Experts say that intelligent alternative energy strategies could save nations from dependence on foreign oil, and this is particularly true in America, where the most recent oil crisis had critics arguing that paying for Saudi oil was "bankrolling terrorism".

 The argument remains valid even at $50-per-barrel oil. Unfortunately, in the United States, many large alternative energy propositions face one significant hurdle; no transmission. This is true from the vast deserts of California to the windswept plains of Montana, Wyoming and Colorado.

Some companies have their transmission strategies in place, like Solel's 553-megawatt Mojave Solar Park, which plans to use transmission created for the now-defunct, coal-fired Mojave Generation Station. Others face the hurdles the Sunrise Powerlink project is going through. This $1.5-billion transmission line, which would be funded  solely by taxpayers, is currently getting heat from the Center for Biological Diversity, which argues that the 123-mile line from the Imperial Valley to San Diego did not account for, or mitigate, environmental impacts. Taxpayers are adding their voice, less out of environmental concerns perhaps than concern for their pocketbooks, already stressed by the United States economic crisis, which seems to have targeted California.

Alternative energy hopefuls are now turning to the $825-billion stimulus package, formally known as the American Recovery and Reinvestment Bill of 2009. This package provides $32 billion for energy infrastructure updates, namely transmission and distribution lines and power plants.

Critics argue that this modest 17 percent of the overall package won't do nearly enough to provide the electricity lines needed to expand alternative energy. I disagree. At roughly $2 billion per line, this proposal would provide 16 major transmission lines throughout the American West to transfer energy from such distant locations as Judith Gap, Montana to such huge American cities as New York, Pittsburgh and Chicago.

The same need applies across the country. The places best suited for solar plants or wind farms are often distant from the nation's population centers. A prime example is the historic Lake Benton Wind project, also known as Buffalo Ridge, which required transmission upgrades - at ratepayer expense - to deliver power to the people in the Twin Cities. Additional transmission upgrades will be required as Midwestern utilities expand their alternative energy mandate, but the taxpayer effect of that mandate could be softened considerably with federally funded transmission lines, grid inter-ties (between the Midwest ISO and the PJM, for example), and President Obama's much touted "smart grid" system.

According to a U.S. Department of Energy study in 2008, wind could supply 20 percent of America's electricity by 2030, but only if the nation is willing to commit $20 billion to expanding and improving the power grid. Another study suggests solar thermal energy could supply 90 percent of America's energy by 2059, but again, only if transmission exists to transfer it.

So what stands in the way of this perfect, alternative energy future? People. In California, Sunrise Powerlink opponents argue that they shouldn't be asked to pay for - or look at - a transmission line when they can use rooftop solar and achieve the same benefit.

Environmentalists are taking a different tack. They wonder why we persist in sticking with an obsolete model; huge power lines connecting a power plant to the people who need power.

As John Farrell of the Minnesota-grown, grassroots activist group Institute for Local Self-Reliance notes, "We have this opportunity to rethink the way we organize the grid and democratize generation."

Farrell's contention is that the cost of transmission eats up a lot of funding that could go directly into smaller-scale, regional projects. His argument is valid, in so far as it goes, but ignores the tremendous potential of relatively uninhabited regions like the Mojave Desert, and the High Plains. It's like saying one will eat only the fish caught closest to shore.

Even the Sierra Club, that staunch environmental advocate, admits the need for upgrading the grid. But the Sierra Club refuses to support all power line projects, and rightfully so. In fact, it is the Sierra Club which held the Sunrise Powerlink project at bay for several years until the California Public Utilities Commission opted for a route closer to the Mexican border.

Another drawback is the cost of such lines. Transmission line costs vary widely, from the industry standard of $1-million per mile to $16.5-million per mile in areas of Southern California where land costs are extravagant, to put it kindly.

One other hold up is jurisdiction. In Nevada, where 90 percent of the land is federally owned, agencies such as the Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Department of the Interior need to synergize their efforts to speed approvals. Another win-win would be for the federal government to provide incentives to business to install transmission at their own expense.

All in all, the perceived obstacles to running America on alternative energy remain less than the benefits, so the goal for President Obama is putting opponents and proponents at the same virtual table until a workable plan is hammered out.

Given Obama's skill in this area, expect nothing but continued recession to prevent him delivering the prize that frees this nation from Mideast oil and a rising emission's status - a status that threatens to bankrupt both industry and the healthcare field, to say nothing of the nation's environment.

Related Reading:
Want to Save $70bn?  Get a Smart Grid
Computers Remapping the World for Alternative Energy

Image Credits:
www.squidoo.com/amgreatplains
solarcoaster.blogspot.com
awea.org
tradesurinc.com