Electric power in the US is provided by the electrical grid, a huge network of power plants, transmission lines, and transformers that moves electric power from where it's generated to where it's consumed.
An excellent overview of the topic of electrical interconnection queues.
A few additional points:
1) There is a huge difference between Capacity (the unit used in this article) and the actual amount of electricity generated. This is particularly true for renewable sources. This means that you cannot really compare generators in the queue with existing generators, which have far higher capacity factors.
2) Batteries do not actually generate electricity, so their capacity is very different from electrical generators. Batteries merely store electricity.
3) I think the shift to renewables is a big part of the problem with the increased wait time. It is far easier to connect and make modifications to the existing grid when you are trying to add on a single-point dispatchable electrical generator that is close to urban areas, such as natural gas, coal, or nuclear, than a widely-spread, geographically distant, and intermittent electrical generators, such as wind and solar.
4) The fact that solar is widely spread across the nation shows that much of this production is chasing government subsidies and mandates. Solar should be concentrated in regions of high solar radiance, such as the Southwest, not widely scattered across the states with much lower solar radiance.
I think your 4th point is partially true, but solar and solar+storage can still pencil in the midwest and NE without subsidies. Ideally we would build all solar in the sunniest areas only, where they of course make better economic sense, but transmission buildouts take even longer than interconnection requests, so we have to build closer to load.
No, it is absolutely not true that "solar and solar+storage can still pencil in the midwest and NE without subsidies" when you include system costs to the rest of the electrical grid. Without subsidies and mandates, none of this would be built in those regions.
Both options are far more expensive than natural gas in the Midwest and Northeast:
"Battery" isn't actually a power generation category, and 25% of the queue projects are pure battery storage systems. I would probably factor these out from the "expect to increase generation capacity by 50%" claim. However that's a quibble. As always, I learn a great deal when I read these articles. Thanks.
For better or worse energy storage is considered part of "generation" by basically everyone who tracks this. Batteries are classified as "generation" in the interconnection queue data, EIA considers things like pumped storage as part of generation capacity, etc. The main difference is that we're planning on building a lot more storage than we have historically.
It's not really useful to compare gas/coal/nuclear plants to solar or wind on the basis of capacity. Utility scale solar has a capacity factor (amt of power generated per year / the capacity per year) of under 30%, vs gas plants around 60% and nuclear around 90%. It's great that we are building new solar & wind, but lets not mistake capacity for production.
Additionally, batteries are not production capacity, they just complement solar by shifting excess power from noontime to early evening.
This is a good point re: capacity factors, I'll add some clarification to that effect. I've also added some clarification to how "generation" is used in the interconnection queue context ("generation" basically means anything that supplies power to the grid, and so includes batteries.)
What are the possibilities for going off grid to avoid the interconnection ques? Do you still have to deal with NEPA regulations for such projects?
Also how are other jurisdictions like the EU and Australia handling new renewables build out? In Australia, NSW sucks, SA is decent and WA focuses on big projects which make sure permitting process simpler.
One element not mentioned here is power generation without interconnect plans. Because the interconnect queue is so long and uncertain, big players wanting new data centers ASAP are building integrated solar/battery/data center sites that generate all the power they need and have little or no power exchange with the grid. That’s what I gather from casual conversation with an executive at a large solar builder.
I don’t know how common this pattern is or will be, but it’s possible that the growth in interconnection queues understates the amount of in-process generation capacity.
Does this include projects designed to backup the intermittent wind and solar, or are you seeing that battery projects are now doing that rather than gas plants? Or are the projects just overbuilding enough so backup may not be as much of an issue? Also, how do you think the Moss Landing fire will impact these projects (if at all)? Thank you for a fascinating article.
Does this include projects designed to backup the intermittent wind and solar, or are you seeing that battery projects are now doing that rather than gas plants? Or are the projects just overbuilding enough so backup may not be as much of an issue? Also, how do you think the Moss Landing fire will impact these projects (if at all)? Thank you for a fascinating article.
The "horizontal axis" and "vertical axis" for the figure "Interconnection queue project capacities" seems to have been swapped. (Original caption: "Number of projects in the interconnection queue (horizontal axis) by generation capacity in megawatts (vertical axis).")
Correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t Trump’s changes to permitting for solar and wind only apply to federal land - of which very little planned solar and wind capacity uses?
That would suggest it is more Trump virtue signaling than a move with real impact, but I could be wrong
On the other end of Trump's oil&gas friendly policies is the fact that oil is unprofitable if oil prices drop below ~$60/barrel. Trump can say "drill, drill, drill" but if oil companies can't make a profit, they'll say "Nope, we'll pass for now." They may even shut wells or go bankrupt; there's surprisingly little savings or staying power in the multi-billion dollar oil industry.
Solar, however has a bright future - pardon the pun. It's only getting more efficient over time, as well as the batteries to store the power. It can be put in more places, with the new practicality of Perovskite. Nothing Trump can do will slow down these trend too much, unless he gets outright ridiculous and imposes a tax on solar and wind that oil&gas don't have, or are even subsidized. Trump even wants to bring back coal, so it's possible to imagine him trying to do that just out of spite. But I think even the red states would object to that then. A lot of wind and solar is planned for those sunny, windy red states.
It’s unfortunate you chose to bin nuclear with “everything else”. An important question of policy is whether or not we should be building more nuclear than we are, and you decided to hide the fact that each nuclear project brings a much larger nameplate capacity to the table than is typical. Plus we get about 90% of that capacity delivered, compared to a typical 15-20% for solar. If this was an oversight, fine, if it was a ‘nudge’ then you should be ashamed of yourself.
The reality is that nuclear is a rounding error in planned generation capacity. There are currently around 4800 megawatts of planned nuclear generation capacity in the interconnection queue, or around 0.25% of total interconnection queue capacity.
I'm for getting more nuclear plants built, but as of today nuclear is an insignificant fraction of proposed generation projects.
An excellent overview of the topic of electrical interconnection queues.
A few additional points:
1) There is a huge difference between Capacity (the unit used in this article) and the actual amount of electricity generated. This is particularly true for renewable sources. This means that you cannot really compare generators in the queue with existing generators, which have far higher capacity factors.
2) Batteries do not actually generate electricity, so their capacity is very different from electrical generators. Batteries merely store electricity.
3) I think the shift to renewables is a big part of the problem with the increased wait time. It is far easier to connect and make modifications to the existing grid when you are trying to add on a single-point dispatchable electrical generator that is close to urban areas, such as natural gas, coal, or nuclear, than a widely-spread, geographically distant, and intermittent electrical generators, such as wind and solar.
4) The fact that solar is widely spread across the nation shows that much of this production is chasing government subsidies and mandates. Solar should be concentrated in regions of high solar radiance, such as the Southwest, not widely scattered across the states with much lower solar radiance.
Yep, I've added some clarification about capacity factors to try and make some of the comparisons more meaningful.
Thanks.
I find reader comments often lead to much-needed edits. I am glad that you agree.
And you might want to check out my Substack. It has 400+ articles on material progress:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/
I think your 4th point is partially true, but solar and solar+storage can still pencil in the midwest and NE without subsidies. Ideally we would build all solar in the sunniest areas only, where they of course make better economic sense, but transmission buildouts take even longer than interconnection requests, so we have to build closer to load.
No, it is absolutely not true that "solar and solar+storage can still pencil in the midwest and NE without subsidies" when you include system costs to the rest of the electrical grid. Without subsidies and mandates, none of this would be built in those regions.
Both options are far more expensive than natural gas in the Midwest and Northeast:
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-solar-cannot-displace-fossil
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/utility-scale-batteries-are-as-expensive
https://frompovertytoprogress.substack.com/p/why-progress-supporters-should-embrace
Glad our data was helpful in your analysis!
"Battery" isn't actually a power generation category, and 25% of the queue projects are pure battery storage systems. I would probably factor these out from the "expect to increase generation capacity by 50%" claim. However that's a quibble. As always, I learn a great deal when I read these articles. Thanks.
For better or worse energy storage is considered part of "generation" by basically everyone who tracks this. Batteries are classified as "generation" in the interconnection queue data, EIA considers things like pumped storage as part of generation capacity, etc. The main difference is that we're planning on building a lot more storage than we have historically.
It's not really useful to compare gas/coal/nuclear plants to solar or wind on the basis of capacity. Utility scale solar has a capacity factor (amt of power generated per year / the capacity per year) of under 30%, vs gas plants around 60% and nuclear around 90%. It's great that we are building new solar & wind, but lets not mistake capacity for production.
Additionally, batteries are not production capacity, they just complement solar by shifting excess power from noontime to early evening.
This is a good point re: capacity factors, I'll add some clarification to that effect. I've also added some clarification to how "generation" is used in the interconnection queue context ("generation" basically means anything that supplies power to the grid, and so includes batteries.)
Oregon always has lots of demand for power. All the hyperscalers want to have datacenters there due to cheap power generation.
Also true of the Midwest now
What are the possibilities for going off grid to avoid the interconnection ques? Do you still have to deal with NEPA regulations for such projects?
Also how are other jurisdictions like the EU and Australia handling new renewables build out? In Australia, NSW sucks, SA is decent and WA focuses on big projects which make sure permitting process simpler.
One element not mentioned here is power generation without interconnect plans. Because the interconnect queue is so long and uncertain, big players wanting new data centers ASAP are building integrated solar/battery/data center sites that generate all the power they need and have little or no power exchange with the grid. That’s what I gather from casual conversation with an executive at a large solar builder.
I don’t know how common this pattern is or will be, but it’s possible that the growth in interconnection queues understates the amount of in-process generation capacity.
Does this include projects designed to backup the intermittent wind and solar, or are you seeing that battery projects are now doing that rather than gas plants? Or are the projects just overbuilding enough so backup may not be as much of an issue? Also, how do you think the Moss Landing fire will impact these projects (if at all)? Thank you for a fascinating article.
Does this include projects designed to backup the intermittent wind and solar, or are you seeing that battery projects are now doing that rather than gas plants? Or are the projects just overbuilding enough so backup may not be as much of an issue? Also, how do you think the Moss Landing fire will impact these projects (if at all)? Thank you for a fascinating article.
Very nice... enjoyed this one..learned something.
The "horizontal axis" and "vertical axis" for the figure "Interconnection queue project capacities" seems to have been swapped. (Original caption: "Number of projects in the interconnection queue (horizontal axis) by generation capacity in megawatts (vertical axis).")
Brilliant post!
Correct me if I’m wrong, didn’t Trump’s changes to permitting for solar and wind only apply to federal land - of which very little planned solar and wind capacity uses?
That would suggest it is more Trump virtue signaling than a move with real impact, but I could be wrong
Such a good find on the interconnection.fyi...looking forward to checking that out. Also, that solar projects skew small could explain why transmission upgrades--specifically for withdrawn projects--are so expensive for solar (bc no economies of scale). https://www.therandomwalk.co/p/power-generation-is-fine-its-transmission
On the other end of Trump's oil&gas friendly policies is the fact that oil is unprofitable if oil prices drop below ~$60/barrel. Trump can say "drill, drill, drill" but if oil companies can't make a profit, they'll say "Nope, we'll pass for now." They may even shut wells or go bankrupt; there's surprisingly little savings or staying power in the multi-billion dollar oil industry.
Solar, however has a bright future - pardon the pun. It's only getting more efficient over time, as well as the batteries to store the power. It can be put in more places, with the new practicality of Perovskite. Nothing Trump can do will slow down these trend too much, unless he gets outright ridiculous and imposes a tax on solar and wind that oil&gas don't have, or are even subsidized. Trump even wants to bring back coal, so it's possible to imagine him trying to do that just out of spite. But I think even the red states would object to that then. A lot of wind and solar is planned for those sunny, windy red states.
It’s unfortunate you chose to bin nuclear with “everything else”. An important question of policy is whether or not we should be building more nuclear than we are, and you decided to hide the fact that each nuclear project brings a much larger nameplate capacity to the table than is typical. Plus we get about 90% of that capacity delivered, compared to a typical 15-20% for solar. If this was an oversight, fine, if it was a ‘nudge’ then you should be ashamed of yourself.
The reality is that nuclear is a rounding error in planned generation capacity. There are currently around 4800 megawatts of planned nuclear generation capacity in the interconnection queue, or around 0.25% of total interconnection queue capacity.
I'm for getting more nuclear plants built, but as of today nuclear is an insignificant fraction of proposed generation projects.