A simple way to support new large loads and avoid the costs of building expensive grid expansions is not to build them. Building new large loads on top of the fuel source eliminates the necessity. A recent article said 35 counties have most of the data centers in America. I bet 35 counties produce most of the natural gas production in America. In the future if those counties not only produced the gas but hosted the data centers a lot of costs, delays and public irritation will be eliminated by eliminating long grid expansions.
A partial solution to the cost of transmission buildout is building more off-grid, local systems. Data Centers are beginning to see this as a necessity, since they need 24/7 reliable power. Thus their increase in their own nat gas power generation and great interest in SMRs.
1. We should build power plants near points of demand. Nuclear power is one obvious solution to a) power cities, b) heat cities.
2. Yes, Congress should take away state responsibility for regulating transmission lines. They support interstate commerce, just as do pipelines.[But why is NY state allowed to veto pipelines from Pennsylvania natgas sources to New England?]
3. A transmission line should be a business, charging for traffic, just like a toll road. [Greens will be shocked at the per-kwh price for a transmission line used just 25% of the time from wind/solar sources.]
4. NY State (for example) could buy power from local natgas or nuclear plants, or from the transnational transmission line owner. Let the owner make deals to supply power to the line.
The FERC dockets on co-location of generation and load will be interesting. However they end up studying the required upgrades to the transmission system (on a net basis, maybe netting gen and load plus a fixed network connection charge?), my one request would be that no one stand in the way of a customer who offers to fund 100% (or more) of the cost. In other words, any barriers to voluntary “direct assignment” of network upgrades should be removed. States and FERC should also allow off-grid systems to emerge wherever they make sense (no transmission upgrades necessary).
A simple way to support new large loads and avoid the costs of building expensive grid expansions is not to build them. Building new large loads on top of the fuel source eliminates the necessity. A recent article said 35 counties have most of the data centers in America. I bet 35 counties produce most of the natural gas production in America. In the future if those counties not only produced the gas but hosted the data centers a lot of costs, delays and public irritation will be eliminated by eliminating long grid expansions.
We should make that option easier to pursue, yes. That was the subject of my last post! https://travisfisher.substack.com/p/speed-to-power-and-the-department
Good analysis of grid transmission growth.
A partial solution to the cost of transmission buildout is building more off-grid, local systems. Data Centers are beginning to see this as a necessity, since they need 24/7 reliable power. Thus their increase in their own nat gas power generation and great interest in SMRs.
Yes! I'm a huge fan of off-grid systems and other alternatives to transmission expansion. Islanded systems were a big focus in my previous piece: https://travisfisher.substack.com/p/speed-to-power-and-the-department
1. We should build power plants near points of demand. Nuclear power is one obvious solution to a) power cities, b) heat cities.
2. Yes, Congress should take away state responsibility for regulating transmission lines. They support interstate commerce, just as do pipelines.[But why is NY state allowed to veto pipelines from Pennsylvania natgas sources to New England?]
3. A transmission line should be a business, charging for traffic, just like a toll road. [Greens will be shocked at the per-kwh price for a transmission line used just 25% of the time from wind/solar sources.]
4. NY State (for example) could buy power from local natgas or nuclear plants, or from the transnational transmission line owner. Let the owner make deals to supply power to the line.
The FERC dockets on co-location of generation and load will be interesting. However they end up studying the required upgrades to the transmission system (on a net basis, maybe netting gen and load plus a fixed network connection charge?), my one request would be that no one stand in the way of a customer who offers to fund 100% (or more) of the cost. In other words, any barriers to voluntary “direct assignment” of network upgrades should be removed. States and FERC should also allow off-grid systems to emerge wherever they make sense (no transmission upgrades necessary).