I am from South Dakota, and this is a very sad state of affairs. Producing wind energy could be a huge economic boost to our state, but for the reasons mentioned in this article, we are being held back.

The worst part is that the coal and ethanol supporters have convinced people that wind power is somehow dangerous and too expensive to be worth it... True propaganda at it's finest.

Our national government needs to lead the way... I'm not sure how, but the network needs to be expanded so we can take advantage of our renewable natural resources.

As an example of why the Energy Dept wants to override state rights, the West Coast has long had a weak transmission system. Washington has cheap power (as low as $.02/kWhr in some counties) because of big old hydroelectric dams. Meanwhile, Californians often pay more than $.10/kWhr (and rising due to increasing natural gas prices and environmental policies that pushed cheap coal power production out of the state). CA wants a stronger transmission system to get some of WA's cheap hydro power, but the big transmission system owners in the northwest oppose system improvements because they are expected to increase the cost of power in the Northwest. BPA (one of the biggest regional transmission entities), despite being a federal agency, has a charter which dictates that they serve the best interest of the Northwest. Add in new renewable production mandates and all of the problems that come along with the wind power that they dictate must get built and you can see how things get complicated pretty quickly.

The Eastern US is far more complicated because there are many more parties and larger loads involved.

They way to fight this is not to mention alternative power generation.

If you want to win, use mental judo; speak out on the problem of old, inefficient, Balkanized transmission lines and how they are financially and enviromentally detrimental to residential consumers, corporations, and your community in general, because of transmission loss.

Oh and then mention there is a new transmission cable tech that is large, buried, cooled, cables. The are more expensive but the transmission loss is much lower compared to other cables. These are very useful for large scale power transmission, but should not be used to bring power to residential neighborhoods as it would be too expensive for too small a benefit to the home owners.

When there is enough interest in solving the transmission loss issue, then push for the inclusion of all generation sites to be included in the infrastructure upgrade.

Gosh, I don't remember hearing that we'd all have to move to West Virginia and Pennsylvania when we started building coal plants. Somehow, the rail lines materialized to haul the resources to the population centers.

If the national grid doesn't pick up the power, then it can be used for local development, powering factories, transport systems, and government. That would provide local jobs while cutting taxes, and that would attract people. Kinda like Hoover Dam and Vegas.

Um, the numbers I've seen about renewable energy growth, compared to the numbers for growth in demand indicate that renewables aren't quite keeping up with the growth.

So that means the grid is doomed. It can't keep up with growth in demand, let alone growth in generation in one small sector.

"Wind advocates say that just two of the windiest states, North Dakota and South Dakota, could in principle generate half the nation’s electricity from turbines. But the way the national grid is configured, ..." it is not possible.

Obviously the Grid needs updated.
Who would do that?

Only one presidential candidate Barack Obama, has a plan to upgrade the USA infrastructure including the electrical grid. He is also planning to promote wind energy as a part of his push for independence from foreign oil.

So, the question is, why are so many in the wind rich mid west still supporting McCain?

It has become apparent to me that the challenge with wind power is selling it at the right time and to the right place. Until we revamp our grid, this will have to involve finding new uses for the energy generated by wind turbines.

I'm thinking about locating aluminum smelting and steel plasma arc furnaces near to wind power. When the wind blows, the plants operate. When the wind doesn't blow, the plants don't opperate. The plants and their products essentially become a battery for wind power.

Why prioritise the Grid, in the end the system is itself flawed as it presumes big generation pumping electricity into a system which will lose a significant percentage as it travels over distance, why not use the power to, say produce hydrogen or other forms of energy. Maybe there is a synthetic oil or natural gas substitute. Or relocate large scale production, or centralised data processing to the Dakotas.

Very sad, but as long as the government stays out of the way, which if you read the article is why the grid cannot handle the demand, then we should be able to resolve this in short order. So encourage less regulation so we can get to the next level.

@ aaron:
Yup, and Coca Cola and the dairy industry say:

Don't drink water! It's dangerous!

@ TP:
Hey, that buried transmission line sounds cool. It must be HVDC. Got any links? To quote FedNet, I'd like to know more.

@ John Taylor:
What are you talking about when you say it's not possible? The EIA reports that U.S. Consumption (Retail Sales) of electricity in the US was 3,816,845 million kilowatt hours in 2006. According to this site, www.awea.org/newsroom/pdf/Top_20_States_with_Wind_Energy_Potential.pdf, North and South Dakota have the potential to provide 2,230,000 million kilowatt hours per year after factoring in
environmental and land use exclusions for wind class of 3 and higher. This is more than half the annual usage in the USA. Here are the top 10 states with wind producing potential in billion KWh:

1 North Dakota . . . 1,210
2 Texas . . . . . . . . . 1,190
3 Kansas . . . . . . . . . 1,070
4 South Dakota . . . 1,030
5 Montana . . . . . . 1,020
6 Nebraska . . . . . 868
7 Wyoming . . . . . . 747
8 Oklahoma . . . . . 725
9 Minnesota . . . . 657
10 Iowa . . . . . . . . . . 551

And why do so many people support McCain?

First, because negative advertising works, and so far Barack hasn't used it. It's been scientifically proven that the majority of people will make a choice to avoid a negative than by choosing a positive. If Barack would go negative and attack McCain, who, let's face it, has many more negatives than positives, he'd have the election in the bag.

Second, "brown people are scary!"

And I totally agree, we'll only move forward with Barack in the White House.

I'm a big proponent of Wind Energy. However, one way to combat this technical challenge (which is really "red herring" in the long run), would be to concentrate on solar micro-generation. Home solar systems would generate the power at the source of consumption. Imagine if most buildings in America had micro-generated solar power. It would be amazing and there wouldn't be this issue of transmission. And then, for those building where it was practical to install solar, the power offset could be filled by technology such as small wind, big wind, geothermal, waste-to-energy and large-field solar installations.

The electric grid lumbers on in it's current state because of ordinary people like you and I, not because of government, or coal companies, or any other sinister force. The same story can be told all across the country....whenever a proposal for a new transmission line is floated to bring renewable power to the masses, a group of concerned citizens pops up and starts filing lawsuits because they don't want the towers spoiling the view from their back deck. It's the same problem that plagues renewable energy generation...."not in my back yard". Look at the problems the large California utilities are having in getting approval to build transmission lines for new solar projects. Here in Minnesota, we have the same fight over new transmission lines to bring wind power from the south-western regions of the state to the Twin Cities metro area.

It's also unfair to blame utility companies for not expanding capacity on existing lines. It costs a lot of money to string those wires, and the utility's customers ultimately foot the bill. You can imagine the firestorm that would erupt if a utility proposed to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on equipment upgrades and extra capacity so that power generated in some distant part of the country can pass through it's transmission lines to be used by citizens in some other distant part of the country. The utility is concerned about it's customers. How does it benefit those customers to have capacity beyond what is needed to meet the customers needs? They are only doing what any sensible business would do in protecting their end-users.

I'd like to propose a solution, but unfortunately I just don't have one. Let me tell you something else....neither does Barack Obama....neither does John McCain....neither does anyone out there pandering for votes this November. Solutions to our nation's energy problems are not going to come from government. They are going to come from informed consumers casting votes with their checkbooks to drive solutions from the private sector.

I'm a big proponent of Wind Energy. However, one way to combat this technical challenge (which is really "red herring" in the long run), would be to concentrate on solar micro-generation. Home solar systems would generate the power at the source of consumption. Imagine if most buildings in America had micro-generated solar power. It would be amazing and there wouldn't be this issue of transmission. And then, for those building where it was practical to install solar, the power offset could be filled by technology such as small wind, big wind, geothermal, waste-to-energy and large-field solar installations.

I've long wondered if it would be possible to kill two birds with one alternative stone? High-speed mag-lev trains can use low temperature superconductors to create the levitation necessary for a smooth, safe ride. Superconductors do not have significant transmission losses. Liquid hydrogen (oh, bird three) might be the coolant of choice, because it would also be a good form to store and ship (pipe) excess electrical energy produced in off-peak hours.
Can anyone tell me if that would work without parasitizing too much electricity operating the magnetic drive?
Of course, most would have to be underground or at least below grade to eliminate crossing accidents. Only a New Deal style government agency could put such a far reaching plan into effect exactly because of the numerous roadblocks in place. Think TVA meets DOT.

I thought most environmentalists support de-centralized power production. I am pretty damn skeptical of wind energy by looking at Denmark as an example. They haven't reduced their CO2 emmissions even while having the highest proportion of renewable energy sources. Don't get me wrong, wind has its place, but at the moment the only way to make it feasible is to:
1) For every MW of wind capacity install the same amount of gas turbine facilities as a backup.
2) Consolidate the entire national grid.

Both options are extremely expensive and inefficient.

McCain isn't against alternate energy???

But he does have unrepentant terrorist running fund raisers for him. Maybe a better question is why would an unrepentant terrorist be pushing Obama!

People support McCain because he has experience and doesn't seem to be condescending to the bulk of the population. Pointing out inexperience and voting records is not negative advertising.
vsk

@Matt hawthorn:
here are definitely transmission losses to consider, but high voltage DC for long-distance transmission has losses as low as 3% per 1000 miles. To make hydrogen or any other fuel, the inefficiencies would be significantly higher. Of course, hydrogen or any other compound may have a role to play, like energy storage when that ultimately becomes a big issue, but for now sending electricity is more efficient than making and transporting fuels.

@Paul Barthle:
I'm pretty sure the losses involved in cooling the hydrogen would exceed the losses that would be incurred by non-superconducting HVDC. And the transmission lines would need to be thermally insulated REALLY well. Plus, if we did the supreconductivity thing, the grid upgrade would be MUCH more expensive. Yes, hydrogen as energy storage is a great idea once renewables become a much larger share of the grid, but piping it as a liquid would be tricky. If someone achieves relatively cheap room temperature superconductivity, then I would say yes, use it in the grid, but I think it might make more sense to pipe hydrogen as a gas than a liquid.

"These barriers mean that electrical generation is growing four times faster than transmission"
How have people been deluded into thinking this is a partisan issue? If this trend holds, and the grid is not improved, the national grid will be saturated. People will try to turn on additional devices and there simply won't be any more power to run them.

@ Glenn
Do you work for Exxon? A little disclosure would go a long way here. Wait, are you Glenn Beck?
At this point trying to deny anthropomorphic global warming is like denying the Earth is round. Could it be possible that wind change is caused by the increased entropy on the surface of the planet? After all, global temps on average are much higher than a century ago. From the same article:

The Arctic Ocean's shift from perennial to seasonal ice is preconditioning the sea ice cover there for more efficient melting and further ice reductions each summer. The shift to seasonal ice decreases the reflectivity of Earth's surface and allows more solar energy to be absorbed in the ice-ocean system.

@ Alonso
The US Presidential election is the most important variable in determining how global warming is addressed. My point is that the press is caught up trying to create narrative from petty non-issues like "Will Clinton supporters vote for Obama?" when polls clearly show over 80% of Clinton supporters support Obama. It's a petty non-issue, but the press exaggerates it b/c it fits their pre-determined narrative. A true independent media (not one beholden to corporate interests like our current media) that served the public would be pushing important issues into the national debate instead of pushing inane, meaningless flag pin, bowling, or he-said-she-said stories.

@ andrewksu
A single failed prediction doesn't mean the trend is incorrect. The trend, year over year, is a retreat of sea ice, whether caused by heat directly or wind changes initiated from increased surface heat. Since we've had the top 10 hottest years in recorded history in the last 15 years, that trend will obviously continue.
www.gfdl.noaa.gov/research/climate/highlights/GFDL_V1N1_gallery.html

@ Flahooler
The solution is government mandated strengthening of the grid. Government sets minimum standards in many industries so there is precedent. Government mandated air bags for cars, over the protests of the industry giants. Same with CAFÉ standards. Would this be more expensive? Yes, but the alternative is too much production and no way to transmit it, which is what we're seeing already.

@ Paul
Interesting idea, but only if the train lines and transmission lines coincide. Honestly, we don't need superconductors. IN the future, the US will have electric production in two main areas: solar in the southwest and wind in the Midwest wind corridor. Energy from these two regions can easily power the entire US. High voltage direct current (HVDC) has losses of only 5% over 1000 miles, so building in a bit of extra capacity to handle that is no problem. Put another way, it's a better use of resources to build that CSP plant in AZ where the capacity factor is 70% and transmit the power 1000 miles to MI with 5-7% loss than it is to build that same plant in MI with 40% capacity due to the lower angle of the sun and higher incidence of cloudy days.

@ Matt
As an environmentalist, I don't see decentralized power taking off beyond niche/hobby uses for a couple of reasons. First, upfront costs are expensive for individuals. Next, no microgeneration produces baseload power, and there's no good way to store electricity in personal residences. Third, personal wind turbines are half or less efficient than large industrial ones. Fourth, it's a maintenance nightmare to have millions of tiny powerplants scattered all over the country, esp in an era of declining mobility. Geothermal, nuclear, hydro, waste gas, and CSP will provide baseload power and industrial wind farms and PV plants will provide supplemental power. At some point in the next 100 years or so we'll develop fusion, then all of our electric needs will be solved.

You don't need to have backup for wind. A minimum of eight wind farms connected to each other back each other up. There's no time where the wind completely stops across the entire nation. See article here: www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071121144907.htm
The grid is already mostly consolidated. Remember the blackout across 1/3 of the US? And having a strong redundant national grid provides more reliable power and is more resilient against attack.

@ omegaman
McCain isn't against alternatives, but he's certainly more amenable to big oil and coal than Obama. Obama would provide a more accelerated path to researching and implementing alternative energy than McCain.

@ VSK
People don't support McCain. They're rejecting Obama b/c McCain has been running negative ads and Obama has not returned fire. This is how the Republicans always win, but it works and frustratingly the Dems take the "high ground" and don't engage in it. The polls support this, since on every issue the public trusts the Democrats by double digit margins. In a presidential race with generic candidates, the Dem candidate wins by 20 points. Oh, and Barack has a funny name and he's brown. Oooo! Scary!

As for McCain's experience, he's one of the original Keating Five partially responsible for the collapse of the Savings and Loans costing the taxpayers billions of dollars. He's voted with Bush 95% of the time over the past 2 years. He sponsors anti lobbyist legislation, then fills his campaign staff with lobbyists. He champions campaign finance reform, then breaks the laws when it suits him. He's an unrepentant insider with ties to lobbyists and corporations, and despite his populist rhetoric knows nothing of the trials and tribulations of ordinary citizens having spent his entire life in privilege.

@ JSDreyer

I'm not sure when this turned into a political forum, but your response to VSK is not only unnecessary, it is flat out ignorant. Lived his entire life in privilege? The man spent over 5 years in a POW camp...

I was writing an article on the New York grid and saw the NYT article about Maple Ridge Wind Farm.
I called them and spoke to the general manager who said the NYT got it all wrong. They have had no problems transmiiting to grid. You are spreading bad info.