texas last winter? People overlook nuclear energy because of bad reputation. But it has gone a long way. Too many people have tunnel vision in that regard. Solar and wind are great suplement, but far from reliable solution. Good luck…
What about intermittence of RE? How is this going to be addressed? In order to achieve an energy system relied exclusively on renewable energy systems and ensure that there are no power shortfalls during the day, the development of energy storage systems is required too. Every day is not sunny, neither windy…
The power grid here in southern California is so dense, but we don’t have the space to keep its distance from people because of all the real estate development. Some of the newest, most expensive neighborhoods have power lines running right through them, and it’s made me wonder when an inevitable accident is going to happen.
Not sure if anyone has commented on this (I didn’t read all 4,000+ comments), but in addition to needed increase in transmission capacity to distribute renewable power further, we need to increase our current overall transmission capacity dramatically. When the majority of vehicles are plugging into the grid to recharge instead of refueling with gasoline or diesel, and all the metal smelters are plugged in to the grid to melt their product instead of burning coal, think of the increase in electrical demand that will occur.
4:25 – Incorrect. The thicker the cable, the more current it can handle, not the more voltage. 5:22 – Also incorrect. Arizona and Chicago are not on the same power grid, so you cannot transmit power between those two locations. Arizona is on the Western Interconnection, while Chicago is on the Eastern one.
Ancient grid is exactly why we need distributed power. Each community with its own solar/wind generation and battery storage. Communities like this are springing up all over: Texas, Britain, Germany to name a few. Mostly in new communities where roof top solar and battery storage are included in the house when built.
The issue isnt always grid capacity, its power STORAGE. Renewable electricity is intermittent. Hydro supply is less variable but changes depending on weather patterns. Solar is regular and output can be forecast depending on weather. Wind is rather intermittent. Having power storage to store energy when it can be created to be used when its needed means less strain on the grid and a more reliable supply overall.
What many people apposed to solar are probably not thinking of is that the energy for electric cars will mainly be used during the day when these vehicles charge while people are at work and where (get this) the company probably pays for it. Imagine giving your private gas bill to the accountant at the office. They can actually flatten the curve
Federal laws need to be created governing those monopolies we call public utilities to make sure they pay at least what they charge consumers. Yes, if you are buying power for 13 cents/KWH then if you produce 1 KWH the utility should pay you at a minimum 13 cents. With rooftop power the need for more infrastructure is a false one, you are providing power to you neighbors or using it yourself, it actually reduces load on the grid because you have many small producers working very locally. The role of the public utility must change from the monopoly that provides all your power to a provider that wheels power on the grid and regulates voltage and current on the grid as needed. Demand will be at night and on darker days as well as a few months in winter when production is low, some of this low production can be offset by wind power that by it’s nature and cost is more commercial. I have done rooftop solar since 2012, I am totally delighted with it’s result and I got in with a well compensating 15 year contract. I know if such a program was widely available today many people would go rooftop solar. I own a 9 KW 3 array grid tie system and make enough money to nearly negate by total annual gas and electric bill, it works if well designed and properly compensated. For me it was like paying 7 years of utilities in advance and paying next to nothing for the next 15 years. System life is expected to be 30 years, don’t know if I will be able to renew my contract when the time comes. The problem lies with corrupt politicians and their close alignment with public utility lobbyists, they are literally blotting out the sun for the people they are supposed to represent.
What makes a system meet the definition of green ? 1ST It must make more power than was used to pull it out of the ground refine it melt it mold it machine it deliver install maintain then remove ship and 100% recycle it. ONLY hydro lasts long enough to meet the level. And even then there are no dams running three turbine halls it has been made
does the model take geo-localized on-demand storage into account as supplement to grid expansion? if 75% of new grid-scale projects include storage sinks then how many fewer transmission projects need to happen? and/or can HVDC be extended into the future as the longer-term cost effective solution while storage sinks are the immediate time-sensitive solution?
With distributed generation you don’t need more transmission and distribution. Storage just needs to be installed locally either at customer’s locations or utility locations, but near the end users. California has a plan to go all renewables without significant changes to transmission and distribution by putting renewable generation and storage near present transmission assets.
Transporting energy from renewable sources via powerlines is probably the most inefficient way to tackle this issue. Because wind and solar fluctuate so much in their output, the potential energy output varies just as much. Putting all this energy on one grid requires a huge capacity for peak moments. Moreover, a significant amount of energy would have to be stored in batteries for the downtime, and batteries are notoriously expensive in resources. A better way to tackle the issue is to convert the wind and solar energy locally to some kind of carrier. A good example would be hydrogen, which can be produced from water in large quantities with the electricity gained from solar or wind power. The liquid hydrogen can then be transported to wherever it is needed, either by road or even by pipeline if demand is high and consistent enough. The hydrogen can easily be stored and used to power cities. This also make the US much more flexible in terms of emergencies, like the one in Texas last February. Grids can stay disconnected and localized, with only the stored hydrogen needing to be transported. This makes high voltage power lines almost obsolete, saving huge amounts of resources.
Tons of power for our county and the county on the right side of us are running off a power plant running off hydraulic power from a big river (Shelby county AL) and lots of those huge high voltage lines are everywhere around us. Just googling our county you can see lots of those clear land routes where they are!
The problem with upscaling the capacity is that there still will be a maximum capacity,just a higher one. Instead, we could solve our energy storage problem ánd transportation problem by making use of hydrogen cells. This will take away the unreliability of certain sustainable energy sources by storing then when they do produce and make use of it when required. This of course causes for a loss in efficiency as compared to using solely electric, though upscaling the whole business or even exporting it to other countries/states would be made possible. Make sure there is a slight overproduction compared to consumption. And take away the unreliability with storage (eg. oil terminal/tanks etc). Also note hydrogen has an energy density of approximately 120 MJ/kg, almost three times more than diesel or gasoline. Downside of course is when used on small scale, cars etc, it only has a 60% efficiency, wheras larger facilities would operate at a much higher efficiency of course.
It’s like this in many countries. Northern part of Germany, for example, pays Denmark to take their power when it’s windy, because Germany doesn’t allow power companies to shut off wind turbines, while Denmark does. When there is extra wind in the region, Denmark shuts down many wind turbines, if they produce too much for other countries to buy, and gets money from Germany to take their power. This is because Germany’s infrastructure doesn’t allow the wind power from northern German to be transported to the lower parts of the country.
You cleverly ignore the biggest problem, energy storage. Without the mythical & elusive energy storage. When the sun goes down and the wind abates we still need conventional generation large enough to carry the entire load or it is lights out. What are the environmental and climate impacts of extracting gigawatts of energy from seasonal and onshore winds that create and move our weather.
Nuclear is the safest way to go in today’s standards back in the days when Chernobyl‘s and the tsunami hit in Japan technology has came a long way. It’s just like the airplanes it was crash after crash they got all the bugs out at least most of them, and it is much safer now much much safer, and that is the cleanest way look at France, 80% or 90% is around by nuclear and it is the cleanest air
Here in the UK we’ve been building the grid for 100% renewable energy for almost 10 years, it should the there by 2025 – 2027. In the USA, you use twice as much electricity per household than anywhere else, three times as much as a European home. If you worked towards energy conservation, you’d need a lot less of everything.
What most people don’t understand is that we do not need to upgrade the grid during the energy transition. The grid is designed and constructed for peak energy that happens twice a day. How much power do you think is running through those lines at 3 AM? take a ridiculous example of a sea can full of batteries in your backyard. You can power your house forever with an extension cord providing a trickle charge. Decentralized energy storage is the key to eliminating these costs. we must all learn to think with first principles.
If infrastructure was the main problem it would be solved eventually relatively easy because it is in our own hands to get to work and make it happen. The problem is there’s not enough reliable and renewable energy sources to meet the demand of the entire nation, at least not with current technology and knowledge. It would take another breakthrough in science for another power source that we can harness or discover more efficient methods for the ones we currently have in order to make another leap forward as a civilization.
Changing where power comes from is going to be expensive. Whether you have to build high voltage lines from where the wind is to where the people are or you have to reinforce local distribution lines to handle the backflow from home solar, it costs money. Aluminum conductors, power poles, and line crews cost money. You can’t fundamentally change how power generation works without changing how power distribution and transmission works. Most customers don’t want to foot that bill.
I always hear the argument for ‘green energy’ as a good vs evil kind of argument so I appreciate any article that shows the real world scenario of ‘it’s more complicated than you think’. I should point out that even with high voltage power lines, it is not practical to have Phoenix solar powering Chicago. There are energy losses the farther you transport it. it is less for high voltage wires but it is still not 0. We’ll want to have most of the energy produced within the state that uses it to reduce the distance the power needs to be transported. I also think it’s good to bring up the discussion of base load vs peak load. The reason we love coal is because it’s cheap and reliable. You can turn on a coal powerplant and it will produce a reliable amount of power for 6 months without shutting down. We cannot simply replace that reliability with wind. Wind doesn’t always produce energy when we need it. Solar has similar problems, some days you just don’t get the sunshine. large scale batteries can help solve this problem, but the process of refining the lithium is just as bad as burning coal and the technology is not where we need it yet. Nuclear might be a better renewable to replace coal, but widespread nuclear might be just as problematic as coal (at the very least, the price is less desirable).
That’s why I work at a transmission company. The problem with the us regulation is that you cannot build ahead of the time, since the transmission company only get paid if the line is used by the operators (TSOs). The US needs to change its model so transmission companies get paid for the avaiability, like in many countries. But for this to work, transmission investment must be centraly planned. In this is sounds to much like communisn to US ears.
My concern is cost. Obviously a planet is hard to replace and a paycheck isn’t but solar and wind is free. The service, instillation, maintenance, and materials are not. Once those cost are paid down we should not be forking a lot of money over to utilities knowing full well it’s almost free. Our G&E company now bats us around like single ply in a hurricane. But harnessing electronics is are greatest asset at the moment.
No it is not necessary to have long distance transmission lines. In sunny CA where I live I have a 10kw solar system on my roof. It powers the house and also fully charges my EV (250+ miles range) daily. Power company (TID) pays me for excess power generated. These systems are inexpensive, as low as $!/kw. Every house in Modesto could have a 10kw system. No high voltage power lines. What am I missing? And this his would work for ALL of CA!
As a Flight Simulator enthusiast, the latest version has brought home just how much wind power has taken over the world. Places you would never expect, but make sense, are blanketed with turbines. Especially islands, and very remote places, like cattle stations, or small villages, which are made viable for modern living with the addition of sustainable energy. The fossil fuel industry even had ME thinking that turbines weren’t anywhere near as common-place as they actually are. Wind and solar are the future. Exploding dead animal and plant matter is how cavemen get their electricity.
However, the voltage cannot be increased infinitely in order to avoid current losses. Somewhere at 350,000 volts AC, above that the air no longer insulates enough. DC lines can carry about 450,000 volts. But for this the alternating voltage has to be transformed and rectified, in the end it has to become AC again so that a transformer fits again. But DC voltage lines can help with problems with the mains frequency because they are controllable. DC land lines are rare, but necessary in the sea. AC cables in the sea have high losses. In Germany there was an AC-DC-AC coupling because the Eastern European grid frequency fluctuated. Today the problems have been resolved and the coupling system dismantled. The knowledge is now used for a DC long-distance line: +/- 450,000 volts!
What happens when more energy is produced then the need? Im not talking about the price for the electricity what happens to the electricity? In a nuclear powerpland or hydropower the production can ramp up or down depending on demand. I guess the extra is wated but how. Is it a danger for the grid if too much electricity is in it, how is that regulated?
Why not use HVDC (High Voltage Direct Current Transmission)? The map at 2:45 shows that the distances from the center of the US to the coasts to the right and left, and to Canada or Mexico are all around or over 1000 miles. So dedicated HVDC lines over this length are more cost-effective than a patched-up network of high-voltage AC lines. Then the inverse transformation and feeding into the existing AC grids of the metropolitan regions could be carried out at optimal points. p.s.: Recently, UHVDC systems have been developed that work even more effectively.
I hope the people making these grand decisions have taken into account that good planning for renewable energy should be context-specific. Sure, some places might not be great for wind power, but they might be great for solar or hydro. Maybe taking a strategy like that and distributing the power-generating infrastructure would reduce the need to pipe power between distant locations.
I understand that we’re proud of our national power grid, and I understand why renewable energy is problematic in terms of our national power grid. What I don’t understand is why it’s so important that we transmit these new power sources on our old grid when renewables are much more amenable to microgrids than traditional power generation has been. This is why we so often see wind and solar power being used for off-grid living.
Needing more transmission lines isn’t a renewables problem. It’s a people problem. We’re increasing our energy consumption, and as your example pointed out right in the beginning, many of our transmission lines are already at, or near, their capacity. The main difference with renewables is where they are built. We’ll need to move a few of course, but as a percentage, it’s not that big of a deal. Most well just need to extend one end in a different direction, since the other end is going to somewhere that needs the electricity.
Distributed grid, with solar panels and batteries (of some form) for every building. As battery cells in cars lose capacity, they can be easily repurposed for stationary storage use, as their density isn’t as important for that use. Flow batteries also make a lot of sense for stationary use. Energy independence for every consumer. Be a producer, and not just a consumer.
Wonderful but considering the intermittency of renewable power generation energy storage is a viable solution, to store and transmit power during the peak demand of the Grid. further using renewable power to generate green hydrogen and transferring it through the gas pipeline network can also be thought of for reducing the stress on the transmission lines
Right now the idea of Arizona solar farms powering Chicago, or Illinois wind turbines powering Phoenix is a pipe dream, because they are on different grids. The North America is split into 3 grids, the Eastern Interconnect, the Western Interconnect, and Texas. Texas does not want to participate in a larger grid so they can escape federal regulation. To interconnect grids requires DC converter facilities since the grids are not synchronized with each other. There was a huge DC interconnect plant planned for Clovis NM, but the plans fell through when Texas declined to interconnect. At this point, maybe DC interconnection projects between East and West will be planned, but I can’t see Texas participating.
Why not move to build more homes with solar panels. So the energy does not have to be transmitted great distances. I live in south Texas, lots of sun here. Currently the cost to install solar panels does not have a realistic “break even point” on the investment. It takes too long to pay for itself in saving.
This is a super high 30,000-feet overview of Electrical Grid infrastructure. Because of that many things important issues were left out, Such as costs. The Economics of it is just as important as the cleanliness of it in order to make it feasable. Because transmitting a lot of energy through hundreds of miles its not only inefficient, it is wasteful. Not to mention the thousands of acres of land, Natural Habitats of many animals to be cleared to make space for these gigantic structures plus the land for the extra Solar and Wind power plants. A Strata Group of Utah State Uni published a study on the “Footprint of Energy” where they found that Solar powerplant used 43.5 acres per MW Produced and wind farms took as much as 70.64 acres of land per MW produced. Just my 2 cents.
If we need more transmission lines to power homes then why is it that we have enough power and transmission lines to currently power our homes? Also, just adding more lines and power sources isn’t that easy, you also have to manage output to keep power at 60hz. That was what made the Texas power grid fail. It wasn’t the power generation, it was the ability to quickly adapt to the spike in demand from homes needing electric heat. The demand became too much too fast and the non renewable power sources couldn’t kick up the load fast enough
To many humans in America. This is why being a country with a population in the middle is good. You could use green energy to power your needs and not deplete your resources. America likes a large population because of the global economy. A large population creates demand and creates a strong dollar. But being in the middle is the best.
The task of building a green energy network will be monumental. The best solar and wind resources are mostly in areas with low population densities. For example Arizona has good potential for solar energy. North Dakota has excellent wind energy resources. But these states are far from where most energy is consumed. We need an energy New Deal no less monumental than the actual New Deal initiated by Franklin Roosevelt during the Great Depression. Politics may be an obstacle as many if not most of the ideal areas suitable for solar and wind are in red states where many people are skeptical of “Big Government” and environmental initiatives. But I think where there is a will there is a way and this can be done.
The power grid plan is absurd in itself, that very long cable could break, it could start fires like you said earlier, it is simply unfeasible there must be another way than such a tedious, easily broken method, also not to mention it makes military and war time much harder, as the enemy can easily take out every single energy source to major cities, and makes energy sabotage very easy to escapr with
What about nuclear energy? Not only is it safe, but also the most efficient form of clean energy. Solar panels and wind turbines are green, but inefficient. I hate how people use literally 2 single disasters to attack nuclear energy as a whole when countless disasters happen with conventional power plants.
Our grid us designed to bring power from the power plant to the consumers hence the wires have to carry more power closer to the power plant and the least as it approaches our homes but with say solar power, the consumers are also producers when the Sun shines so the wires further from the power plant need to be able to carry more power as well as need to carry to other consumers and not just back to the plant. In essence “grid” is a misnomer, what we have are distribution trees but what we need id a peer to peer grid. With wind power, they are in remote locations so high capacity power lined needs to be laid out where none was before. The wind turbines are power plants in inconvenient locations. Proximity to the existing grid is one of the factors in choosing a wind turbine site.
Localized generation and battery storage solves everything. Both solar panels and batteries are manufactured products that decrease in costs with increased production according to wright’s law. The prices of solar and batteries will continue plummet and manufacturing capacity will increase until demand is met. As long as batteries come along for the ride, more renewable energy can be added without upgrading transmission lines.