Hudak vs. wind power

[dre]

A couple weeks ago I was walking by the waterfront in downtown Kingston. From there, you can look across the water and see the wind turbines all spinning on Wolfe Island. It was the first time I had seen it, because I am not in Kingston much these days, and I found it rather surreal.

Alternative energy sources may not be the best from an economic stand point right now, but I am betting that they will yet come into their own. They may cost more now, but who is to say that will be the continue to be the case if something *does* happen to the oil and uranium markets? One thing they have going for them: their fuel may not run at 100% efficiency all the time, but it never, ever, runs out.

The other thing to consider is ancillary costs that are not internalized by energy companies.

For example... lets say coal power costs 5 cents, and wind costs 8. But coal power results in smog, acid rain, and air toxins, and these things result in the public to have to spend a bunch of money treating medical problems, monitoring air quality, cleaning up rivers and streams etc. Those costs should be factored into the price of coal.

[Wild Bill]

The other thing to consider is ancillary costs that are not internalized by energy companies.

For example... lets say coal power costs 5 cents, and wind costs 8. But coal power results in smog, acid rain, and air toxins, and these things result in the public to have to spend a bunch of money treating medical problems, monitoring air quality, cleaning up rivers and streams etc. Those costs should be factored into the price of coal.

You're technically right, Dre. BUT...!

Ancillary costs are not direct costs. Yes, in the long run they add up and are paid for by the taxpayer. However, they are NOT immediately seen on a citizen's electric bill!

To dump those costs into an electric bill all at once in one 'swell foop' would shock the hell out of a consumer! Probably, he could no longer afford to use electricity!

We've spent over a century going down a wrong path. There's no way the average joe can afford solutions trying to fix things by next weekend! If you try to force him it's guaranteed you will totally lose political support.

[Guest TrueMetis]

I think I'm going to have to change my stance on wind.

Edited June 20, 2010 by TrueMetis

[dre]

You're technically right, Dre. BUT...!

Ancillary costs are not direct costs. Yes, in the long run they add up and are paid for by the taxpayer. However, they are NOT immediately seen on a citizen's electric bill!

To dump those costs into an electric bill all at once in one 'swell foop' would shock the hell out of a consumer! Probably, he could no longer afford to use electricity!

We've spent over a century going down a wrong path. There's no way the average joe can afford solutions trying to fix things by next weekend! If you try to force him it's guaranteed you will totally lose political support.

Ancillary costs are not direct costs. Yes, in the long run they add up and are paid for by the taxpayer. However, they are NOT immediately seen on a citizen's electric bill!

Yup and thats a problem, because if the cost of a product are partially concealed then market forces cannot be brought to bear in a given sector.

If all energy companies were force to internalize ALL costs and pass them onto the consumer we would already be living in the next energy age.

[TimG]

I think I'm going to have to change my stance on wind.

Why? Wind advocates never tell the complete story because it shows wind is a virtually useless power source in the majority of locations (i.e. places where there is no hydropower with excess capacity).

Here is a detailed report on why wind makes no economic or environmental sense in most locations:

http://www.masterresource.org/category/windpower/general-problems/

Here is a detailed report which shows that installing wind actually INCREASES CO2 emissions because the backup generators waste fuel starting/stopping in order to compensate for wind production.

http://www.masterresource.org/2010/02/wind-integration-incremental-emissions-from-back-up-generation-cycling-part-v-calculator-update/

Here is a report on how wind power generators are paided to shutdown because the grid cannot use the power:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/energy/windpower/7840035/Firms-paid-to-shut-down-wind-farms-when-the-wind-is-blowing.html

For me the question is simple: I will support wind power when private investors are willing to build and run these things without subsidies or rate guarantees from the government. Until then they are waste of money.

Edited June 21, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Why? Wind advocates never tell the complete story because it shows wind is a virtually useless power source in the majority of locations (i.e. places where there is no hydropower with excess capacity).

Did you watch the video? He dealt with all of those problem.

[TimG]

Did you watch the video? He dealt with all of those problem.

It a pain to refute videos point by point. However, there are three claims which are misleading.

1) I indicated that hydropower (aka pumped storage) is one thing that can make wind power work but it is available in limited areas (i.e. places with mountains). Pumped storage without a big hill is an economic non-starter.

Here is an analysis that shows that daming every Loch in Scotland would not store enough power to backup a wind powered UK:

http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/withouthotair/c26/page_190.shtml

2) The majority of power is produced close to where it is consumed because a lot of energy is lost in transmission. The continental grids do have interconnects that can be used to move power around the continent but these interconnects are relatively small compared to the capacity of the system. There is no way we could build can economically move wind power across the continent with the technology we have now. That is why the SmartGRID requires the invention of new 'superconducting cables':

http://www.azom.com/details.asp?ArticleId=5160

3) The claim that 25% of the wind power in Northern Germany comes from wind is pure nonsense. That grid is interconneted with the rest of the country and with neighboring countries. If that amount of power is actually produced then it is either shipped out of northern germany and plants outside the region provide power when the wind is not blowing. That means the true percentage of wind power is much lower than claimed.

Bottom line is the limit is real. Renewables cannot exceed 10% or so of a grid capacity. Exceed that and grid cannot function efficiently. That is why grid operators in the UK are now paying wind operators to shutdown.

Edited June 21, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

Seriously you either haven't watched it or didn't pay attention.

[TimG]

Seriously you either haven't watched it or didn't pay attention.

I watched it. And I explained why I think some of what it said is nonsense. Now I have provided a number of links to backup my claims. If you disagree the look at those links, understand the analysis and present a counter argument. "go watch the video" is a pretty lame response and it suggests that you are the one who does not understand the issues involved. Edited June 21, 2010 by TimG

[Guest TrueMetis]

I watched it. And I explained why I think some of what it said is nonsense. Now I have provided a number of links to backup my claims. If you disagree the look at those links, understand the analysis and present a counter argument. "go watch the video" is a pretty lame response and it suggests that you are the one who does not understand the issues involved.

Alright.

1) I indicated that hydropower (aka pumped storage) is one thing that can make wind power work but it is available in limited areas (i.e. places with mountains). Pumped storage without a big hill is an economic non-starter.

While totally ignoring the other alternative of compessing air to use later.

2) The majority of power is produced close to where it is consumed because a lot of energy is lost in transmission. The continental grids do have interconnects that can be used to move power around the continent but these interconnects are relatively small compared to the capacity of the system. There is no way we could build can economically move wind power across the continent with the technology we have now. That is why the SmartGRID requires the invention of new 'superconducting cables':

The grids we use now are ancient, we have to update them for the simple reason they are such a security risk, not to mention multiple other risks. Updating them would get rid of this problem.

I mean really you link points out a way to fix the problem. It even has a specific bit on renewables.

3) The claim that 25% of the wind power in Northern Germany comes from wind is pure nonsense.

Germany as a whole is about 6% wind. Its states Saxony-Anhalt, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, Schleswig-Holstein, Brandenburg, and Lower Saxony, the five northern most states, got 47%, 41%, 40%, 38%, and 23% of their energy from wind in 2009. Sounds like 25% for northern germany is a reasonable claim.

My link

Bottom line is the limit is real. Renewables cannot exceed 10% or so of a grid capacity. Exceed that and grid cannot function efficiently.

That's utter nonsense. See above.

That is why grid operators in the UK are now paying wind operators to shutdown.

No, they shut down because there was no where for the energy to go. Did you read the article you linked?

[TimG]

While totally ignoring the other alternative of compessing air to use later.

Compressed air storage not economically plausible unless there is an old mine or similar prebuilt structure that can be adapted for use. This means it is even less scalable than pumped storage.

The grids we use now are ancient, we have to update them for the simple reason they are such a security risk, not to mention multiple other risks. Updating them would get rid of this problem.

And that process is going on now but replacing what we already have using incremental improvements over existing technology is do able. What we cannot do is deploy technology that does not exist and that is what is required to dispatch renewables over large geographic areas. That is why I say the video is deceptive because it implies the techology exists today when it does not.

Germany as a whole is about 6% wind. Sounds like 25% for northern Germany is a reasonable claim.

You just proved that the guy in the video was wrong. You cannot draw a line around northern Germany and claim that 25% of the power is produced by wind. The grid is interconnected and power moves in and out of the region which means the percentage the full grid is much lower. Your own numbers put that number at no more than 6% which is under the 10% limit required to keep the system stable. You won't find any large scale system anywhere that exceeds the 10% limit.

No, they shut down because there was no where for the energy to go. Did you read the article you linked?

There was no where for the power to go because it is not practical to stop a coal/nuke station simply because the wind is blowing. Gas can handle the variability better but that is why wind power *increases* CO2 emissions if it has gas backup. Everyone would be better off if the wind supply was never built and the gas plant was run at full capacity. Edited June 21, 2010 by TimG

[jbg]

The Conservatives say they stand with “local families” who oppose wind turbines. I'd like to know if Hudak would be standing with "local families" if a major conservative benefactor wanted to build a gas, coal-fired or nuclear power station next door!

I know htis relates to the U.S., but Ted Kennedy, hardly an ideological conservative, for years blocked turbines because he didn't want his beloved Hyannis views wrecked. I suppose support for environmentalist positions depends on whose ox is being "GORE(d)". (pun intended)

[dre]

I watched it. And I explained why I think some of what it said is nonsense. Now I have provided a number of links to backup my claims. If you disagree the look at those links, understand the analysis and present a counter argument. "go watch the video" is a pretty lame response and it suggests that you are the one who does not understand the issues involved.

The problem is that youre looking at todays technology which is oriented around the energy sources that are well established.

You then point out some technological challenges, and hail them as a reason why we should not use wind energy. The problem with this is that those technical challenges can be solved, and they will be given time. Storing energy isnt really rocket science, theres a whole bunch of different technologies being worked on that could make that possible, and actually the technology is progressing quite quickly now.

Battery Banks Can be used to stabilize the frequency of distributed energy sources. Currently its expensive and applications are using ni-cad coupled with solid state converters. But flow batteries could bring the cost way down. Sodium-sulfur, Vanadium redox batteries and other types of flow batteries already used for energy storage including the averaging of generation from wind turbines. Battery storage has relatively high efficiency.

Another promising storage technology is the use of large flywheels which store electricity mechanically.

Hydrogen Conversion is another option.

Then you have pumped water, compressed air, and so on.

The technical challenge you are pointing out is indeed very real. I dont mean to suggest that it isnt, but we have overcome challenges a lot tougher than that, and over the next couple of decades the picture is going to drastically change.

[TimG]

You then point out some technological challenges, and hail them as a reason why we should not use wind energy.

We should not use wind energy also long as the government needs to bribe people into building it. If wind can compete with gas on its own merit then I am all for it. The trouble is there are no places where large scale wind installations are economical without government subsidies.

But flow batteries could bring the cost way down. Sodium-sulfur, Vanadium redox batteries and other types of flow batteries already used for energy storage including the averaging of generation from wind turbines. Battery storage has relatively high efficiency.

The battery problem has been around for 100 years and anyone who could come up with an economically viable solution would have made billions. We cannot set government policy based on the blind hope that this problem will be solved soon.

If we really want to stop burning stuff for energy we will need to build nukes. Wind and other renewables are expensive side shows that delay our transition away from fossil fuels because they delude people into thinking that nukes do not need to be built.

Edited June 21, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

We should not use wind energy also long as the government needs to bribe people into building it. If wind can compete with gas on its own merit then I am all for it. The trouble is there are no places where large scale wind installations are economical without government subsidies.

But the Government had to bribe people into building conventional energy as well. Those industries have recieved untold subsidies and government action, and favorable policies since their inception. All of them had technical challenges of their own that had to be overcome just like new sources of energy, and it was in the public's interest to assist them.

As for nuclear energy, it still has major challenges to overcome as well. You hail it as a panacea but it isnt. Theres a reason the nuclear industry hasnt sold a plant in North America since the 70's.

[TimG]

But the Government had to bribe people into building conventional energy as well.

Ensuring a reliable supply of electricity to all citizens increased the productivity of society (i.e. allowed more wealth to be produced and increased standard of living). Forcing people to use more expensive and less reliable renewables decreases the productivity of society (i.e. decreases the standard of living). It

As for nuclear energy, it still has major challenges to overcome as well. You hail it as a panacea but it isnt. Theres a reason the nuclear industry hasnt sold a plant in North America since the 70's.

Nuclear delivers power at the scale we need. Plants have not been built in the US and Canada for 40 years because of the incompetence of government regulators - not because of intrinsic problems with the technology. The experience in Japan and France shows that to be true. Edited June 21, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

Ensuring a reliable supply of electricity to all citizens increased the productivity of society (i.e. allowed more wealth to be produced and increased standard of living). Forcing people to use more expensive and less reliable renewables decreases the productivity of society (i.e. decreases the standard of living). It

Nuclear delivers power at the scale we need. Plants have not been built in the US and Canada for 40 years because of the incompetence of government regulators - not because of intrinsic problems with the technology. The experience in Japan and France shows that to be true.

The nuclear industry hasnt sold plants because the private sector wont invest in them, and every nuclear energy program in the world needs massive public subsidies on an ongoing basis.

Countries like France, Germany, and Japan only build nuclear plants because they have very little coal, oil, and natural gas. In the case of France they have almost none.

You decry government "bribery" in the alt energy industry, yet you recommend alternatives that need even MORE government bribery to operate. Nuclear energy only worked after it had had zillions of public dollars dumped into its R&D. Other emerging technologies should get the same treatment, otherwise all youre doing is artificially slanting the market in favor of some of the players at the expense of others, and THAT is the reason our energy sector is in shambles. Market forces are not brought to bear because theres no real market.

[TimG]

The nuclear industry hasnt sold plants because the private sector wont invest in them, and every nuclear energy program in the world needs massive public subsidies on an ongoing basis.

The private sector won't invest in them because of onerous government regulation. A nuke can go from planning to generation in 4 years in Japan. It takes 10-15 years in the US. Regulatory delays are a huge risk and by insisting on government guarantees the nuke builders in a US have found a clever way to ensure the gov't has an incentive to let them get producing as soon as possible.

Countries like France, Germany, and Japan only build nuclear plants because they have very little coal, oil, and natural gas. In the case of France they have almost none.

Exactly. Economics drives energy choices - not government. That is the way it should be.

Nuclear energy only worked after it had had zillions of public dollars dumped into its R&D.

There is a huge difference between R&D and production subsidies. Investing in R&D is fine but any system where the government subsidizes the energy production is really bad for the economy.

Other emerging technologies should get the same treatment

I could live with renewables getting the same per KWh subsidy of any other energy source. The trouble is that 'fair' treatment would require that existing renewables programs be slashed because renewables produce almost no energy per dollar invested. That is why they are not economically viable. Edited June 21, 2010 by TimG

[dre]

The private sector won't invest in them because of onerous government regulation. A nuke can go from planning to generation in 4 years in Japan. It takes 10-15 years in the US. Regulatory delays are a huge risk and by insisting on government guarantees the nuke builders in a US have found a clever way to ensure the gov't has an incentive to let them get producing as soon as possible.

Exactly. Economics drives energy choices - not government. That is the way it should be.

There is a huge difference between R&D and production subsidies. Investing in R&D is fine but any system where the government subsidizes the energy production is really bad for the economy.

I could live with renewables getting the same per KWh subsidy of any other energy source. The trouble is that 'fair' treatment would require that existing renewables programs be slashed because renewables produce almost no energy per dollar invested. That is why they are not economically viable.

I could live with renewables getting the same per KWh subsidy of any other energy source. The trouble is that 'fair' treatment would require that existing renewables programs be slashed because renewables produce almost no energy per dollar invested. That is why they are not economically viable.

The private sector won't invest in them because of onerous government regulation.

Actually the main reason the private sector wont build nuclear plants is the massive cost of eventually decommisioning the sites, and safe guarding the waste. When you tell an investor that they are on the hook for costs that will keep piling up for hundreds of years after the plant is already shut down, they tend to be a bit hesitant.

If the nuclear industry was forced to internalize all these costs then the energy would be very expensive, and until they are we dont even really know how much nuclear energy costs.

So the nuclear industry as it is now, is a recipe for permanent government subsidies and government involvement in the energy sector. In my opinion that shouldnt be the goal.

Edited June 21, 2010 by dre

[Guest TrueMetis]

Compressed air storage not economically plausible unless there is an old mine or similar prebuilt structure that can be adapted for use. This means it is even less scalable than pumped storage.

Except these things already exsist. They have been created without an old mine or similar setup. They had them in the 1870's.

And that process is going on now but replacing what we already have using incremental improvements over existing technology is do able. What we cannot do is deploy technology that does not exist and that is what is required to dispatch renewables over large geographic areas. That is why I say the video is deceptive because it implies the techology exists today when it does not.

But we do, your article on superconductors said as much, see the project in New Orleans. And even if we didn't now that's not enough reason to put try to make it work. Technology is ever evolving what doesn't work one year will work the next.

You just proved that the guy in the video was wrong. You cannot draw a line around northern Germany and claim that 25% of the power is produced by wind. The grid is interconnected and power moves in and out of the region which means the percentage the full grid is much lower. Your own numbers put that number at no more than 6% which is under the 10% limit required to keep the system stable. You won't find any large scale system anywhere that exceeds the 10% limit.

What are you talking about? We know how much electricity the various northern German states get from wind, so it's not that difficult math to say that northern germany gets at least 25% of it energy from wind, as for you lo% limit the proffesor from berkley disagrees. Guess who I'm going to trust. So are you going to site a source or are you going to shut up? And the total for Germany is now 7%.

You've got to explain something to me, how come a state grid can have as much as 47% of its electricity come from wind but a country wide can only have at most 10%. It doesn't make any sense that what you are saying is true.

There was no where for the power to go because it is not practical to stop a coal/nuke station simply because the wind is blowing. Gas can handle the variability better but that is why wind power *increases* CO2 emissions if it has gas backup. Everyone would be better off if the wind supply was never built and the gas plant was run at full capacity.

Again did you read the article you linked?

A National Grid spokesman said: "The trial demonstrates that wind can help balance supply and demand just like other generation types: this is potentially useful to us on warm but windy summer days when generation outstrips the low demand – and a higher proportion of generation is made up of wind and inflexible nuclear."

The spokesman added: "The trial is something supporters of wind energy should welcome, as it gives evidence to their case that wind generation does not bring insurmountable problems to balancing supply and demand."

A spokesman for RenewableUK, the trade body which represents the renewable energy industry, said all suppliers to the National Grid periodically were asked to reduce output to control the balancing mechanism. He said it was simply evidence of the growing part wind energy had to play in Britain's supply needs that turbines would occasionally be taken off the National Grid. He added: "REF exists to misrepresent any piece of information and turn it into a scandal or crisis. The reality is the National Grid's job is to ensure we have adequate capacity to meet demand at any one time."

Here's another interesting article. My link

On windy nights in northern Germany, consumers are paid to keep the lights on.

Twice this year, the nation’s 21,000 wind turbines pumped out so much power that utilities reduced customer bills for using the surplus electricity. Since the first rebate came with little fanfare at 5 a.m. one October day in 2008, payments have risen as high as 500.02 euros ($665) a megawatt-hour, about as much as a small factory or 1,000 homes use in 60 minutes.

[TimG]

Except these things already exsist. They have been created without an old mine or similar setup. They had them in the 1870's

That is not the point. Geothermal power is a wonderful way to make electricity. The only downside is the number of places where one can build a plant is tiny. That means it cannot meet our energy needs. The same is true with compressed air/pumped storage. The limited number of suitable sites means that wind power cannot meet our energy needs either if it requires that kind of storage.

But we do, your article on superconductors said as much, see the project in New Orleans. And even if we didn't now that's not enough reason to put try to make it work. Technology is ever evolving what doesn't work one year will work the next.

And when someone gets it working we can talk about deploying continental scale wind power. Until that happens wind power must be consumed locally and that means fossil fuel backup and all of the problems that go with it.

it's not that difficult math to say that northern germany gets at least 25% of it energy from wind, as for you l0% limit the proffesor from berkley disagrees.

You don't have a clue what he was talking about. The 10% limit only applies to the *complete* grid. Picking a region within an inconnected grid and declaring that X% come from wind is a meaningless excercise. To illustrate: why stop at northern germany? Why not draw a circle around each windmill and claim that 'regions in nothern germany get 100% of their power from wind'? BTW - this is not about sources since I do not dispute the numbers you provide. This is about interpretation of data. I am telling you the figures you quote do not mean what you say they mean.

You also entirely miss the point with the excess wind power. These example show that amount of useful power that wind produces is less than the power it can produce. This means more turbines have to be built to provide the same power which means more cost. I am mystified why you think paying consumers or producers to discard power is good thing.

[Guest TrueMetis]

That is not the point. Geothermal power is a wonderful way to make electricity. The only downside is the number of places where one can build a plant is tiny. That means it cannot meet our energy needs. The same is true with compressed air/pumped storage. The limited number of suitable sites means that wind power cannot meet our energy needs either if it requires that kind of storage.

You do realize we can build these sites right?

And when someone gets it working we can talk about deploying continental scale wind power. Until that happens wind power must be consumed locally and that means fossil fuel backup and all of the problems that go with it.

So we shouldn't do it because not all the technology is mature. If people had thought like you in the past we'd still be bashing rocks together to make knives.

You don't have a clue what he was talking about. The 10% limit only applies to the *complete* grid. Picking a region within an inconnected grid and declaring that X% come from wind is a meaningless excercise. To illustrate: why stop at northern germany? Why not draw a circle around each windmill and claim that 'regions in nothern germany get 100% of their power from wind'? BTW - this is not about sources since I do not dispute the numbers you provide. This is about interpretation of data. I am telling you the figures you quote do not mean what you say they mean.

Define "complete" grid, Germany is connected to most other grids in Europe. I can't help but think you'll be claiming that when Germany does get to 10% wind that it is still not the "complete" grid because it is conected to other countries grids.

And like last time cite your source on 10%. Mine is a berkley proffessor whose background is specifically on renewable energy systems. Your's is?

You also entirely miss the point with the excess wind power. These example show that amount of useful power that wind produces is less than the power it can produce. This means more turbines have to be built to provide the same power which means more cost. I am mystified why you think paying consumers or producers to discard power is good thing.

No I think it shows that wind tubines can produce more than enough energy now we just have to figure out a good way to store that energy.

Edited June 21, 2010 by TrueMetis

[WIP]

That is not the point. Geothermal power is a wonderful way to make electricity. The only downside is the number of places where one can build a plant is tiny. That means it cannot meet our energy needs. The same is true with compressed air/pumped storage. The limited number of suitable sites means that wind power cannot meet our energy needs either if it requires that kind of storage.

And when someone gets it working we can talk about deploying continental scale wind power. Until that happens wind power must be consumed locally and that means fossil fuel backup and all of the problems that go with it.

You don't have a clue what he was talking about. The 10% limit only applies to the *complete* grid. Picking a region within an inconnected grid and declaring that X% come from wind is a meaningless excercise. To illustrate: why stop at northern germany? Why not draw a circle around each windmill and claim that 'regions in nothern germany get 100% of their power from wind'? BTW - this is not about sources since I do not dispute the numbers you provide. This is about interpretation of data. I am telling you the figures you quote do not mean what you say they mean.

You also entirely miss the point with the excess wind power. These example show that amount of useful power that wind produces is less than the power it can produce. This means more turbines have to be built to provide the same power which means more cost. I am mystified why you think paying consumers or producers to discard power is good thing.

I would like to know why you are talking down alternative energy? When I started this thread, I didn't propose that wind power is the answer to all of our energy problems, I just wanted to know why conservatives such as Ontario's would-be next Premier and conservatives across Canada and the United States would rather sit on their hands than do anything to encourage the development of alternative energy strategies? It wouldn't have anything to do with oil, gas and coal companies that want to maintain the present fossil fuel monopoly I suppose! Stateside, Texas Congressman Joe Barton accidentally said it out loud last week, and I wonder if there are any conservative politicians or lobbyists in Canada or the U.S. that aren't wholly owned subsidiaries of the big oil agenda.

[Wild Bill]

You do realize we can build these sites right?

So we shouldn't do it because not all the technology is mature. If people had thought like you in the past we'd still be bashing rocks together to make knives.

Define "complete" grid, Germany is connected to most other grids in Europe. I can't help but think you'll be claiming that when Germany does get to 10% wind that it is still not the "complete" grid because it is conected to other countries grids.

No I think it shows that wind tubines can produce more than enough energy now we just have to figure out a good way to store that energy.

TM, if I understand you correctly, are you saying "If you build it they will come"?

You seem to be saying that we should just go ahead and put up the wind mills, trusting that the new technologies will come along when we need them.

Sez who? You remind me of the manager in the Dilbert cartoons who tells his engineering staff "The new flow chart says that a technological breakthrough is expected on this date!"

Invention doesn't work that way. First off, not everything you want is possible. Second, not everything that is possible is cost-effective. Third, Inspiration comes when it comes and couldn't care less when you think you need it!

This seems to be a common part of human nature. I have musician customers that bring me a guitar amplifier to repair and ask "How long will it take you to fix it?" How can I possibly answer such a question? It depends on how long it takes me to find the problem! What am I supposed to be, psychic?

Are you really saying that we should go ahead and blow all the money on zillions of wind turbines that might sit there for years before someone invents the technology and spends the money to upgrade the power grids?

[dre]

TM, if I understand you correctly, are you saying "If you build it they will come"?

You seem to be saying that we should just go ahead and put up the wind mills, trusting that the new technologies will come along when we need them.

Sez who? You remind me of the manager in the Dilbert cartoons who tells his engineering staff "The new flow chart says that a technological breakthrough is expected on this date!"

Invention doesn't work that way. First off, not everything you want is possible. Second, not everything that is possible is cost-effective. Third, Inspiration comes when it comes and couldn't care less when you think you need it!

This seems to be a common part of human nature. I have musician customers that bring me a guitar amplifier to repair and ask "How long will it take you to fix it?" How can I possibly answer such a question? It depends on how long it takes me to find the problem! What am I supposed to be, psychic?

Are you really saying that we should go ahead and blow all the money on zillions of wind turbines that might sit there for years before someone invents the technology and spends the money to upgrade the power grids?

TM, if I understand you correctly, are you saying "If you build it they will come"?

You seem to be saying that we should just go ahead and put up the wind mills, trusting that the new technologies will come along when we need them.

Sez who? You remind me of the manager in the Dilbert cartoons who tells his engineering staff "The new flow chart says that a technological breakthrough is expected on this date!"

Actually hes partially right. Developing wind resources will create the demand for these storage facilities, and that demand will result in capital investment into those technologies. Also technological breakthroughs are not whats required. We already have very efficient technologies to store power, and theres lots of storage facilities up and running on existin technology.

What we need is for the price to come down, and the proven way to do that is to introduce scale of production (economy of scale) into the mix.

And the fact that wind energy is becoming popular and has come down in price is already generating investment in storage, and pilot projects are starting spin up.

For example ISEP...

In the United States, traditional CAES is being considered by several companies, but only one new project, the Iowa Storage Energy Park (ISEP), is in the design stage. Funded by a group of municipal utilities, ISEP would store enough wind and off-peak energy to supply 270 megawatts of power for 16 hours each day.

Theres other advantages of building energy storage facilities as well. You can get cleaner power, less outages and so on, and potentially simplify the operation of a grid.