US Regulators Approve Rule That Could Speed Renewables (npr.org) 23
Longtime Slashdot reader necro81 writes: The U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), which controls interstate energy infrastructure, approved a rule Monday that should boost new transmission infrastructure and make it easier to connect renewable energy projects. (More coverage here, here, and here.)
Some 11,000 projects totaling 2,600 GW of capacity are in planning, waiting to break ground, or connect to the grid. But they're stymied by the need for costly upgrades, or simply waiting for review. The frustrations are many. Each proposed project undergoes a lengthy grid-impact study and assessed the cost of necessary upgrades. Each project is considered in isolation, regardless of whether similar projects are happening nearby that could share the upgrade costs or auger different improvements. The planning process tends to be reactive -- examining only the applications in front of them -- rather than considering trends over the coming years. It's a first-come, first-served queue: if one project is ready to break ground, it must wait behind another project that's still securing funding or permitting.
Two years in development, the dryly-named Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements directs utility operators to plan infrastructure improvements with a 20-yr forecast of new energy sources and increased demand. Rather than examining each project in isolation, similar projects will be clustered and examined together. Instead of a First-Come, First-Served serial process, operators will instead examine First-Ready, allowing shovel-ready projects to jump the queue. The expectation is that these new rules will speed up and streamline the process of developing and connecting new energy projects through more holistic planning, penalties for delays, sensible cost-sharing for upgrades, and justification for long-term investments.
Some 11,000 projects totaling 2,600 GW of capacity are in planning, waiting to break ground, or connect to the grid. But they're stymied by the need for costly upgrades, or simply waiting for review. The frustrations are many. Each proposed project undergoes a lengthy grid-impact study and assessed the cost of necessary upgrades. Each project is considered in isolation, regardless of whether similar projects are happening nearby that could share the upgrade costs or auger different improvements. The planning process tends to be reactive -- examining only the applications in front of them -- rather than considering trends over the coming years. It's a first-come, first-served queue: if one project is ready to break ground, it must wait behind another project that's still securing funding or permitting.
Two years in development, the dryly-named Improvements to Generator Interconnection Procedures and Agreements directs utility operators to plan infrastructure improvements with a 20-yr forecast of new energy sources and increased demand. Rather than examining each project in isolation, similar projects will be clustered and examined together. Instead of a First-Come, First-Served serial process, operators will instead examine First-Ready, allowing shovel-ready projects to jump the queue. The expectation is that these new rules will speed up and streamline the process of developing and connecting new energy projects through more holistic planning, penalties for delays, sensible cost-sharing for upgrades, and justification for long-term investments.
This is good news. (Score:5, Informative)
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/16... [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
But, yes, it's an excellent piece of reporting on a frustrating but abstruse process that's holding things back. Now, hopefully, the way forward will be easier.
Re: (Score:3)
I mean they are doing some stuff. I agree that I would like to see more but there is some good news still:
Biden-Harris Administration Takes Action to Secure Nuclear Fuel Supply Chain, Equip Revitalized Domestic Nuclear Industry for the Future [energy.gov]
DOE Study Finds Replacing Coal Plants with Nuclear Plants Could Bring Hundreds More Local Jobs and Millions in Added Income and Revenue to Energy Communities [energy.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
So, than trying to lay it out straight to the voters on what needs to be done they play this game of easing everyone into supporting nuclear power. An energy policy that the opposition party, the Republicans, has held for more than 50 years.
Maybe but they haven't really done squat to further that despite controlling the branches more than 50% of the time in those past 50 years and really they've only piped up about it as a counter to pretend like they have a solution. From where I am siting their position looks performative at best.
We didn't pass any infrasture bills for like two decades and the IRA was the first of it's kind with climate change specifically in mind. Yeah we all want progress faster but that implies a political belief in the
Re: (Score:2)
These people have no intentions on lowering CO2 emissions, because by doing so they'd have to make some unpopular decisions.
Are you seriously suggesting that investing in renewables is the popular decision in the US?
Re: (Score:2)
That could be true and all but this is politics and that means passing what you can pass and getting what you can get. At the end of the day the Biden admin has in fat passed more grid and more nuclear reforms and aid then Trump or Obama or Bush or even Clinton all probably combined so that's a good start to me. Rarely if ever do we get perfect legislation.
Also nuclear advocacy orgs seem to support the tax breaks passed as well.
https://nuclearinnovationallia... [nuclearinn...liance.org]
Maybe you're right, you make this point ever
Re:No mention of nuclear fission? Still not seriou (Score:4, Insightful)
Be nice if we could build them without billions in cost overruns. Regardless, renewables can still build out in 1/5th the time, for 1/5th the costs, and we can be reaping the benefits while waiting for a singe nuke to come online.
Build centralized along with HVDC interconnects so that it's easy to shift power around to where its needed, when its needed.
Re:No mention of nuclear fission? Still not seriou (Score:4, Informative)
when they can bring themselves to mention nuclear fission as part of the energy plan
That's not their job. FERC works on transmission of energy. That's electrical, oil, and gas. Where those come from isn't their department. Hence the reason why FERC is being mentioned here. The rules are about the review of transmission lines.
But FERC is part of the Department of Energy. Who you want to speak to is the Office of Nuclear Energy within the DoE or you can direct some of your comments to the US NRC.
But FERC has nothing to do with nuclear. Everything to do with power transmission and "THE GRID" so to say.
Re: (Score:2)
It must be real hard to find solutions to a problem when the most obvious one is ruled out for bullshit reasons
Also wanted to address this. It's up to the private sector to build the reactors. We don't have a state nuclear program, we have state nuclear regulations, but we don't have a national program for domestic nuclear energy. And lots of investors have left the sector mostly because you can build something around 36 GWh renewable for the cost of 1 GWhe nuclear. Even getting rid of some of "the most burdensome" regulatory processes:
One, wouldn't be easy because nuclear regulation is special than all the oth
Re:No mention of nuclear fission? Still not seriou (Score:4, Informative)
The Barakah nuclear power reactors were built in 9 years, Vogtle units 3 & 4 were built in 10 years.
LOL. You think any project starts at the ground breaking ceremony? Construction is only a part of the time taken for a nuclear power project. Why not read up on these projects. Vogtle Unit 3 and 4 took 18 years from inception to power.
You can't just cherry pick the middle of the project and call it done.
Let's say I give you permission tomorrow to break ground on a nuclear power plant. What are you going to do, get a shovel? Or spend several years doing pre-FEED and FEED for an actual project - an important part that normally define the success of a project, because god knows you're not going to pick up a phone and have thousands of people on site tomorrow with heavy equipment digging.
Ground breaking occurs typically 1/3rd or 1/2 of the way into a project. You're only quoting 1/2 the time needed to actually build something.
Biden tariff jump could slam renewables to a halt. (Score:1, Offtopic)
Meanwhile, as of last Tuesday, Biden has imposed or raised tariffs on solar panels, aluminum and steel for them, batteries, electronics, etc..
* Solar cells and panels: Raised from 25% to 50% in 2024
* Aluminum/steel: From 7.5% to 25% in 2924
* Lithium batteries and battery components (e.g. Battery Management Systems.) From 7.5% to 25%: in 2024 for EV batteries, 206 for others (e.g. Solar system storage). Of course some cell types are dual-use so bare cells will be assumed to be "f
Tariff typos: (Score:2)
Tariff typos:
* Aluminum/steel: From 7.5% to 25% in 2924... 2024 of course.
* Lithium batteries and battery components... 206 for others (e.g. Solar system storage).... 2026
Re: (Score:2)
What can it achieve in 6 months? (Score:1)
No doubt whatever positive impact this has will be undone after the election.
Re: (Score:3)
you're not wrong... but there is still the Administrative Procedures Act which requires that one can't just reverse policies immediately [not that I'd see Trump not trying], and that policies [or policy changes] can't be "arbitrary or capricious" [not my words, but rather the law itself]. This is why a) in Trump's last months he rammed through a bunch of regulations, and b) Biden had to spend over a year slowly undoing them.
Re: (Score:2)
"Immediately" is not the issue for projects with 30 year lifespans and many years ROI. Investments in renewables in the USA is largely lagging other western nations because of uncertainty. That is it. You can't plan a wind farm if one administration's hot hard-on is the next administration's hateboner.
That's not me saying this by the way. That's the industry itself. We talk about why there's no Chinese cars in America but plenty in Europe, the answer was BYD's executive has said there's way too much regulat
streamlining (Score:2)
Glad to see Biden streamlining the road to hell. There is a reason all those hoops have to be jumped through.
In addition, the environmental quality hoops are going to be waived in the interests of environmental quality.
Re: (Score:3)
Hope someone bombs your oversize pickup with rolling coal.