How Reliable Is America's Electrical Grid?
Coal and natural gas are more reliable but they can't compete with massively subsidized wind and solar. That's a problem.

"We face unprecedented challenges to the reliability of our nation's electrical system." That was the testimony of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) chairman Willie L. Phillips in a May 4, 2023, hearing of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources. FERC is the agency that regulates the interstate transmission and wholesale of electricity, and it is sounding the alarm about our electrical grid.
Until recently, Americans took electrical grid reliability for granted. "The average U.S. customer loses power less than two times per year for a total of less than five hours, which represents 99.95 percent reliability," notes National Renewable Energy Laboratory grid analyst Paul Denholm. But that may be changing.
Former FERC Commissioner James Danly pointed out during the hearing that a large part of the growing challenge to electrical grid reliability stems from the "premature retirement of the dispatchable generators"—those power sources, such as coal-fired and natural gas plants, that can be adjusted rapidly to meet electricity demand.
The "premature retirement" of those power sources is largely because of federal efforts to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel plants to combat climate change. The result? Always-on coal and gas plants cannot compete with massively subsidized intermittent wind and solar power.
"Our nation's grid infrastructure is nothing less than the backbone of the U.S. economy," stated then–FERC commissioner Allison Clements. That backbone, according to the Energy Information Administration, includes nearly 160,000 miles of high-voltage power lines, millions of low-voltage power lines, and distribution transformers that altogether connect 145 million customers.
Clements proposed addressing the looming reliability crisis by coming up with ways to "improve the efficiency of the existing grid via grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) and leverage the potential of distributed energy sources," such as wind and solar power. Deploying GETs, she argues, "would reduce the immediate need to build a more costly transmission line."
Assuming federal climate change policies persist, the Department of Energy estimates that the U.S. will need to increase its transmission capacity by 60 percent to 125 percent by the year 2035. The rise of power-hungry data centers, electric vehicles, and the electrification of home heating and cooling will increase domestic electricity demand by 18 percent by 2030 and 38 percent by 2035. Can GETs solve our self-inflicted grid reliability problem?
One key GET is new high-voltage transmission lines capable of conducting up to three times as much electricity as conventional lines. Traditional high-voltage lines use century-old technology: a steel core surrounded by aluminum wire. As current increases, these lines heat up and sag, which can cause them to touch brush or trees and spark damaging wildfires. This sagging also limits the amount of electricity that a line can carry.
Companies such as the California-based startup TS Conductor offer a promising solution. Their advanced transmission wires replace the steel core with carbon fiber, which is twice as strong, weighs 80 percent less, and barely sags when heated. This allows the carbon cores to support more tightly packed, flat trapezoidal aluminum wires, safely transmitting two to three times as much power as conventional lines.
Typically, securing permits for and building a new high-voltage transmission line takes about 10 years. But restringing existing lines with advanced conductors could double the current capacity of our transmission system in the near term, according to an April report on reconductoring by researchers at University of California, Berkeley, and the nonprofit GridLab. This approach avoids the costs and regulatory hurdles of new lines. The researchers calculated that "reconductoring projects typically cost less than half the price of new lines for similar capacity increases." Even new transmission would be cheaper, as stringing lighter lines requires fewer, less bulky towers.
A February companion working paper concludes that reconductoring existing rights-of-way "can rapidly and cost- effectively increase transmission capacity and unlock [renewable energy] on a US-wide scale," which would contribute over 80 percent of the new interzonal transmission needed to achieve over 90 percent of the federal government's clean electricity goals by 2035. The future of the U.S. electrical grid might hinge on these innovative solutions.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
These new wires will over-heat, sag, and start fires FAR less than the OLD wires! So we can NOT use the new wires, or the firefighter's unions will be upset!
The “premature retirement” of those power sources is largely because of federal efforts
=/=
cannot compete
Unless it is Gov-Gun’s competing.
In a [Na]tional So[zi]alist Empire ‘Guns’ against the people is always what it is all about.
...because the weather changes! /s
Like everything in America, getting rid of the democrats solves the problem.
One key GET is new high-voltage transmission lines capable of conducting up to three times as much electricity as conventional lines
Doesn’t matter if there isn’t enough generation to supply load.
And it also doesn’t matter if they cover the country with subsidized Chinese solar panels and wind farms. Renewables do nothing to increase grid stability.
Very true. If these ‘green activists’ were serious about a carbon free future, they would endorse the construction of a few hundred new nuclear power plants around the country.
It was in the early oughts when I talked with a transmission and substation engineer, who commented that transmission lines were required to carry power from all comers at the same non-market price. There was no business case for building new transmission lines, so none were being built.
.
Wouldn't carbon fiber burn if sufficiently heated?
Strictly speaking, yes. But but the aluminum would melt a lot sooner. Graphite is really hard to get burning.
Coal and natural gas are more reliable but they can't compete with massively subsidized wind and solar. That's a problem.
Ron Bailey 2015: Climate change is a real threat, but we can fix it with technology!
Zen Master Me: We'll see.
Weird that we're talking about power transmission when power generation is an even bigger problem. If you don't generate more power, it doesn't matter how much you could theoretically transmit.
The "premature retirement" of those power sources is largely because of federal efforts to drastically cut greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel plants to combat climate change. The result? Always-on coal and gas plants cannot compete with massively subsidized intermittent wind and solar power.
Of course, let's also not mention that EVs effectively exacerbate the problem from the load end as well, that they're being subsidized both directly *and indirectly*, and continue to pretend that they're just really popular.
"How Reliable Is America's Electrical Grid?"
Not very.
I talked to some techies, and they all agree our electrical grid is as fragile as a glass windowpane.
New technology like carbon core conductors is always welcome. It will be adopted if as good as it sounds and affordable. However, as others said, it won't help if the problem is generation capacity rather than transmission.
But the threat to reliability at issue today is caused by the state level renewable energy goals, causing premature retirements of non-renewable plants. That's easily cured. Simply move back the target dates of the goals, instead of 2030, target 2040 or 2050.
If there really is a crisis, it is 100% caused by politicians.
I will never take an environmentalist or climate change cultist seriously until they say the words, "We should build more nuclear power plants."
Until then, I know - with 100% certainty - that they're not being realistic about fossil fuels, green alternatives, or first world energy requirements.
The reason nuclear isn't being built is because no one wants it in their backyard. That may be for environmental reasons - but the reason is NIMBY.
It doesn’t have to be in anyone’s backyard. The coal plants aren’t. The oil refineries aren't. The natural gas plants aren’t. Heck, even the hydroelectric and wind/solar farms aren’t.
That’s a bogus argument. Just build the plants.
A few hundred nuclear power plants.
a large part of the growing challenge to electrical grid reliability stems from the “premature retirement of the dispatchable generators”…
The result? Always-on coal and gas plants cannot compete with massively subsidized intermittent wind and solar power.
This doesn’t compute. If the source is always-on, then it is not ‘dispatchable’.
More important – the transmission grid is the wrong priority to deploying either wind or solar. Those sources are location-specific and comparative advantage says move the energy consumers to those locations.
For wind that means the Great Plains – and that’s mostly it. There is no significant wind anywhere else but the wind potential on the Great Plains is 3-5x total current electric generation. That area was unsettled a century ago because too much wind. Get it? The wind is still there. It can’t be tapped into or the area settled because there is no north-south transport system.
Compare that wind potential map to the electric grid map There is no electric grid in the wind potential area. Because there are no people and no energy consuming industries etc. Moving the wind potential to somewhere else means accepting that that wind potential area should remain unpopulated and deindustrialized. Nuts
Or just build a bunch of nuclear power plants.
Dispatchable is a term of art in the industry. It refers to power sources that can be ramped up or down approximately instantly.
As to locating load near the source, large cities aren't going to migrate elsewhere any time soon. But discretionary loads such as data centers are in face being built near sources of generation.
face/fact
Sorry about that
The whole point of being able to ramp up and down instantly is to USE that as the advantage. Turn it into baseload and it isn't actually dispatchable anymore.
Don't need large cities to move. Need large energy consuming industries to move. The reason they don't now is because they can't get their goods to market or supplies to them. The interstates in that wind area are entirely east-west. If you look at a map to identify areas that are more than say 50 miles from interstate, then those areas are not part of interstate commerce. Which also means wind power there is not part of interstate commerce. Once there is a north-south interstate there, then the area is connected and people/industries/etc will make their decision to move. And the 'subsidy' for that power source changes because that power source is not being forced to finance the new transmission grid.
Solar power isn't any more renewable than gasoline, it just uses a different set of chemistry to produce it's energy.
I can't really figure out why people are claiming otherwise. Are they just unserious, or do they think solar panels are magic?
Honest question.
Honest answer:
Solar is said to be renewable because for our purposes the sun is an inexhaustible source of energy. It never runs down; you get as much tomorrow as you did yesterday, likewise a hundred years from now.
Wind, pretty much the same. There’s always more; not gonna use it up and find ourselves permanently in the doldrums. Why? Well, that cycle is also driven by the sun and the rotation of the planet, so it’s solar energy once removed.
Petroleum is said to be non-renewable because, when it’s burned to free up its energy for useful purposes, it’s gone. The cycle to turn carbon dioxide into plants into ooze into petroleum, coal, or natural gas is longer than human time scales.
Indeed the chemistry (physics) differs, but the referent for renewable energy is the energy itself, not the means of conversion.