🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 10 Jun 2000 09:18:34 -0400, "Tim O'Flaherty"
<pinwheels@attcanada.net> wrote:

>Greig Ebeling wrote in message <3940d93f.51465324@news.bigpond.com>...
>>On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 22:15:21 -0400, "Tim O'Flaherty"
>><pinwheels@attcanada.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>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.
>
>
>Redox can power anything from a golf cart to a city.  There are several
>versions of redox, vanadium is but one.

Quite, so, but I am more familiar with V redox, so it slips out all
the time.

And sure, redox technology is flexible and can scale, but it is
expensive, and has questionable environmental benefit. 

[snip]

>Once again, please note, "a grid connected, load-levelling unit ".  That's a
>bit more than "transport issues".  

The Japanese have an experimental unit, that does not mean that redox
energy storage is economically viable for large-scale use.

>Just as 20 to 50% is a bit more than  "a
>few percent".

You have misunderstood me.  A "few percent" refers to the prospective
capacity level of wind power in Australia, based on both theoretical
restriction AND economic viability, not the pure theoretical values
(20-50%) which do not take economics into account.


...Greig