the Otherpower.com Discussion Board || Wind isn't the answer

Front Page - [Homebrewed Electricity-- (wind) (solar) (hydro) (steam) (controls) (storage) (mechanical)] - Classifieds - Site News
Everything - Newbies - [Remote Living-- (housing) (heat) (light) (water)] - Rants & Opinion - Diaries - Our Products

Wind isn't the answer
By wdyasq, Section Rants & Opinion Posted on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 12:47:02 PM MST
Ed Wallace looks at Wind Power

Ed Wallace is one of my favorite commentators. His work is well researched. In the article he makes an observation all of us who fool with wind know:
"8.7 percent reliability for a trillion-dollar investment? Yes. And we would still to have to build more conventional generation plants to cover our future electrical needs -- to cover that 91.3 percent of the time when there isn't enough wind to generate electricity."
One needs a backup system. Unlike those who have lived off-grid and will put up with a little inconvenience, the public demands near 100% reliability for the utility services they pay for. In reality, they demand 100% reliability even in things they don't directly pay for but 'put up' with the inconvenience if it doesn't cost them.(they still complain).
Article: http://www.star-telegram.com/ed_wallace/v-print/story/761664.html
It is an interesting read. Well it was to me, your mileage may vary. It does get one thinking on how the national power grid of any country should proceed. I'd be happy with power 90% of the time for a good discount, as long as the 'outage' could be somewhat predicted. I don't think many, including the 'greeniez' will tolerate anything but 100% reliable electrical power, 100% of the time.
Ron

Wind isn't the answer | 75 comments (75 topical, 0 editorial)

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#1)
by valterra on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 08:11:12 AM MST
(User Info)

Like "The Dans" say on Otherpower, Wind is not reliable as the sole source of power, but makes a nice supplement to solar.

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#2)
by Tritium on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 08:22:36 AM MST
(User Info)

Well,

Where I live it doesn't matter what the source is. The power is not reliable.

If the wind blows too hard the lines slap and power is down. Ice storm, lines slap and the power is down.

Thunderstorm, power is down.

No real reliability here that is why I am seeking other sources such as wind and solar that are battery backed.

If I control my own power then it will be more reliable although it will be more expensive.

Thurmond

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#3)
by PeterAVT on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 08:32:28 AM MST
(User Info)

Well, there is a lot of inconveniences that I can live with. Problem is, my city and landlord basically won't allow it. My neighbors are agreeable but there is only so much one can do within the law. I decided to start researching how to save even though I'd rather make my own juice.
AKA "inode_buddha" Power to the people!

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#4)
by zeusmorg on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 09:16:58 AM MST
(User Info)

What gets to me, is the fact there is no one answer! Any source of power has it's own unique pitfalls, that's why we need a good overall mix.

Hydro fails if it doesn't rain, coal pollutes, natural gas pollutes and is getting expensive (won't even comment on nuclear) wind can be sporadic and hazardous. Solar PV
doesn't work 1/2 the time(at night) actually less if it gets cloudy. So why not de-centralize the power sources? smaller generation done in conjunction with larger setups tend to smooth out the "rough spots"

I would love to see a larger mix of non-polluting sources of energy. In the united states one of the most reliable sources of RE is underutilized. There are rarely hydro setups on smaller rivers mainly because the power that could be utilized is "too small" for a large power company to consider practical. Most smaller hydro setups are usually built and maintained for personal power.

I could list many other sources of power finally being utilized such as methane in landfills, tidal, and some others. All have their unique qualities, yet none of them in and of itself is the "answer".

Wind isnt the ONLY answer.......... (3.00 / 0) (#5)
by wdesilvey (wrdrn@dsoelectricwb.com) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 09:54:43 AM MST
(User Info)

I agree.

I had the opportunity a few days ago to speak with a retired electrical engineer. His take was that it is 3 fold: solar, wind, and backup diesel gen. Unfortunately only those of us that live in rural/sub-rural/absolute STICKS are able to take advantage of this type of proposition, and yer still outta luck if you RENT!

I do support Pickens Plan; at least it is a start. Better than the Feds have done!
The sudden call for the re-awakening of nuke power is a joke; it will take 2-3x as long to get one plant from the drawing board to the grid as it will (per the Feds estimates) to get our own usable oil/nat gas reserves to the (hopefully US ONLY) market. Federal estimates for this are INCORRECT. Some gas wells can be producing in as little as 1 year; some oil wells can be doing the same in as little as 2. (I used to work offshore.)

I am not a greenie, but I do see a balance is needed. We dont need to recklessly endanger our surroundings, but we NEED energy. Open ANWR, East and West Coasts, Rockies for Shale, etc. Quit letting The Chinese et al drill for OUR oil while our OWN companies are FORBIDDEN to do so! Utilize what we can whaile we can as a bridge to get us to the alternative energy solutions that are on the horizon.

Thanks,
Bill

Re: Wind isnt the ONLY answer.......... (3.00 / 0) (#21)
by jimjjnn (jimjjnn at yahoo dot com) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 03:09:29 PM MST
(User Info)

China and Vietnam are both drilling offshore right now. Others are also planning to do the same.
Our congress has been allowing this to happen and preventing the USA from drilling.
Jim Denver,CO
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isnt the ONLY answer.......... (3.00 / 0) (#24)
by ghurd on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 03:39:24 PM MST
(User Info)

Thanks Jim. I wanted to hear that again.
Their record with POWs, "green", rules, etc, should be a good sign?
(could someone pull this fork out of my eye?)

It seems my next import shipment will be carried by environmental-cargo-partners.
Might be nice to save 20% fuel, with 1000BC technology?
http://www.environmental-cargo-partners.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=19& ;Itemid=31
G-

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isnt the ONLY answer.......... (3.00 / 0) (#30)
by valterra on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 08:22:54 PM MST
(User Info)

Great Link, Ghurd! Are those missiles being shipped TO or FROM the Chinese? Either way can't be good....

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isnt the ONLY answer.......... (3.00 / 0) (#34)
by ghurd on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 09:14:10 PM MST
(User Info)

It must be a file photo of my 4th of July shipment. No worries about that one.

This time 95% is RE and LED related.
I did not ask what they do with the other 5%.

Wanna lose sleep?
http://shop.newsmax.com/shop/index.cfm?page=products&productid=165

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isnt the ONLY answer.......... (3.00 / 0) (#76)
by MattM on Tue Jul 22nd, 2008 at 12:14:17 AM MST
(User Info)

China and Vietnam drilling offshore was a myth perpetuated by Dick Cheney to boost his agenda and its been well debunked since. Just google the terms cheney, lies, and oil. Cheney and his buddies own a little bit of paper in oil futures.
----------------------------- Go Huskers!
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isnt the ONLY answer.......... (3.00 / 0) (#29)
by valterra on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 07:35:49 PM MST
(User Info)

Additionally, I would like to see more tax CREDITS going to Individuals who invest in solar, wind, etc. projects. Even the little guys who make the stuff themselves.

I agree about decentralized power. Our local power company has a Green Power program where you can pay additional money to help with their green projects. The idea is that renewable stuff costs moe. I fear that with the power monopolies, this will ALWAYS be the mantra, even after the projects are done, and the power is "free" to them.

It is just another excuse to raise prices. I wouldn't be surprised if gas goes up higher because people are using less. Pure economics.

I saw someone who thinks they should have been president flying his private jet all around to preach at us about "carbon."

The Dyson guy was on a commercial talking about how his (carbon) brushless motors in his vacuum lessen "carbon emmisions."

My God. Really? Can't we see that this is all a money grab?

That's why I support incentives for INDIVIDUALS who conserve and produce.

end rant for now. :)

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isnt the ONLY answer.......... (3.00 / 0) (#41)
by veewee77 on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 07:45:30 AM MST
(User Info)

ANWR is not a consideration for oil. At best, there is only enough oil there for about a year's worth at current usage levels.

The answer is not to find more oil to burn, but to find ways to utilize less of what we have, and to utilize it more efficiently.

JMHO - YMMV

Doug

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#6)
by SparWeb (sparweb at ANTISPAM_hotmail_com) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 10:16:45 AM MST
(User Info)

Even after considering all that, wind STILL isn't as easy to manage on a utility-size scale. Consider how you're going to serve all those people whose lights start to brown and motors start to slow when the wind dies.

When building wind generation, you must also provide enough "flexible" generation capacity to fill in for the wind lulls. For example, there is some hydroelectric capability in Alberta, but the regulators of the utility were concerned that relying on wind too much in southern AB could lead to brown outs or surges, if the hydro dams couldn't be spooled up quickly enough to balance the wind.

For all my fascination with wind poer, I actually prefer utility hydroelectric, because the density of energy is much higher and it's infinitely more controllable, but you take what you can get, depending on where you live.

Steven Fahey

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#8)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 10:44:46 AM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

Many of us worldwide don't have the option of hydro, or it's practically all in use already. The hydro/wind combination (with nuclear) works pretty well in the Nordic countries.

I think that one thing that might really help is automatic aggressive domestic demand management, for example see: http://www.dynamicdemand.co.uk/

This already happens industrially, for example.

If, for example, all new domestic appliances had to be able to drop (or at least postpone) a substantial fraction of their load as frequency falls, then quite a lot of extra intermittent supply could be accommodated invisibly.

For example, all 'wet' appliances with heating such as dishwashers and washing machines could near-instantly drop their water heating demand from the typical 2kW--3kW down to (say) 1kW or even lower. Fridges and freezers could allow their internal temperatures to rise 0.5C (1F) above the usual set-point. All until the grid frequency pops up to its nominal central value or over.

And of course many countries already do have some of the electric water heating (and space heating) rigged this way or something similar.

I'm trying to get through to the relevant standard-setters in the EU a suggestion that at least initially the A+/A++ top energy ratings shouldn't be available without some element of frequency response (or similar) built in to the appliance to make it 'RE friendly'. This should in time move down to all 'A' and even 'B' appliances where applicable (eg deferrable peak loads of 100W or more) IMHO.

And introducing mandatory time-of-day pricing and/or grid-stress pricing for all users over 500kWh/month would help a lot too, possibly causing responses on a timescale of minutes rather than fractions of a second of course.

Then wind in particular can be far more of the answer.

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#9)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 10:55:55 AM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

As it happens I seem to have just within the last few minutes gotten one step closer to the committee that decides these things...

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#7)
by electronbaby (roy<at>windsine.org) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 10:22:31 AM MST
(User Info) http://www.windsine.org

well, wind and PV and diesel back up work for me. Actually, jusy wind and PV are fine.

I never try and get involved in the whole political / social battles that are continuing to come up and the pice of oil rises. In my book, its pretty simple. Distributed generation works. Centralized generation has worked for close to 100 years, but just like the age or oil, it is starting to take a downswing. The answer is that there really is no answer. Well, no single answer, and this has come up before, and it will continue to come up again, and again, and again. I guess what Im trying to say is that every bodies needs are different, and they will have to take an active role in the immediate future to try and get a grasp on just what it means to understand their energy habits and try to curb them.

When the price of oil was cheap, millions flocked to the cities and suburbs and set up home and shop. Things are changing now. Not sure if it for better or worse, but the sad reality is that it is changing.

You have to remember, in the grand scheme of things, 100 years of prosperous oil production and use, is NOT A LONG TIME.
Have Fun!! RoyR KB2UHF

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#10)
by Aule Mar on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 11:00:10 AM MST
(User Info)

So far no one here has mentioned Nuclear power. with the Uranium that's already been enriched we have enough fuel for 300 years of power. If we permit the use of Plutonium to be used as Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel, Pu from nuclear weapons that have been dismantled, we have enough over 600+ years of this countries needs.

yes the waste from this fuel is nasty, but if we use the facilities that we already have the fission fragments (ash from "burning" U & Pu) can be removed and stored safely. The amount of "ash" from a 1000 MWe power plant (that size plant can light up NY city) from one year of operation would fit inside a standard trash can, about 1 CuFt.

Just about all of the 1 CuFt of material will decay into a stable (non-radioactive) element, on approx 3-600 years. A very small amount, about a thimble full will remain radioactive for essentially forever (1,000,000+ years). But the radiation from this material can be stopped by a sheet of paper (alpha radiation) it is the same stuff that is in every smoke detector in everybody's home.

Right now about 20% of the power in this country comes from nuclear. There are no green house gases generated, no oil is consumed, all the waste that is generated remains controlled. That is the power company does not get to pump it up the smokestack and dump it on the public

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#15)
by fungus (info@reenergy.co.uk) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 01:18:25 PM MST
(User Info) http://www.reenergy.co.uk/

"There are no green house gases generated, no oil is consumed, all the waste that is generated remains controlled. That is the power company does not get to pump it up the smokestack and dump it on the public"

I'll have to disagree with that .. there is a very real amount of oil consumed and emissions from nuclear;
First you have to dig it up out from the ground, not only does this ruin huge areas of land and strip them bare, the ore needs to be dug out with diggers, dynamite etc etc etc, then it has to be transported to the refining facility..
There it has to be melted to a very hot temperature and purified, this takes up a huge amount of energy and emissions etc, also as we take more uranium out of the ground you need more and more energy to make it into usable pure fuel to be used in power stations.
Then you have the decommissioning process after the power station reaches the end of its usable life, this creates a huge amount of low level radioactive waste, this is still harmful and needs to be put somewhere, and it also takes a very long time and huge expense to deal with the materials inside which have to be handled carefully ..

'Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe.'-Albert Einstein
Fungus - www.reenergy.co.uk
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#31)
by valterra on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 08:26:04 PM MST
(User Info)

strip mining? I grew up in Arizona and saw the strip mines for Copper... you know, that stuff in our wind gens. :-) And those NiFB magnets? Those were dug out of the ground, too!

No matter what we do, we're going to have to consume SOMETHING.

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#45)
by tecker on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 08:53:11 AM MST
(User Info)

The cost for control is staggering and it's off the charts for an accident Any one of 100s of thausands of employees envolved with any portion of the process is a potiential threat . Before and after it's used to boil water. Think about it boiling water is as faar as we've come in 150 years that really embarassing to me .

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#48)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 09:11:42 AM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

Oh, I don't know. Water as a working fluid is great (non-toxic, abundant/cheap, high specific heats, etc, etc). Not always the right choice, but often so.

It's great when we keep finding that fire and stone work well in some tasks rather a long time after we first stumbled over them.

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#50)
by tecker on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 10:05:21 AM MST
(User Info)

To make steam that's all were making steam and condensing to water . I like a water economy It's the" Wholly Grail " . Steam is not the answer . Water can be separated and fused in one step; massive release of heat and pressure differential that's perfect for existing equipment . By or if you will Buy product pure water that doesn't have to be condensed . It's a lot easier than handling Mercury traces Carbon traces that are significant and taking chances with ionizing radiation . Here's a garage door opener
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bs-Uk511S_I

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#51)
by TomW on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 11:22:47 AM MST
(User Info)

Tecker;

That is curious. Wish he had detailed what he is doing. Sounds like arcing AC across a plug gap while flooding it.

Pretty dramatic at the least. Wonder what the electric side pulls for power in operation?

Thanks for the link.

Tom

"Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned."--Mark Twain
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#53)
by tecker on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 12:19:10 PM MST
(User Info)

It's more electrostatic 120 dc (not sure of the current ) The cycle goes dielectric charge then dielectric breakdown ,separation ,momentary conduction , ignition ,plasma release fusion . He's flooding the plug . Looks like a sterling cycle separation plasma release and implosion the crack is the implosion the the vapor gets caught up in the next plasma release steam is a added dimension . Meyer used a ventury to burn hho and transfer heat without melting the metal around the burner.

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#55)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 12:53:02 PM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

I guess he's basically burning off the metal of the spark plug amongst other things, and it really depends on the current he's whacking in: is he just making an expensive and wet arc lamp?

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#58)
by tecker on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 03:04:28 PM MST
(User Info)

What your seeing is Dielectric break down like when you put 50 volts on a 16 volt electrolitic but in this case the dielectic is a liquid and a cavitaion is forced seperation of the water into it's gasses then the conduction a arc and resultant plasma results as the molucule is reformed . Here's an explaination from the man himself Mr meyer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3x5X9LxTA&NR=1

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#11)
by richhagen (richhagen (a t) Juno.com) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 11:59:46 AM MST
(User Info)

Wind will have to be coupled with some sort of energy storage mechanism if it is to grow beyond a few percent of the national usage. The cost of storage will make it less competitive with other power sources. Solar has the same issues. Still it strikes me as a good idea to proceed with some type of experimental station with multiple sources such as wind and solar and couple it with pumped hydro or some other storage mechanism to refine its reliability and model its performance to see when it becomes economically feasible for replacement of base station generating capacity. I suspect the cost of natural gas and coal will need to double again for it to compete, but I believe that ultimately that will likely happen. Rich
'A Joule saved is a Joule made'

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#13)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 01:00:04 PM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

Yes and no.

One feature of wind is that, at least for a reasonably-dispersed on even a medium scale (across counties rather than countries) the slew-rate, ie the rate at which power output ramps up or down, is rather more gentle than (say) when a big nuclear station pops off line as happened here in the UK a few weeks ago (our biggest one in fact).

That means that somewhat slower, cheaper, and possibly more-efficient backup can conceivably be used MW for MW than for conventional plant backup. And the whole lot won't fail at once, suddenly.

Denmark has ~20% wind penetration and it is predicted that the UK could get significantly beyond that with only a relatively small cost in backup/reserve.

BTW, this is a relatively good use for fossil fuels: as a dispatchable reserve/emergency energy store for when nothing else will cut the mustard. Not to casually waste in an SUV to drive around town!

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#27)
by oztules (oztules__at__bigpond.com) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 05:48:43 PM MST
(User Info) http://www.anotherpower.com/gallery/Oztules-toys

One more reliable source is tidal power. Where I live, we are commissioning a new tidal power generating fangdangle between two of the islands here.

The 2 islands (Flinders and Cape barron) block effectively 100km of Bass Strait which itself is a channel between Australia and Tasmania.

Needless to say the tide roars through this tiny (maybe 1km wide) channel every day, twice a day at about 7 knots at it's max down to zero obviously when the tide slacks.

This could provide perhaps 16-18 hrs a day reliable tidal power.

I will be interested in the findings from this pilot project. It seems a no brainer to use tide rather than wind as it is reliable as clockwork. Different parts around the island have wildly differing tidal times as well... by as much as 2 hrs.

However, the fact that there appears to be very very few such projects tells me that there are problems with this I don't forsee. Otherwise there are hundreds of places on the planet where this would be very useful, and where tidal races are perfect for this sort of thing.

But they don't stand out.... maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

.........oztules
Flinders Island Australia
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#37)
by richhagen (richhagen (a t) Juno.com) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 04:27:07 AM MST
(User Info)

Without a storage capacity, economically overall it is terrible once you get beyond a few percent here because you still have to build, maintain and staff the exact same number of nuke or fossil fuel plants as without any wind power because you can't count on any of the wind to be there at any given time. Those capital costs are significant even if that plant is idle a larger percentage of the time. Ideally you also still have to have enough over capacity in case one of those plants 'pops' off line or goes down for maintenance or repair too. Also, I'm not sure that the atmosphere is effected by whether the CO2 in it came from a car or a power plant, just the aggregate amount dumped into it. :-) I like wind power, but it will only grow beyond a few percent here when it is economically advantageous overall. Rich
'A Joule saved is a Joule made'
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#39)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 06:13:03 AM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

Hi,

It's simply not true that you need non-wind backup for all wind plant AFAIK. Not 100%, not 95%, maybe 90% on today's grid if you don't have a good geographic spread, less the bigger the geo-spread in general.

You can count on a certain percentage of wind power being available whenever you need it, ie as baseload, it's just a smaller fraction than with some other plant types. (Right now the UK keeps something like 80GW capacity available for a winter peak of 62GW and intermittent renewables are currently a very small part of the mix. So that's ~30% of conventional covering its own back!)

For example, you probably don't need much/any backup for wind that might not blow at night because the various other base-load sources such as nuclear/hydro/whatever will more than cover it anyway.

And in any case if things get tight then you can start to price users off the grid (Al smelters, Fe foundries, H2O desalination, cold stores) with extended versions of various demand-side management techniques already in use. Lots of demand-callable Negawatts to make up for some missing Megawatts. (I just wrote to the EU Commission to express my support for this with domestic appliances and computer equipment, for example.)

I'm flapping hands with the numbers here, and if you force me to I can find some references, but I believe that they are roughly right.

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#44)
by tecker on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 08:32:33 AM MST
(User Info)

It's a good time for companies that have money to spend for improvment to consider where they lie in brown out conditions and take a run at self suficiancy. Processes can match up to wind and solar combination and become a essential extension of the proccess. Part of a base production schedual . Add in some green media and turn peak runs at night and base runs during the day . A hedge against rising transportation cost that are going to happen.

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#49)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 09:23:28 AM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

From the French grid operator:

The second point is about wind's contribution to peak demand: despite wind's intermittency, wind farms reduce the need in thermal power plants to ensure the requisite level of supply security. One can speak of substituted capacity.
The capacity substitution rate (ratio of thermal capacity replaced to installed wind capacity) is close to the average capacity factor of wind farms in winter (around 30%) for a small proportion of wind in the system (a few GW). It goes down as that proportion increases, but remains above 20% with around 15GW of wind power.

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#12)
by wooferhound (tim((NoSpamAt))wooferhound.com) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 12:57:24 PM MST
(User Info) http://wooferhound.com

And what about the demand Electric Cars will put onto the grid system. The cars seem to be very popular and they pull big power like an Air Conditioner when charging. Where will the power come from when there are 100,000,000 more electric cars charging in the garage.

I think there is an idea called CoGeneration. This is basically what we are doing around here. We are making and using as much power as we can, and supplementing it with Grid power. It would be nice if everybody did that on some level.
W o o f -={(

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#14)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 01:02:18 PM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

Simple answer: charge at night when demand is (in the UK anyway) 30% below peak at least.

Even better: charge when the wind is blowing!

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#16)
by TomW on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 01:29:54 PM MST
(User Info)

Even better, get off your fat arse and walk.

Tom

"Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned."--Mark Twain
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#17)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 01:41:32 PM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

Betterer and betterer...

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#35)
by PeterAVT on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 09:28:23 PM MST
(User Info)

I'm with Tom on that. My city is fairly useless when it comes to public transportation, but some quick maths showed that I can walk to most things on a daily basis. The end result is much better health and lower blood pressure. My admittedly economy car is much more economical, using roughly 20 gallons per month (1.6 litres).
I do like the idea of renewable and more distributed energy and or storage though.
AKA "inode_buddha" Power to the people!
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#20)
by kurt on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 02:02:45 PM MST
(User Info)

we have cut our gasoline use down to one tank full a month by walking and riding the city bus. one of the few upsides of living in the city.

http://www.reresource.org/

IRC
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#22)
by jimjjnn (jimjjnn at yahoo dot com) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 03:22:14 PM MST
(User Info)

I use 15 gallons of diesel every 2 months. Have cut usage further now so next 2 months should be even less. Only drive when I have many errands to run rather than just 1 or 2.
Jim Denver,CO
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#25)
by zeusmorg on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 03:58:50 PM MST
(User Info)

If everyone did grid tied co-generation in some form, we'd probably have more power than we'd ever use even with all electric transportation!

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#32)
by valterra on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 08:30:56 PM MST
(User Info)

I like this idea - especially for vehicles. On some of the other forums, people are mad that the new Chevy Volt will have one of those "evil" ICE's (Internal Combustion Engine) inside.

But wouldn't it be great to have a Choice? Not just a choice when you buy, but an ONGOING choice?

Gas is $4 / gallon? Time to use electric. Electricity is more expensive (summer time) and gas is cheap? Use gas.

I wish they could make a car that would run on LP, gas, diesel, vegetable oil, hydrogen, solar, water, pure BS or whatever other source of fuel might be available. Terribly complicated to be sure. But wouldn't that be nice for the individual consumer!

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#42)
by veewee77 on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 08:08:17 AM MST
(User Info)

Actually, charging electric cars at night, even a LOT of them, makes the power plants run more efficiently. At night, when usage is lower, the power plants have to "back-off" and then during the day, they "ramp-up". Plug those electric cars in and the ebb and flow doesn't happen, making the plants more efficient.

Doug

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#18)
by Bobbyb on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 01:44:34 PM MST
(User Info)

Interesting point about electric cars which will divinely be a huge demand on power. And the 30% won't be enough. As far as I know cars use somewhere between 75 and 200KW so that's 50 to 100 times the domestic demand?? But on the + there will be a lot of battery's around that we can use for our RE :) (Or will the tomorrow car run on hydrogen?¿?).

When I read the reaction of everyone I can't help but notice the small scale thinking. What ever the mix of Re (wind/solar/hydro/wave) will be it will always be somewhat unreliable if u produce for a small aria as a state/province. Even producing for the entire country will not be enough. It's nice that the "slew-rate" of most of the RE systems is pretty quick, but it seems to me that it's very silly to not harvest the energy when it's available.

So what's my idea?... Seriously upgrade the global power grid so that if there's wind/sun/rain/storm in your part of the world it can be transported to some other part.
I can hear u think: "Yea but transporting power over those distances is not efficient". But running your RE plant at less than a 100% is???

Greeting Bobby

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#19)
by FuddyDuddy (long.shanks@comcast.net) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 01:47:59 PM MST
(User Info)

Here's an interesting aside. Here in Oregon recently our high water (lots of snow this last winter, which is melting) and a few good windy days and the wind farms in eastern Oregon produced so much power they had to spill water at the hydro facilities because there was too much power....
So they were almost to the point of paying out of state clients to use the power. But, did anyone here in Oregon see lesser bills ??
Not on your tintype. Not going to happen. In fact they say they need a 15% increase in utility rates due to their costs of opereating.....
FuddyDuddy

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#23)
by tecker on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 03:23:36 PM MST
(User Info)

Wind is a good performer to circular torque . Of coarse to the 24 7 user it's a bad investment . Packed away in an office one can't enjoy the bond one makes with the moods of the earth and the idea of doing with out . It's kind of like a badge of honor .
A high rise throwing open the windows ha what windows .It's a fuel economy and that's that .
It won't be long before we have to work with what we have on the surface and not what was stored for a rainy day .
I think we could use what's on the surface now and be happy and productive .We just have to stop and re tool and that's that.
We just have to stop for a while and look at what really going on . Little wind a little sun a little water and were back on track at lesser pace but more in sync.

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#26)
by tecker on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 04:37:44 PM MST
(User Info)

I read the artical and it could have been a photo copy of every other artical on alteratives ever written . The numbers are posted for investors and banks and the power is not going to the homes it's sent to a hub where there's no way it can be used . The wind power has to stay in the local where it's made not bucked by peak demans .

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#28)
by spinningmagnets (velmis1450bc(at)aol(dot)com) on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 06:09:59 PM MST
(User Info)

I dont buy the 8.7 percent reliability, just my opinion. If setting up a hydro-electric dam in the Mojave desert (a place I am personally familiar with) you will be disappointed in the output.

As one post pointed out, hydro and wind are doing very well in Oregon. Its my undestanding that wind is fairly good and steady in Wyoming and N. Dakota...

There's also lots of steady wind just off-shore from Massachusetts (12 miles out, not visible from shore) to replace the output of some of the oldest and most obsolete coal-steam electric plants in the USA, but Sen. Kennedy is making sure that no wind-gens ever get built there.

PV is a good partner in the mix for local generation, but high voltage is needed for long distance distribution. As much as we want an easy "silver bullit" answer, I have to ask, whats doable?

Big-wind is going to happen, and I think thats good. But, when theres no wind, there must be a back-up for hospitals and police. (us peasants will start buying USP's for our LED TV's and LED lights.

Before I left California, I read about Hotels, hospitals, and police that were adding rooftop back-up generators (because of the Gray Davis brown-outs). Because of stringent regulations, the most cost-effective solutions most chose were diesel-gens converted to methane with an added sparking system. Only useful in a temporary emergency, not for long term.

Get used to the idea of expensive power, whether its from the grid, or in the form of mobile fuels. There will be a long drawn out re-adjustment in the publics lifestyle expectations.

Coal power can be made clean, but its expensive. Love it or hate it, get used to it because the USA has a lot of it. The more wind we are using the less coal we will be forced to use.

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#33)
by windy on Thu Jul 17th, 2008 at 08:32:00 PM MST
(User Info)

As long as there is oil overseas, the US will contining buying from them and nothing will change. I still think the US goverment is trying to buy all the oil it can from overseas, and suck the Arab states dry. After that, the US can then start sending oil overseas and then the Arab's will get a taste of their own medicine.

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#36)
by CG on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 03:59:53 AM MST
(User Info)

Seeing as induction generates about 99% of the world's electricity, what happens when we run out of copper?

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#40)
by brkwind2 (mcool61@nspamyahoo.com) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 06:54:41 AM MST
(User Info)

Some day we will have to dig through all the stuff we've thrown away.
Rover, stop it.
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#38)
by Bobbyb on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 05:51:16 AM MST
(User Info)

Aluminum

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#43)
by Aule Mar on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 08:32:27 AM MST
(User Info)

When we can melt 100 tons of iron a day, with wind or solar power then we can realy start thinking about switiching all of our energy needs to RE sources. Untill then we need to use what we already have available. Nuclear is our best option.

For Fungus (above), That energy (of mining and processing) has already been expended, we have the Uranium right now. no need to dig any more for at least for 300 years.

Once the plant has served its useful life 40-50 years the reactor building can be
entomed right there on the site. the rest of the plant can be reused.

The materials that have been activated due to the reactor, have half lives in the
range of 25 years. not that long to waite for them to cool off.

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#46)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 09:07:50 AM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

Hi,

Even at current usage rates we only have <100y of U235 for current reactors as I understand it. Less if we build more nuclear. And not all of that is out of the ground yet.

But I'd be happy to be shown I'm wrong here.

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Nuclear isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#47)
by TomW on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 09:11:03 AM MST
(User Info)

Aule:

You keep saying " Nuclear is our best option.".

OK, then. I propose we build one across the street from you since you have such unwaivering faith in the ability of the same people who let Katrina victims suffer [The Government] and dropped the ball on 911 when there were clear indications something was up to regulate the nuclear industry.

Don't get me started on who you can trust with your safety when money is involved [everything now days]

I think it may be a piece of the puzzle. I think the very best option is to stop using so much power. If half the morons in the country would just install switched power strips on phantom loads you might see a decrease in needs. Not to mention stop driving a 3 ton behemoth 15 miles in city traffic to get a pack of hotdog buns.

Use what you need but need what you use would go a long way to fixing problems with energy.

Your "option" simply prolongs the inevitable collapse due to centralized power generation. Talk about an easy target for terrorists, the power grid is just too big to protect and too important to ignore. Decentralization only makes sense from a security and reliability standpoint.

Just the view from here.

Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Tom

"Education consists mainly of what we have unlearned."--Mark Twain
[ Parent ]

Re: Nuclear isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#69)
by vfarrell on Sat Jul 19th, 2008 at 02:09:50 PM MST
(User Info)

agreed 100% right on tom

to many peep are short sighted and want a quick fix and then let our
children try and clean up the mess, Nuclear is NOT an option,,, IMHO

Vic
"Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer." --W. C. Fields
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#52)
by Off grid in Tonopah on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 11:52:53 AM MST
(User Info)

Sorry but I can't help myself.....
    The easiest way to deal with this is let the "market place" work. The energy source that's going to cost the least is the one that's going to be used. You can say "use less" but that's not going to happened as a lets all "join hands and save the planet" thing. It will happen as a function of price. Tax credits or subsidies mask the true cost of the energy produced and since the government is just printing useless paper and piling the debt on the back of our grandkids seems a pretty selfish way of continuing to live beyond our means. I personally wouldn't feel right "making, i.e. Tax" someone else to pay for my solar system. So I didn't take any rebates or credits for it.
    Most of the methods of RE energy production have the same problem "Storage". The way we live....and that's not going to change anytime soon...is we need base load generation. People want and demand all the gadgets of modern life. And they won't go back to third world standards without some serious bitching. The lights must work all the time or the peasants will storm the castle with pitch forks in hand, and the King isn't going to let that happen. Hydro or Geothermal are the only real base load RE energy at present, and we're tearing down dams so go figure. People want their cake and to eat it to. They have very little knowledge as to what it takes to make the lights come on when they flip the switch. "No Nucs...Tear down the dams...Wind farms are ugly and kill birds...Bio fuels use food crops...Don't drill there it will hurt the caribou....Coal make the planet hot....Whine whine whine. Let the price of keeping the house cool or the car on the road get high enough and they will turn up the thermostat or drive smaller cars or come up with a better way of powering them.
    If RE is ever going to be successful it needs to be able to compete in the market place with large base load generation, economy of scale and our energy use dictate this. Unfortunately until the storage issues get solved RE will only fill niche markets or as a supplement to the grid. So pick your poison for base load, but energy production is messy no matter were it comes from.

Personally I'm for rendering down baby seals for diesel. Bet you can get 150 mile out of one of those greasy little guys. Hey it's green and renewable. Got to fight Global Warming...

Energy production, price and availability is a method of peasant control.
The more you can make of your own, the less chains you'll wear...

End Rant:

Boy I feel better now!!!
Bob

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#63)
by StorminN on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 09:19:28 PM MST
(User Info)

Don't forget that centralized generation... nuke, coal, NG, large hydro, etc. have been HEAVILY subsidized in the USA, so the newer tax breaks and incentives for solar are not even come close to leveling the playing field...

-Norm.

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#54)
by SparWeb (sparweb at ANTISPAM_hotmail_com) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 12:34:43 PM MST
(User Info)

A quick response to some previous comments about "charging electric cars overnight".

Wait a minute. Most people I know come home at 5-6 o'clock. I would expect most people to plug those electric cars in at 6 PM. Then they turn all the lights on in the house and the furnace heat up and the stove on.

Sounds to me like electric cars make the evening peak power worse. All those electric vehicles, that have done the 30 mile commute thing, will be done charging when 10PM rolls around.

To force an electric vehicle that is plugged in at 6PM to wait before starting to charge the batteries until, say midnight, means that the clock on the dashboard had better be correct, or you might not get to work tomorrow morning!

Steven Fahey

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#56)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 12:57:33 PM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

Oh, it's easier than that.

Either there will be some explicit control saying 'don't charge yet' from the power company (already exists for things like electric hot water heaters in South Africa and New Zealand, etc, etc) or each car just monitors the mains frequency and refrains from charging if it's below nominal.

The former is better but the latter would do in a pinch.

(You'd be able to override it but pay through the nose to do so...)

Oblig link: http://www.forbes.com/global/2008/0107/036.html

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#59)
by spinningmagnets (velmis1450bc(at)aol(dot)com) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 04:57:36 PM MST
(User Info)

Hey Steven, There are some juristictions where you can get an electric vehicle charging station installed in your garage.

The benefit is that you are charged a lower rate to charge up your EV (if you push the "over-ride" button it will charge it up right now to get you going, but at the more expensive rate)

The drawback is that it has a timer so it only charges at the lower cost rate when demand is down, and the grid has excess capacity (late at night).

If you suddenly realize you have to go to the hospital or to the store to get Pepto-Bismol/Kaopectate after dinner, the EV battery will still be dead. Just a "heads up".

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#75)
by SparWeb (sparweb at ANTISPAM_hotmail_com) on Mon Jul 21st, 2008 at 10:28:35 PM MST
(User Info)

How long would it take for some crafty guy to come up with an "adapter plug"?
I've seen these things for RV's. I can imaging grandma plugging the 60A RV charger into a 15A circuit with one of these adapters, and... ...hey, why did the lights go out in the house?.

So if you pay a penalty for charging the car at peak hour? No prob for DIY guys like us, eh? I'll just unplug the MIG welder here...

Steven Fahey
[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#57)
by richhagen (richhagen (a t) Juno.com) on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 02:53:08 PM MST
(User Info)

They may be able to get away with that more there because of the ability to shed loads when the supply is lowered. I do not know if they are able to adjust frequency to have smart devices shed loads there, but they may. We do not have that type of technology in place to any measurable degree here in the States that I am aware of. Such an effort may have to be initiated here if intermittent power sources become an increasing part of our grid. Rich
'A Joule saved is a Joule made'

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#60)
by tanner0441 on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 05:22:28 PM MST
(User Info)

So what if...

Everyone had a back up battery and inverter at the point of entry into the home. when the fridge, washer, AC, pumped bathroom, or what ever starts up the inverter absorbes the peak load. The batteries could also charge the electric car directly, these batteries whould have been gently charging overnight and through the day while there is no lighting load in the property.

In the event of a power out, or cut if your here in the UK, the battery capacity could be enough to run the lighting load for several hours.

I used to live in a very rural area of North Wales everytime the wind went above 20MPH off went the power, generaly it was only off for 3 hours or less most times it was minutes or seconds, as the auto reset circuits reset. I had a couple of small generators so I only produced enough power for my needs for the longer cuts.

I also had a 12 volt lighting supply we did not have street lights half way up a mountain so if the lights went out it was DARK.

It would bring the cost of batteries and decent sized pure sine wave inverters down in price.

Just a thought.

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#65)
by DamonHD (d@hd.org) on Sat Jul 19th, 2008 at 02:13:35 AM MST
(User Info) http://www.earth.org.uk/

I actually very much want to do something like this.

I am working on it... First I want to get enough PV up so that we'll be net generators year round (which I might achieve by the end of this year)... Then I want to try to net out our usage (ie eliminate imports) at grid peak demand time.

In winter we will only generate a fraction of even our miserly daily consumption, but in summer we could easily neutralise our entire consumption, even at night, so that we never import at all and always export at some point during the day, maybe when grid frequency drops.

Rgds

Damon

[ Parent ]

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#61)
by dnix71 (yahoo.com 'dnix71') on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 05:22:41 PM MST
(User Info)

Wind would work fine if it's coupled with pumped storage. Wind/Hydro together. Instead of making electricity directly, pump water with the windmill. Then run the hydro when you need the peak. Keep using nuclear for baseline and to pump storage when the wind doesn't blow.

I worked for the TVA for a year in Chattanooga. Raccoon Mountain pumped storage works great for the morning/evening peaks that would otherwise have to be met by gas. They deliberately left Tennessee split in two time zones, too, to spread the peak

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#62)
by powerbuoy on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 08:40:22 PM MST
(User Info)

One thing America could start with is building vehicles with more engine choices. If I buy a VW Golf in Germany, then I can buy it with a 50, 75, 95 or 120HP gazoline or a couple TDi engines to choose from. Over here, all I have is the ultra power turbo model. Every car, let it be a Focus, Neon or whatever has a minimum 100HP engine ... for what? For driving 65mph on an interstate? Give me a smart engine to choose from, lets say the 50HP version for my daily commute and I'll get the 50 mpg without being a hybrid. So much for gazoline waste.

For power: It's going to be nukes (hopefully fusion in a few years) and some renewables to add a healthy mix. Irregular sources like wind, solar, wave etc. are still great candidates for charging fleets of EVs.

Re: Wind isn't the answer (3.00 / 0) (#64)
by Micheal on Fri Jul 18th, 2008 at 10:46:42 PM MST
(User Info)

there is no answer. There is only progress and regress. Progress is adding so much wind power that china will have to buy our extra. Then we can at least export something.

Seriously tho, graphs, charts, can all be made to say any dam thing you want. My chart reads as