🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:15:21 -0400, "Tim O'Flaherty"
<pinwheels@attcanada.net> wrote:

>Don Libby wrote in message <393E730F.2F71D6CD@tds.net>...
>>Tim O'Flaherty wrote:
>>>
>>> Greig Ebeling wrote in message <393e22ee.49400070@news.bigpond.com>...
>>> >On Wed, 07 Jun 2000 02:10:05 GMT, kinsler@frognet.net (Mark Kinsler)
>>> >wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>Greig Ebeling <greige@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Yet wind power schemes are
>>> >theoretically able to produce no more than a few percent of our power
>>> >before becoming uneconomical.
>>>
>>> What "theory" are you refering to?  Do you have references and data to
>back
>>> up this assertion?  What specifically is  "a few percent"  ?  2%,  5%,
>80%
>>> ?
>>
>>"The levels of electricity generation from intermittent sources (for
>>example from wind turbines or photovoltaic arrays) that can be accepted
>>in a supply system depend strongly on the nature of the system and the
>>measures that manage time variations in load.  Typical percentages of
>>wind or solar shares in systems without storage are about 20% for grid
>>systems and up to 50% for large systems with reservoir based hydro or
>>time zone variations of loads (Sorensen, 1981, 1987; Grubb and Meyer,
>>1993; Kelly and Weinberg, 1993).
>>
>>"Short-term storage will ease regulation and possibly improve power
>>quality, but only intermediate and long-term storage will allow large
>>systems to have shares of variable renewable-energy sources that
>>significantly exceed 50% (Jensen and Sorensen, 1984).
>>
>>"The SUTIL simulation model (Kelly and Weinberg, 1993) calculates the
>>average cost of electrric generation as the result of an hour-by-hour
>>simulation that takes into account demand, the variable output of
>>intermittent renewable equipment, the load-leveling capabilities of
>>hydroelectric facilities, and the dispatching characteristics of
>>alternative thermal-electric plants.  Results of a SUTIL simulation of
>>10 alternative portfolios for a hypthetical utility--based on assumed
>>values of the demand load profile, insolation, fuel costs, and capital
>>costs--are shown in Figure 19-4.  For this set of alternative utility
>>investment portfolios...  the fraction of electrical energy provided by
>>intermittents can rise up to about 30%, without the use of new
>>electrical storage technology, before costs start rising significantly."
>
>
>Thanks Don.
>Long before we get to 20% the Danes and whoever else is smart enough to get
>into this market will be begging researchers to take their money for bulk
>energy storage research.  In fact I would be surprised if they aren't
>already looking into the possibilities.  

Bulk energy storage is indeed a problem, since the market has been
begging for a solution for decades, with no real advances being made
on lead-acid batteries.  Fuel cells and vanadium redox batteries offer
a solution for transport issues, but do not offer the grand solution
required to improve the viability of renewable energy.

>If I was a gambler I would bet on
>an economical solution to this before the solution, or resolution if you
>will, of the nuke waste quandary.

The nuke waste "quandery" has been solved from a technical
perspective.  But the politics of warm-inner-glow
pseudo-environmentalism and ignorant NIMBY attitudes, they will indeed
take some time to resolve.


...Greig