At a recent conference, a colleague from Chicago-based machine shop Bley LLC showed me pictures of the huge parts his team manufacturers. A gearbox front housing with torque arms, for instance, appeares over 6-ft in diameter. Main shafts are some 6-ft long and 2-ft in diameter with 5-ft diameter flanges on one end. Company manager Mike Milbratz says wind energy may be the only industry that needs parts at automotive cost and aerospace quality– inexpensive and high precision. His remark on quality also means wind turbine parts must be made or repaired by trained and skilled machinists. So how do you find such people?

“It’s a challenge,” he sighed. “If you know any send them over,” he added only half kidding. He explained that the most difficult positions to fill are for machine set-up tasks because of the years of experience needed. Milbratz says his shop keeps an almost permanent “help wanted” sign out. The situation is likely to worsen as older skilled labor begin to retire.

Deborah Picchione, HR manager for the Ohio region of machining firm Heroux Devtek echoes Milbratz comments, pointing out that the shortage for skilled metal machinists and manufacturing engineers is widespread. “Right now we have positions for manufacturing engineers, quality engineers, and lean manufacturing experts,” she says. All four of Picchione’s facilities carry on with unfilled skilled machining positions. In response, she keeps job ads on Career Builder, Monster.com, Linkedin, and other sites, and maintains contacts at nearby colleges and vocational schools.

Milbratz says his shop has a small training program to move people up the ranks, but a 60-person company cannot afford to train people in the basics. He relies on local community colleges for recruits, and hunts for talent at job fairs. Picchione says her company started an internship with computer-based training in CNC machining and print reading for new hires before they graduate to the shop floor and OJT. Starting salaries for people right out of a community college is about $15/hr, about $30,000/yr, and top out at least $27/hr. and above. Picchione points out that overtime, bonuses, tuition reimbursement, and benefits make a six-figure income possible.

So why in an era of over 9% unemployment (and probably more) does a career with decent pay, almost guaranteed employment, and respect, go begging for workers? There are several theories. One is that the skilled trades are not promoted in schools anymore. In the ‘60s and ‘70s, high schools had machine and metal shops along with drafting classes. These are mostly gone. The emphasis is on college. Those who do graduate from vocational schools snatched up quickly or do not stay with the trade. Maybe kids don’t want to get their hands dirty? Maybe they don’t realize the machine tool is a computer peripheral, and although the job can get dirty, it’s a lot cleaner than it once was?

The obvious solution to the shortage is to once again promote the trades in high school because not everyone is meant for college. Most students don’t know such a career exists. And tell girls, too. One HR manager says her most productive machinist is a woman.

Dean Kamen, a prolific inventor, observed that we get what we celebrate. This nation celebrates sports and entertainment figures, so there is great interest those careers. The irony is that none of them would be possible if someone had not first manufactured the equipment and TVs that bring sporting events and entertainment into our homes. Manufacturing creates wealth and it is part of the bedrock of the economy. If it goes away, kiss the “recovery” goodbye.

Paul Dvorak
pdvorak@wtwhmedia.com

How many of you are raising your children to be truck drivers?” a speaker asked at a recent AWEA conference. No one raised their hand. “This is partially why there will be a shortage of skilled drivers,” he teased. The other reasons he suggested were that this lifestyle is not attractive to young people today who are looking for more of a white collar way of life which rewards them financially and affords them a homelife that driving a truck does not. Others followed Doug Miller, VP of Operations for Lone Star Transportation LLC, detailing the frequent challenges of delivering large heavy loads in the wind industry. To make the work more difficult, such loads are growing larger and heavier with multi-megawatt turbines.

Railroads seem the ideal way to move huge and heavy goods, but even these are hampered by turns too tight for long loads, such as blades, and a few tunnels too small for the 12.5-ft wide nacelles. Here’s what else that keeps logistic directors up at night as they struggle to get turbines and towers to sites on time, and how OEMs are responding to their boat-in-the-basement problem.

Trouble with trucking
Before a driver even starts a diesel to deliver a turbine, a detailed logistics plan must be laid out. Inexperienced planners have a habit of overlooking this detail until the end of the project. Trucking managers warn that it can take months to formulate. In a nutshell, the plan involves assigning lots of specialized and expensive equipment, filing for and receiving permits from several states, and then finding drivers and support personnel.

The Schnabel trailer, built by Trail King Industries (trailking.com) shows the complexity of equipment needed to haul large wind turbine towers. The $300,000 trailer is intended only for moving large base and lower-mid tower sections. Trailer sections attach to opposite ends of the tower.

And consider this: moving just one complete turbine takes 9 to 10 trucks, most of which are specialized trailers. Different trailers are needed for the nacelle, blades, and towers. Lone Star Transportation’s (LoneStar-LLC.com) Doug Miller says hauling nacelles and tower sections require equipment that cost up to $425,000 or more. For instance, three vehicles are needed to move each blade set, one specialized trailer moves the nacelle, and up to four specialized trailers transport tower sections. In some cases, the latter group requires even more specialized rigs, called Schnables. These trailers are used as the diameter of the tower increases and to lower the transport’s overall height to obtain more direct permitted routes. Generally, the smaller sections, ship on more conventional specialized trailers. Finally, one or two more trailers are often needed for other smaller components.

Let’s keep counting. Depending on the distance the components are transported over, delivering six turbines per week could requires up to six or more trailers and rigs, plus 18 ore more blade trailers. So a trucking company may have $12 to 13 million tied up in assets. “Furthermore, that shipment calls for 54 drivers to lead the glamorless life style I described, not to mention support equipment such as escorts, pilot cars, and others needed for a safe delivery,” says Miller.

As a specialized 48-state carrier over irregular routes, the complaint Miller hears most often from drivers is short home time and not enough money. “The two don’t go together because spending time at home means you can’t make money. You cannot fix the monetary compensation without raising costs for everyone else. We have to balance that problem if we want an industry to attract people.”

Logistic Director at Suzlon (suzlon.com) Gary Kowaleski also recognizes the trucking problem and highlights a few more details that OEMs and wind farm developers should appreciate. For instance, the drivers that move super loads are the more senior drivers and few younger drivers are moving up to replace retirees. An average truck driver salary is about $40,000/yr, and tops out at about $60,000.

To make matters worse, rules and regulations are changing with respect to work hours. Lone Star’s Miller says a driver can work 70 hrs in eight days under current regulations. That person can spend 14 total hours working on the job in the course of a day, 11 of which may be spent behind the wheel.

Proposed regulations also say drivers can work 70 hrs in eight days, but a daily total cannot exceed 13 hours, with 10 behind the wheel, and two mandated 30-min. breaks. “On the surface, the new rules are not too bad. But this industry is over-dimensional so it is already restricted by curfews in metro areas,” says Miller. “So an average day actually runs from about 9 am to 3 pm because you only drive in daylight hours. Factor in the new deal with two 30-minute breaks and drive times drop to five hours or less each day. So this regulation will be detrimental. All it does is require us to buy more equipment and hire more people because of the short cycles.”

On the plus side, a recent standard from the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) shows some promise. “It’s probably the best measurement tool we have in the industry,” says Miller. “It will weed out some bottom feeders that don’t do the job right. But it needs some refining and tweaking.” For example, he says, a measurement system puts companies into peer groups. Lone Star is a specialized carrier, but the FMCSA groups it with van carriers that have the same population of trucks or drivers. “We operate 1,000 special trucks while JB Hunt, for instance, operates 1,000 vans. But we are graded the same. That makes no sense.”

Likewise, the points assessed for violations needs adjusting. “For instance, a driver involved in a fatal accident is assessed a violation of two points. But if an inspector find a frayed strap or securement device, the company is assessed a penalty of ten pts. “It seems the fatality should carry a lot more weight or point value than a frayed strap. So the point system also needs an adjustment,” he adds.

The nacelle arrives at a wind farm on a 13-axel rig operated by Lone Star Transportation. Almost each part of a wind turbine requires specialized equipment for transport.

In port Keeping up with advances in the wind industry is one challenge ports face. They must foresee what cargo will be offloaded and provide storage for it, as well as infrastructure that gets cargo to a final destination. “That means anticipating changes that might take place, such as how wind industry loads influence port facilities,” says Alastair Smith, Senior Director of Marketing Operations for the Port of Vancouver, Wash. For example, in 1999 turbines were mostly 660-kW units and weighed about 19 metric tons (1 metric ton = 1,000 kg or 2,200 lb). “Now we handle nacelles that weigh about 90 metric tons and some manufacturers hint they could be up to 132 metric tons in the near future,” says Smith. “So we’ve had to make sure we have the capability to handle those.”

One rising issue is having enough space to handle large components. For ports, it’s not a matter of handling a single construction project, but balancing multiple projects at one time. For example, Smith finds turbine shipments are frequent in a year’s first quarter. But construction firms don’t get access to wind farms until second quarters. Hence, the port has to stockpile a lot of material prior to construction firms taking stuff out. “Construction companies want the turbines all in one place when they get access into wind-farm sites. Then they want components delivered at a steady pace.”

Smith says his team allocates acreage for all projects and ensures that if they do not have enough acreage available, they will develop more. This year, the port developed 25 acres and will add 24 more.

With regard to costs, most shipping charges do not come from ports. Smith says the Port of Vancouver has an advantage over others in that it has the best access to about five major areas in the U.S. where wind is growing: Pacific NW, California, Colorado, Texas, and Upper Midwest. “The transit time from Asia, where a lot of towers are made, to the West Coast is about 15 days. “Taking a shipment to a Gulf port would take 30 days, so the port has a 15 day advantage,” he explains. Cost estimates for the extra 15 days include the vessel charter rate, fuel consumed, and fees for going thru the Panama Canal. Thus, the charter rate for a vessel can be $25,000/day for an extra $375,000. Fuel cost is close to another $225,000. Then add $100,000 for the canal.

Wind on the rails
A few OEMs have addressed their logistics problems in part by locating factories on the Great Plains. From there, shipping by rail across the relatively flat expanse is less problematic than over mountains. However, although railroads are generally considered more efficient than trucks, a few tunnels in the East and West are too small.

Wide nacelles are problematic because tunnels and tight mountain turns are a constraint on rail shipping. For instance, if turbines must be transported through some parts of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Maryland, the 13-ft max width drops due to smaller tunnels and tight turns. Long blades, 55m and more, are also difficult to transport through some tunnels.

Railroad limitations also fall into structural and operational categories. Structural limitations refer to loads that cannot exceed the 13-ft width. Flatbed rail cars are 10 ft 8-in.wide, so nacelles can exceed that by a small margin, but 12.5 ft is about max. Width is so critical that trains with wide loads cannot pass each other on adjacent tracks.

Unit trains are generally least expensive to operate. These have much the same freight, such as all turbine components. To haul such equipment, private companies such as Kasgro Rail (kasgro.com) and TTX (ttx.com) have built and own most of the about 400 8-axel cars capable of 400,000 lbs or 200 tons. The car owners would like to keep that stock busy.

At times, it has taken days to unload trains because of limited storage, or the construction firm is not ready for the equipment. Offloading a train at a spur requires a crane hired by a third-party logistics operator.

Unit trains have a few challenges. For instance, a train of nacelles might exceed the design rating of some bridges, an evaluation that calls for limiting a load per distance. Railroads get under the limit by putting an empty car, a spacer, between each 8-axel flat bed. Hence a 25-nacelle train would require 25 spacer cars if it must use an older bridge.

As with other transport companies, railroads would like advanced notice to plan big shipments and involvement in the development of new turbines. GE, for example, had the foresight to consult with CSX while designing its 2.5-MW turbine which the company manufacturers in Florida. The company involved the railroad in 2009 when work began and shipments now proceed without difficulty.

A few solutions
Almost every transportation representative sees solutions to logistics problems. For example, all agree it’s a good idea to partner with your shipper. Lone Star’s Miller says his company would like to act as a transportation consultant. “We ask, ‘can your components become modular?’ If so, what does that do you for the reassembly tasks? And, can sourcing and suppliers be more localized? Also, we suggest opposing regulation changes and support lifting other restrictions we face with respect to over dimension loads.”

Miller says his company would rather spread its assets around and do more projects with less equipment per project by having other transportation modes such as rail bring components close to the site and let his trucks work the last few miles. “That would let us put one truck on site instead of six. Then I can assign the remaining five to other projects. We work with other modes of transport because we know one carrier can not do it all. Strategic partnerships are a huge part of this business.”

This year, the port of Vancouver Washington allocated 70 acres just for wind energy. It takes about one acre to park about six towers (24 sections) with room between to effectively move trucks and trailers. Two years ago the port purchased Terminal 5, which adds 100 acres for project cargo, enough for 600 tower sections.

Energy Transportation Inc. Business Developer and Logistics Manager Shelli Short (energytran.com) says her company found a successful and similar strategy in building a large flat gravel lot near a rail spur chosen because it’s within 200 mi of several wind farms. The lot is intended to hold large parts that will be trucked the final leg to sites. She reports that the strategy has been working well. Short also suggests that country-wide permitting for transports would be a good place to start fixing the problem of turbine shipping and its expenses. Each state differs in planning, permits, and costs, and some charge up to $50,000 for the permit alone.
Maintaining nacelle sizes and weights will allow fitting new turbine designs on existing 13-axel trailers, equipment acceptable in most states. But if nacelle weight exceeds 165,000 lb, 19-axel trailer might be an option, while actual transport and timing becomes a research project. Suzlon’s Kowaleski says designers at OEMs are listening. “For example, Suzlon recognized an opportunity to expand its existing tower line from an 80-m design to include 90 and 100 m. There were no difficulties with the 80-m tower relative to transport, but two years later, a 90-m tower design was introduced which could be manufactured at our supplier in Mexico. However, it would not have been possible to transport it by rail to North America due to a wide base diameter that could not have passed over a particular bridge. During the design of the 100-m tower, transport details were requested and supplied to engineering relative to North America logistics. When the design for the 100-m tower arrived, we saw it had the same base diameter as the 80-m unit, which made our 100-m unit viable for rail transport from Mexico. The OEM engineering team is listening.”

If OEMs don’t listen to the logistics people, things can get messy. For example, a construction manager recently explained that if a load at a rail stop is too heavy for one truck, as with one recent nacelle, they’ll take pieces and parts off until it’s under a weight limit. Just keep the reassembly manuals handy.

WPE

You have to admit that Congress has a lot on its plate right now with three wars and an economic mess, so expecting it to pass a national energy policy is a bit much. However, defining and financing such an enormous project should be the centerpiece of the next administration. At this time, both sides are in campaign mode. Hence, useful activity or new legislation will have to wait.

So in the spirit of public service, let’s suggest to all political parties that at least one plank in their platform consist of a national policy of energy independence, part of which will be a national renewable-energy standard, or NRES. Of course this should have been done a few administrations ago, but there is no time like the present.

A sustainable energy program for the U.S. would be an enduring and predictable energy policy, one that lets businesses make long-term plans. According to many C-level people at the recent AWEA Windpower 2011 show, the big industry problem is that no such energy policy exists. With at least a 10-year plan, turbine OEMs, financial institutions, utilities, and community leaders would have a guide to the future.

There will be costs to power purchasers no matter which way the nation turns in a quest for more energy. Ralf Sigrist, President and CEO of Nordex USA Inc. points out that costs in fossil fuels are more expensive than $0.053/kWh (a national average)because costs are often hidden. They include current costs, future costs, and socio-environmental costs. The Environmental Law Institute has calculated $70 billion in subsidies for fossil fuels in the period of 2002 to 2008, in the form of tax breaks, direct spending, and even health-care costs such as the treatment of black lung disease for coal miners.

Canada also provides ideas. Its economy has been growing at a relatively brisk 3.9% clip according to online reports. (The U.S. economy grew at 1.8% for Q1-2011 according to tradingeconomics.com.) Rakesh Naidu, a director with the Windsor-Essex Economic Development Corp. says feed in tariffs have worked well in Ontario making it the growth leader among Canadian provinces. The FIT provides varying payouts to home owners, businesses, and utilities for the size and type of renewable-energy equipment they choose. Furthermore, CanWEA says that each 100 MW of wind power represents a minimum of 100 jobs, $2.5 million in private investment, and $300,000 in revenue to municipal governments in the form of taxes and an equal amount to rural landowners in lease payments.

So what should go into a national policy? Start with three points: a goal, a timeframe, and conditions. The goal: 20% electric power from renewable energy and energy independence. The time frame: By 2030, because it’s doable. Conditions: An end to cash grants by 2013 along with an end to tax deductions to other energy companies and an extension of the Production Tax Credit for 10 years. Such credits reward action.

The time is right for wind power. The overall mechanical and electrical equipment is maturing to where turbines now stabilize the grid. Blades are getting longer so that several manufacturers have announced 2.4 to 3-MW machines ready for Class II winds, those with lower speeds found well away from the sweet spots in the Great Plains. With reliability rising, positive trends are bound to continue so that in five years the turbines going up will be more profitable than those working today. To not encourage development of wind power with a national RES borders on neglect, inaction that has contributed to the current economic mess.

Paul Dvorak
pdvorak@wtwhmedia.com

Will a disruptive idea upset wind’s status quo?

Evolution in nature and technology play out much the same way: After periods of relative calm, something comes along to shake things up so that the biology or industry segment gets a radical shift. Then things calm down for a while. Anthropologists use something close to an “S” curve to show the activity versus time. If you lived through the computer revolution you saw an example of a disruptive invention at work. For instance recall how the early computer-assisted drawing software quickly pushed drawing boards aside. Wide format printers, 20 in. and more, jostled for work beside the new office computers. The following decade saw the PC rise to push out the Unix-based workstations, and then become commodity products. Competition in computers has since calmed down, and the battle – if you can call it that – has moved to cell phones.

Developments in wind technology hint to the end of a calm period. For instance, the conventional design for the last decade has been a horizontal axis with a three-blade rotor on at least a 60-m tower. Inside the nacelle, a gearbox speeds main-shaft rotation about 100 fold to drive an induction generator. You now see design ideas shifting away from problematic gearboxes to direct drive units with minor weight saving. What’s more, profits from conventional technology are skimpy and only show positive because of the production tax credit, a gift of encouragement from the government to wind farm owners.

The setting is just about right for some out-of-the-box thinking to come along and reshape the face of the wind industry. After the recent show in Dallas, you might predict the death of the gearbox. That would be disruptive for companies working to make gearboxes more reliable. Superconducting generators, smaller and lighter than conventional generators and in a variety of sizes, might let owners refit gear-driven fleets as direct-drive units. Or possibly someone is on the verge of finding a way to make inexpensive permanent magnets, which could be disruptive for manufacturers of induction generators.

Turbines that need no towers could be disruptive. Magenn’s helium-filled rotor is one such design. Its developer intends for it to float more than 1,000 ft up where winds are strong and steady.

Or what about a wind-powered generator without the conventional generator or rotor? One with no rotating parts at all? Accio Energy, Ann Arbor, Mich., claims to be building such a device. The company says wind blowing across its engineered tubing somehow separates electrical charges to create electricity, and generate about 1 kW from 640 in. of tube. The company says it’s well within the manufacturing capability of many idle auto plants and can be manufactured in a variety of shapes for about a penny per inch. A company spokesman says to watch for a demo next year, a pilot project the year after, and commercial sales after that.

Like I said, I don’t know where the next big change is coming from, but it’s coming.

Paul Dvorak

Last year was good for the wind industry as it added almost 40% more capacity. That’s 9,000 more MW and a remarkable feat. But don’t look for a repeat this year or the next unless legislation somehow speeds the painfully slow expansion and improvements to the transmission grid. It soon won’t matter how many turbines get installed because their power will have no way to get where it’s needed.

Expanding and shoring up the infrastructure is absolutely essential against the background of projections saying the nation will need some 50% more power by 2050. And updating the grid is not as simple as erecting towers and stringing high-power lines. Right-of-ways to reach new wind plants will pass through many communities and each deserves a say in the matter.

The grid-as-a-bottleneck problem has been brewing for some time. The most widely reported red flag was raised by T. Boone’s Mesa Power Group. A few years ago, the renewable energy company had ordered 667 wind turbines for a planned 1,000-MW wind farm in the Texas panhandle, but lack of transmission lines switched the project off. Without new lines, there is no way to get power to customers in Austin, Dallas, or Houston. And without an updated grid, kiss goodbye the Renewable Electricity Standard’s goal of 20% renewable energy by 2020.

A 2005 DOE report noted that some 70% of the 164,000 miles of U.S. transmission lines are at least 25 years old. Also, if lines are to stretch hundreds of miles, it’s vital that they work at high voltages to minimize losses. Yet there are few miles of the more-efficient 765-kV lines in the U.S, and probably only a few hundred miles of 345-kV lines, a 1950s capability.

The U.S. isn’t alone with this problem. China’s wind-power capacity hit 1.2 GW in 2005 and a whopping 12.2 GW just three years later. But according to one report, about 30% of the capacity sits idle and aging because there is no connection to the country’s transmission grid.

On the upside, if wind-plant owners can provide abundant low-cost electricity in their vicinity, new companies that rely on cheap energy might be encouraged to set up shop nearby. One plan, for instance, is to use the Midwest’s abundant wind power to make anhydrous ammonia, a fertilizer, and with process tweaks, possibly an auto fuel.

On the downside, power outages and loss of power quality cost the economy from $25 billion to $185 billion annually, according to the DOE. Economic consultants at the Brattle Group predict that the electricity industry will need to pour almost $300 billion into the transmission grid over the next 20 years to meet increased demands for energy and the production capacity to meet it.

Who will pay for the upgrade? We all will in one way or another. But if demand outstrips generating capacity, brownouts on the scale of the Northeast blackout of 2003 could be frequently recurring events. WPE

Paul Dvorak

The headline here presents the simple goal for a Renewable Electricity Standard or RES, one echoed by the American Wind Energy Association and to some extent, 29 state governors. There is, however, only one tiny problem with the RES: It is not yet national policy.

About a year ago, five CEOs from wind-industry manufacturers sat on a stage at WINDPOWER 2009 and in the course of a Q&A, frequently remarked that a national policy, an RES, was one piece of legislation that would provide a solid target for the wind industry. Since then, Washington has dithered with issues it deems more important than a vibrant economy and energy independence.

The 29 governors have proposed their own RES and to the White House. Their targets in a nutshell are 20% renewable power by 2020, new transmission lines, streamlined permitting for offshore installations, and energy conservation.

Despite tepid objections by some, conservation will have to be part of an RES. It makes no sense to encourage production without encouraging wise use of energy. Conservation levels have been added to many state RES goals because some believe its projects (new furnaces, A/C units, and insulation) means more jobs than adding renewable energy alone.

Debates in Washington on targets, time frames, and how to encourage conservation have made the goal of a national standard elusive. The House passed a bill last year with a 20% requirement by 2020. A Senate bill: 15% by 2021. The prospects of a national RES dim further when a recent report found a large percent of RE funds going to foreign companies.

“We’ve had too much stop-and-go government policy,” said Wesley Clark, VP Director at EMergya Wind Technologies at Windpower 2009. “We need to stabilize policy through the period that the renewable energy standard is passed into law, and keep the capital markets stable for four to six years. We will, in all likelihood, be spending more on electricity in the long run if we don’t act now and enact enhanced renewable portfolio standards and take more aggressive action on energy efficiency.”

Federal assistance for new industries is not new. President Lincoln recognized the value of a connected nation and so funded the transcontinental railroad. The nation benefited greatly from the Federally funded space race, and commerce was unharmed by the interstate highway system. Why treat the great potential in the relatively new wind industry differently?

President Kennedy stated the most famous clear and simple goal: Put a man on the moon and return him safely to earth by the end of the decade. It’s time for another president to state a clear and simple goal that will kick off another national effort, one for energy independence and a vibrant economy. WPE

Paul Dvorak

Editor

Last year was good for the wind industry as it added almost 40% more
capacity. That’s 9,000 more MW and a remarkable feat. But don’t look for a
repeat this year or the next unless legislation somehow speeds the painfully slow expansion and improvements to the transmission grid. It soon won’t matter how many turbines get installed because their power will have no way to get where it’s needed.

Expanding and shoring up the infrastructure is absolutely essential against the background of projections saying the nation will need some 50% more power by 2050. And updating the grid is not as simple as erecting towers and stringing high-power lines. Right-of-ways to reach new wind plants will pass through many communities and each deserves a say in the matter.

The grid-as-a-bottleneck problem has been brewing for some time. The most widely reported red flag was raised by T. Boone’s Mesa Power Group. A few years ago, the renewable energy company had ordered 667 wind turbines for a planned 1,000-MW wind farm in the Texas panhandle, but lack of transmission lines switched the project off. Without new lines, there is no way to get power to customers in Austin, Dallas, or Houston. And without an updated grid, kiss goodbye the Renewable Electricity Standard’s goal of 20% renewable energy by 2020.

A 2005 DOE report noted that some 70% of the 164,000 miles of U.S. transmission lines are at least 25 years old. Also, if lines are to stretch hundreds of miles, it’s vital that they work at high voltages to minimize losses. Yet there are few miles of the more-efficient 765-kV lines in the U.S, and probably only a few hundred miles of 345-kV lines, a 1950s capability.

The U.S. isn’t alone with this problem. China’s wind-power capacity hit 1.2 GW in 2005 and a whopping 12.2 GW just three years later. But according to one report, about 30% of the capacity sits idle and aging because there is no connection to the country’s transmission grid.

On the upside, if wind-plant owners can provide abundant low-cost electricity in their vicinity, new companies that rely on cheap energy might be encouraged to set up shop nearby. One plan, for instance, is to use the Midwest’s abundant wind power to make anhydrous ammonia, a fertilizer, and with process tweaks, possibly an auto fuel.

On the downside, power outages and loss of power quality cost the economy from $25 billion to $185 billion annually, according to the DOE. Economic consultants at the Brattle Group predict that the electricity industry will need to pour almost $300 billion into the transmission grid over the next 20 years to meet increased demands for energy and the production capacity to meet it.

Who will pay for the upgrade? We all will in one way or another. But if demand outstrips generating capacity, brownouts on the scale of the Northeast blackout of 2003 could be frequently recurring events. WPE

Paul Dvorak