Concept & Case for Nationwide
EHV/HSR Transport
Breaking Out of the Status Quo
Meanwhile, there now exists an odd schism of environmental politics and power engineering principles that now confronts the electric power industry. As we continue the debate over how we ought to transform our “smart grid” into the “grid of the future,” a number of questions immediately comes to mind:
Will nuclear fuel be permitted for use in large-scale power production?
Will distributed generation destroy or enhance the need for EHV transmission?
Who should pay for batteries, harmonic filters, and other ancillary transmission facilities necessary to operate this “grid of the future”?
Betting on the grid continues to echo a complacent philosophy regarding the grid. The case for transmission has long been touted and speculated upon, and continues to drive large influxes of capital investment activities. Many utilities vulnerable from their generation business have looked to their transmission activities as a reliable “cash cow” to sustain their existing operations and growth strategies. With Enron (2001) slowly fading in the rear-view mirror, how similar is this collective sense of invulnerability that is now baked into our electric industry culture? Could other emerging threats, including emerging hijack and cybersecurity vulnerabilities, scare investors and customers away from this ongoing transmission binge?
As always, the fundamental question in our community is whether the assets comprising the modern power grid are being utilized (and compensated accordingly) to their fullest extent. Could transmission companies invest in transport, in order to hedge their bets against declines in customer load and grid utilization? Coupling the transport of power with people could revolutionize the world’s energy eco-system and accelerate our industry’s contributions to driving down greenhouse gas emissions on a broader scale worldwide.
