How will we double or triple transmission grid capacity over the next decades? Numerous studies show that if we wanted to achieve existing clean-energy goals in a timely and cost-effective manner over the next 1-3 decades, we will have to double or triple the existing capacity of the transmission grid. Here is my prediction of how this can be achieved most cost effectively (in three parts): 1/3 of the needed transmission capacity additions will come from new greenfield transmission lines. 1/3 of the needed additional capacity will come from upgrades to existing lines (such as converting aging existing AC lines to higher-voltage lines, using advanced conductors, and converting existing lines to HVDC that offers 2-3x the existing capacity without additional rights of way). 1/3 of the necessary additional capacity will come from advanced transmission technologies and innovative grid operations (power flow controls, dynamic line ratings, topology optimization, etc.) that increase by 30-40% the capability of both the existing grid and new greenfield transmission investments. The question is: Are U.S. grid planners and operators ready to embrace the last two thirds? Many European grid planners are already thinking this way. For example, the German NOVA principle ( https://lnkd.in/eDYRKrTt ) was mandated a decade ago. Whatever we do will require massive amounts of investments. The difference will be in whether customers and regulators accept it from a cost and environmental impact perspective. The specific proportions will necessarily vary across regions. #gridmodernization #cleanenergytransition #renewableenergy
Offshore wind in the Northeast has some advantages in terms of the amount of transmission needed to get to key load centers.
This makes good intuitive sense. I would put my money on the over for grid upgrades and the under for new transmission technology and add the no transmission option to make it four categories. I think some entities will opt for more onsite generation to reduce their exposure to a less reliable grid.
Interesting, Johannes. For the studies quoted, did they consider any changes in demand-side other than proportional growth due to electrification? Did the studies consider demand-side response, behind-the-meter renewables, or residential storage?
Very nicely presented. Thanks for sharing
US transmission owners are largely for-profit publicly-traded businesses. They'll do it if we pay them to, and any debt they incur during construction doesn't negatively impact their balance sheets or quarterly share prices.
Rule of three! It feels right. What would be interesting is to see how big categories 1 would be if we did not get our head around categories 2 and 3. Another thing to consider in category 3 is changing the way we operate the grid, by relaxing the application of the N-1 criterion
This chart appears to have no place for "brownfield transmission," i.e., new transmission that uses the ROW of existing linear infrastructure such as highways and rail. Maybe that category should be simply "New transmission"?
Interesting. In Europe even the use of current grid is enhanced by the coordination of each national operators. Dynamic security assessment could be of support on this purpose
Excited for real-time DLR from LineVision - for global deployment of Grid Enhancing Technologies, see WATT Coalition https://watt-transmission.org/. Hilary Pearson
The easiest path is to upgrade the voltage or number of circuits on a route.