Future Power Infrastructure & the "Not In My Back Yard" Effect
February 28 2008 / by ts1937
Category: Energy Year: General Rating: 8
As the need to update our energy infrastructure increases, how do we deal with growing, local opposition to new projects?
How many people do you know that want a nuclear power plant in
their back yard? By definition the “Not In My Back Yard” attitude
is parochial, and at times it might seem irrational, but its is
almost always passionate and creates a huge 
political problem when trying to build and site new power
generation or transmission facilities. It’s a realistic obstacle
that we have to design around if we’re to meet the power demands of
tomorrow, whether we choose wind, solar, clean-burning or nuclear
energy.
There are two big problems that we as a country will have to face soon. First, current power generation capacity is getting tighter. To meet growing demand, while simultaneously reducing carbon emissions, new power plants must be built and older, “dirty” facilities replaced. At the same time, new transmission lines become necessary to deal with the increasing load as well as the realities of the deregulated market where electricity is moved over much greater distances than the current grid was originally designed for. In short, the energy infrastructure in our country will undergo a significant if not complete, overhaul over the next few decades. To date, most of the public discourse on these issues has centered on which technologies should or should not be used to meet those not-so-future needs.
There is one question that is not making headlines, but I think is just as critical, “Where are we going to build this new infrastructure?”
Here’s one example of a siting problem. Currently in New York State, a proposed transmission line running from Utica to Westchester has encountered vigorous local opposition, despite the fact some type of improvements to the transmission grid will be necessary to move the electricity from the fleet of upstate wind facilities coming on line. It’s not too hard to imagine why lines of giant towers looming over the landscape, or the possibility of losing your home to eminent domain, doesn’t appeal to the local communities this line would dissect. While the extent to which this line will adversely affect local host communities’ can be endlessly debated, it is inarguable that as a coalition, these communities pose a formidable obstacle to the deployment of a new power grid.
This reinforces the notion that we need to ensure that as we implement the next generation of cleaner power facilities we must do so without unfairly burdening those communities where those technologies are sited. This fierce social resistance will play a major role in the development and deployment of any new facilities is a reality that large companies, clean tech start-ups and the government must quickly become hip to, or else burn considerable time and money on project that just won’t work.
So what’s the solution?
Personally, I’m big on the concept of on-site power generation technologies that have recently been picking up some steam. We are all used to the idea of producing the heat and hot water for ourselves from machines found in our homes, why not electricity as well? Such technologies have the potential to significantly ameliorate the aforementioned problems. Photo-voltaic (aka PV or solar-electric) panels, natural gas and hydrogen fuel cells, and micro-turbines are just a few of the different power-gen systems that can be constructed and placed anywhere (homes, schools, supermarkets) while expelling little to zero emissions. Furthermore, these existing technologies can be up and running in a short period of time, unlike traditional power plants and lines where the siting approval process alone is measured in years.
While increases in efficiency are needed before these technologies allow us to go off the grid in any great numbers, this does not mean that current implementation would not cause a significant impact. Prof. Richard Perez of the University at Albany has calculated that if the greater New York City metropolitan area were to add just 500MW of solar generated electricity, the 2003 blackout that totally crippled the North-East could have been prevented(1). By producing power where it was need, when it was needed the most, the electricity produced by PV could have reduced the load on the transmission system enough to prevent the cascading shut down that caused the blackout.
These technologies have come a long way since President Carter put solar panels on top of the White House. Some of the newer PV modules come in sheets that can be rolled out on your roof. Micro-turbines and fuel cells taking up no more room that a commercial boiler provide businesses and municipal facilities with enough power to meet the building’s demand. The list goes on. Small wind and hydro turbines, geothermal systems and farm waste anaerobic digesters are just a few more. The variety of on-site generating technology allows people to choose the system the fits their specific needs and aligns with the resources available to them.
A comprehensive and aggressive plan to install these systems, coupled with an equally aggressive energy efficiency initiative would slow the need for new base load power plants, allow for the closure of old dirty plants, and increase the reliability of the grid without the building of new transmission lines. It’s doubtful we will see the day most electricity is produced outside of traditional base load plants or the disappearance of power lines, but as local opposition along with market and environmental concerns make it more and more difficult to site traditional infrastructure, we have options to keep the crisis at bay for a little while longer.
The normal siting process is uber-technical, bureaucratic and intimidating, i.e. not something the average citizen can easily participate in. By giving people the option of installing these generation system in their home, schools or businesses, reaping the environmental and financial benefits along side the power, you give people the chance to actively participate in the solution to our power problems as opposed to only being able to react. Locally based power seems to be a path of least resistance and it’s likely that it will become very appealing as policy makers and power companies hit big roadblocks. It’s an option that I believe, comes pretty close to a win-win situation.
1.www.asrc.cestm.albany.edu/perez/
Comment Thread (2 Responses)
-
Great point overall. It does seem that all of the attention goes to which new technologies or clean power plants will produce the energy, with little regard for the required distance of transfer. Massively distributed production seems to be the logical choice.
But what if the need for power lines was diminished by a super-battery or such that could transfer power in sizable amounts by delivery, or on board an electric car? That could help alleviate the burden on communities. Has anyone heard of any such technologies, plans or speculation?
Posted by: Alvis Brigis February 28, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend -
Love your work!
In the late eighties at school (17 years old) I wrote a paper on cellular generation systems – the idea being that you generate on site, but network to your neighbours to provide DR and capacity smoothing.
I showed it to my Uncle (who ran a factory for Rolls Royce making gensets)... as a traditionally educated engineer, he just couldn’t see it.
I think our biggest barrier in this area is getting over the mental models among the people (commonly in government) who run this sector have grown up with.
Commercially it would be quite straight-forward for generation and network companies to convert to this model – they just start putting in community systems, and then charge a rent. They already have the service networks in place.
I can’t see any alternative – I just wonder how long it will take?
Posted by: slarty February 29, 2008
Vote for this comment - Recommend