Lynne Kiesling
One of the reasons why smart grid is generating so much interest right now is its ability to enable the integration of renewable energy into the electric power network, leading to a broader generation portfolio and potentially beneficial carbon implications. Lots of the discussion of smart grid in policy and media (including places like Greentech Media, Cleantech, EcoGeek, GreenMonk, and the New York Times blogs Dot Earth and Green Inc.) has emphasized the potential economic and environmental value from having investments in the electric power network that make the accommodation of renewables easier, reducing transaction costs and shifting the margin at which investing in renewables is profitable.
Integrating distributed renewables into a physical electric power network that was designed for the transportation of centrally-generated electricity is both an engineering challenge and an economic challenge; not only are renewable energy sources less intense in their capability to generate electricity, they are also less controllable and less dispatchable. When the sun shines and the wind blows, the renewables owner will generate power … but that time might not match periods of high demand. Furthermore, both sun and wind are intermittent, and we humans cannot turn them on and off in value-maximizing ways that coordinate demand and supply. Both Mike and I have discussed the renewables intermittency and supply/demand timing mismatch at KP in the past, and I also recommend Mike’s excellent posts on the connection between wind power and negative power prices in ERCOT. Moreover, if the renewables are highly distributed, such as solar panels on homes and plug-in vehicles, a network with that number and range of resources is very, very different from a network connecting large centralized generators to end-use consumers. Those differences can be physically destabilizing because of the ways that the intermittent renewables go on and off the network, produce or consume power, etc. So renewables integration changes the voltage and frequency regulation requirements drastically from those from the centralized generation model.
Smart grid can help with the intermittency problem, and with the voltage and frequency regulation and destabilization issues that arise with distributed renewables. I’m not an engineer, but my take on the real benefit there is the use of digital monitoring, switching, and relays that can get the resource in phase so it can interconnect without disruption. Importantly, note that this use of smart grid technology to enable interconnection mostly occurs in the distribution management system, at the interface of the resource and the distribution network and has nothing to do with high-voltage transmission (more on that in a minute). Smart grid in and of itself does not help with the supply/demand timing mismatch — solving that problem (which will also go a long way to resolving intertemporal price issues in wholesale markets) requires economical storage.
However, smart grid is a separate issue, and particularly a separate investment question, from high-voltage transmission. If we do build isolated wind farms in remote areas, then part of that investment will have to include the construction of high-voltage transmission to transport the power to areas of high demand, as the Pickens Plan and others are currently recommending. If, say, a large wind farm in North Dakota wants to connect directly to high-voltage transmission, then smart grid technology can help with that interconnection. But that is really the most important transmission-related and renewable-related smart grid technology interface. With respect to renewables, some of the federal policy discussion around smart grid falsely conflates smart grid investment with transmission investment and construction beyond what is actually accurate; for example, the clean energy summit that I mentioned last week involved both Senator Harry Reid and Representative Nancy Pelosi engaging in this false conflation. Another document that engages in this false conflation is the Center for American Progress’ National Clean Energy Smart Grid 101:
The current high-voltage transmission grid imposes constraints on the deployment of new renewable energy resources such as wind, solar, and geothermal power. It simply does not go where many of these renewable energy resources will be developed. And congestion bottlenecks hurt the reliability of the grid overall, particularly where it is needed to move large volumes of new power from remote generation areas (where renewable energy is created) to major urban and industrial centers—where demand for that energy is greatest.
The monitoring and control technology for both transmission and distribution networks is also weak and outdated. The lack of smart technology to provide utilities and consumers with better information in real time hurts the entire electricity system’s security and efficiency, and places unnecessary cost burdens on consumers. It also slows the adoption and integration of new technology such as solar panels on our homes, intelligent appliances to cut our energy bills, or micro-grids to help first responders cope with natural disasters.
While most of that is correct, it elides the distinctions between transmission and distribution as the places where smart grid investments will facilitate renewable generation. The fact that the current transmission network does not go where renewable resources are most productive is not necessarily a smart grid opportunity — it’s a transmission construction opportunity. The question of whether or not it is worthwhile to build more transmission is a separate question from the economic value of any digital communication capabilities in the high-voltage transmission network. I think the two most important ways that smart grid technology creates value in the transmission network are
- Direct interconnection of large-scale resources into the network
- Using remote sensing (and eventually, remote devices for the injection of dynamic reactive power) to increase network capacity by improving flow management
And smart grid regulation, sensing, and monitoring technology does not change the fact that long-distance transmission still involves line losses that average about 7%. Renewables proponents have to make the business case that the transmission construction has net present value on its own, without inaccurately cloaking it in smart grid rhetoric.
Smart grid does not necessarily mean more grid. Smart grid means a transactive network in which all consumers can choose products and services that meet their needs and reflect their values, and all resources, renewable and otherwise, can compete for their business. It’s the vibrant retail competition among products and services, including renewable products and services, that will reveal the true economic value of new transmission construction to connect renewables in isolated areas to areas of demand.
Tomorrow: Smart grid policy implications and recommendations
Other posts in this series:
Pingback: Intelligent end-use devices make a transactive smart grid valuable (Part 3 of 5) « Knowledge Problem
I’m glad you have emphasized, in this post and earlier, the relatively limited overlap between smart grid and renewable energy.
As you have explained, the smart grid is primarily a retail and distribution level value phenomena, not a wholesale and high-voltage transmission project. Yes, a smart grid and good prices will shave some consumer demand off the peak, and that will affect wholesale markets and transmission, but that isn’t the main source of value from the smart grid.
On the smart grid+renewable intersection, I see three connections:
*Better retail pricing made possible by advanced metering infrastructure will make better use of non-dispatchable generation like wind and solar. To the extent high levels of wind power output are pushing wholesale prices down, consumer response to the prices can make better use of the supply. Ramteen Sioshansi and Walter Short have a paper out in which they estimate the possible effects for ERCOT.
*A renewable power enthusiast with a houseful of smart grid appliances could tie at least some of his power consumption to the current availability of wind power, for example. Maybe the washer and dryer don’t run if wind power is less than 10 percent of the area’s current power output. (Which is to say, rather than just responding to lower prices, as in the above example, a consumer could respond to the current generation mix.)
*And, as you mentioned, smart grid communications between consumer and distribution company will help support integration of distributed renewables.
Lynne,
Great and thoughtful response. While I am confused as to what you mean by “false conflation,” I do agree that the Center for American Progress’s report engages in a degree of conflation- out of necessity.
“The smart grid will do to energy prices what the internet did to the price of information”
-Al Gore, NCEP
“The price of energy will double in the next decade.”
-Joe Romm, http://www.climateprogress.org
This is absolutely necessary if Obama wishes to pursue his aggressive agenda for climate change. There will be a carbon market, this market will increase energy prices, American families will bear the brunt of those prices. The purpose of the smart grid is to alleviate the effect of the price on the American people.
Yes, transmission and the smart grid are not the same thing, however they are very similar and rely on the same infrastructure. It would be a waste to not meet these two challenges at the same time.
Pingback: Recommendations for smart grid policy (Part 5 of 5) « Knowledge Problem
Pingback: A smart grid is a transactive grid (Part 2 of 5) « Knowledge Problem
Pingback: Smart grid technology, economics, and policy (Part 1 of 5) « Knowledge Problem
Pingback: Some smart grid reading recommendations « Knowledge Problem
Pingback: EnergyByEarth.com » Gridtastic