Slashdot Mirror


In Oregon, Wind Power Surges Disrupting Grid

cpm99352 writes "The Oregonian reports gusts of wind cause synchronized power surges, more than the transmission lines can handle. Windmill farms are ordered to fan their blades, despite tremendous demand for 'green' power from California."

84 of 506 comments (clear)

  1. Store in a water tower by retro83 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not use the energy during these peaks to pump water up to the top of a tower, then gradually release it as required. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

    1. Re:Store in a water tower by thijsh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Towers won't work, you need a lake to be able to store a capacity you can actually use. Dutch wind energy is currently being stored in Norwegian lakes (because here it's flat, and they have mountain lakes). Apparently the advantage was worth laying the worlds longest underwater power line between nations.

      But taking this idea a step further for local power generation: Why convert to electricity in the first place? If you pump water to a higher place you might as well let the windmills pump it directly (that's why the Dutch invented them after all), you have an immediate buffer in the lake so you can never pump too hard, and the hydroelectric generators can be throttled easily. You have the benefits of a buffer and a higher efficiency, as well as a more simple design (no high-tech generators needed in every windmill). Damn great idea, if I say it myself... Must be because I'm Dutch. :-)

    2. Re:Store in a water tower by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 4, Funny

      You want to pump water over what kind of distances? From holland to norway?

    3. Re:Store in a water tower by Framboise · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The efficiency of such a system is low.

      See my other post on local energy storage with hydrogen
      which reaches 98% efficiency.

    4. Re:Store in a water tower by c0lo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Dutch wind energy is currently being stored in Norwegian lakes (because here it's flat, and they have mountain lakes). Apparently the advantage was worth laying the worlds longest underwater power line between nations.

      With my emphasis on the quote above, I reckon that if the Oregon->California electrical lines would be of the same quality, then we wouldn't see TFA on /., would we?

      But taking this idea a step further for local power generation: Why convert to electricity in the first place? If you pump water to a higher place [etc.]

      Now, as a Dutch you should now that the Dutch windmills were used initially to pump water out, not to generate the electricity.
      Where is this relevant? If your main purpose is to generate electricity, then each step of transforming energy in different forms will cost you at the bottom line (efficiency goes down). I'm not saying that transforming wind (kinetic) energy in water accumulation (potential energy) is stupid if you have excess of wind energy But if you don't have excess, then direct transformation into electric energy will offer you the best return.

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    5. Re:Store in a water tower by OeLeWaPpErKe · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That's only true for the electrical efficiency.

      The political efficiency of losing 90% of your generated power (probably 150% if you count the construction cost amortized over 20 years) in a way that is called "green" by journalists who don't realize that there is anything behind the power socket ...

      The self-masturbatory potential is off the scale ...

      (and of course, once everything's factored in, this actually hurts the environment. Not that the dutch have anything remotely resembling a natural environment left. In reality the dutch destroyed the entirety of the original dutch environment several centuries ago, because they wanted to cure malaria by destroying all dutch swamps (holland would normally be a country of swamps and sand banks). In addition they made massive stretches of land areable and inhabitable by doing this. It worked. And it was probably the best public health policy ever, and one of the few doublings of a country's territory that did not involve killing one's neighbors)

    6. Re:Store in a water tower by thijsh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Pumping water with wind energy insures you can use wind energy as a baseline power supply (although it's actually hydro energy that achieves it). You lose some efficiency in raw power output, but since you can spread the use out to all day wind or no wind you increase the worth of that generated power a lot. The biggest disadvantages of both wind and solar is that they can't supply the base load 24/7. Mitigating that problem by reducing efficiency is a trade-off that can really help renewable energy become more mainstream and reduce our dependence on fossil fuel (which is still used mostly to supply baseline power). Also with scarce wind available this may still increase the value of the wind energy enough to make it worth the trade-off... Maybe not today, but soon enough.

      As for the 'as a Dutch you should know'; when you quote someone it helps to also read the part you replaced with '[etc.]' since I already noted that windmills were created originally to pump water...

    7. Re:Store in a water tower by thijsh · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think journalists are slowly becoming aware that for something to be green there is more to it than people telling them it's green... They love a scoop, and an article about 150% loss of the power, which basically makes it an exercise in futility would be a good thing for them..

      And the natural environment we had here centuries ago was already fast-changing, the rivers and sea shaped the land constantly. It was not an environment you could live in comfortably, and there weren't any old forests. Human involvement first started by keeping land the way it was, and later adding more land to it. I'd hardly call this 'destroyed', but the original nature is indeed severely reduced and most is shaped into something useful.

      As they say: "God created the earth, but the Dutch created the Netherlands" :)

    8. Re:Store in a water tower by demonlapin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Pumped-water storage is the current tech of choice for grid-scale batteries. You do need nearby hills, but it works fairly well. List.

    9. Re:Store in a water tower by PseudonymousBraveguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Basically, this. There also is research into storing the energy as compressed air. The compressed air can also be generated directly by the windmills (sorry for the marketing video, was to lazy to search for a more scientific source)

    10. Re:Store in a water tower by c0lo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Pumping water with wind energy insures you can use wind energy as a baseline power supply (although it's actually hydro energy that achieves it). You lose some efficiency in raw power output,

      I didn't say that balancing the input/output and buffering is a bad idea.
      I only said that if the energy is needed in the grid, you should deliver it directly instead of storing it in water towers.

      Maybe I took wrong your first post when you say taking this idea a step further for local power generation: Why convert to electricity in the first place?: it looked to me as you suggested to always store it as hydro - if that's indeed what you were saying, my argument was against "always" which should be replaced with "when in excess".

      Mitigating that problem by reducing efficiency is a trade-off that can really help renewable energy become more mainstream and reduce our dependence on fossil fuel

      So, reducing the efficiency plus investing in a hydro buffer does make the energy become mainstream? Something is wrong in my world which, like/agree with it or not, is currently driven by prices. Until the freaking "price on carbon" is not injected into the world's economy (in no matter how: "trade-able emission quota", "penalties for extra emission", etc) I don't think this is going to happen.

      Other than that, even buffering an unpredictable input it is not without technical difficulties:
      a. in your example, to store the excess in Norway lakes, you need a cable that's currently the wonder of submersible cables. And TFA was saying "the grid is the bottleneck, otherwise the CA people would be happy to suck the energy in". If you need to lay a line to the appropriate lake and build a hydro on it, wouldn't it be cheaper to just enhance the current grid which acts as a bottleneck?
      b. what if you don't have enough water around to raise in the tower/lake? The "buffering" solution will still be valid, except that hydro is not the only buffer possible
      c. what if the lake you use doesn't have enough capacity for the excess you record? What makes more economic sense: invest in a "bigger lake" or just let the excess go?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    11. Re:Store in a water tower by vtcodger · · Score: 2

      ***Why not use the energy during these peaks to pump water up to the top of a tower, then gradually release it as required***

      That's called 'pumped storage' and the US has some capability including -- if I recall correctly -- at Grand Coulee Dam which would be near the windmills in question. However, it's not terribly efficient and requires a lot of rather expensive hardware that won't be used very often.

      The power system engineers are well aware of pumped storage and if they aren't using it, there is probably a reason. I'd guess that it takes time to turn a facility like Grand Coulee around and go from generating electricity to storing water. Presumably, the power has to travel to the dam over the same power lines that are used to take power away. Perhaps it takes time to turn them around.

      --
      You can't see ANYTHING from a car, You've got to get out of the goddamned contraption and walk...Edward Abbey
    12. Re:Store in a water tower by mlts · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Even better would be a means of pulling carbon from the air over at the generation plant, generating hydrogen gas or an alcohol, then pumping that fuel via pipeline to a place near the city, and burning it there. This sounds Rube Goldberg-ish, but doing something like this would mean more energy gets to the grid from the generator because it is not lost to wire resistance over the long distances.

      The only disadvantage would be needing a source of water near the generation plant, and the fact that vandals and kooks are not deterred from messing with it like they are with high voltage power lines (for the most part).

    13. Re:Store in a water tower by mcgrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The idea of environmentalism has changed drastically since the late 1960s when people started talking about it. Back then it was poisons in the air and water; In Cahokia, IL where I grew up, the aptly named Dead Creek's water was so polluted the creek caught fire. A mile north in Sauget you could not drive past Monsanto with your windows rolled down or the air would burn your lungs. There were 100,000 fifty five gallon drums filled with toxic waste buried along the banks of the Mississippi river just west of Cahokia. There was lead in gasoline, PCBs in electrical transformers, etc. The environment in the US (at least in Cahokia) was toxic.

      After Nixon signed the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water act, these problems disappeared over time. The vegetation is a brighter green now, and you can drive past Monsanto with your windows down and not even smell any bad smells.

      Nobody who lived before this environmental legislation, or had a loved one crippled or killed due to an employer's negligence before OSHA, is against government regulation unless they're sociopaths who don't give a damn about other people's health, well being, or livlihood. That includes the BP apologists; I feel for the poor folks living on the Gulf.

      I'd rather see windmills than coal, gas, or oil fired generators; I can't see how windmills will poison anything. I really don't care about a few dead birds; the day after the tornados hit here in Springfield in 2006, there were thousands of dead birds everywhere (and far fewer trees for them to live in). The bird population didn't take long at all to reappear.

    14. Re:Store in a water tower by vlm · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Even better would be a means of pulling carbon from the air over at the generation plant, generating hydrogen gas or an alcohol, then pumping that fuel via pipeline to a place near the city, and burning it there.

      1) Windmills tend to be in agricultural areas, because the land is cheap and too windy for the average resident anyway.

      2) Factory farming / big agribusiness is also located there

      3) FF / Big Agro requires fertilizers, in part derived from ammonia, to function

      4) Ammonia production via Haber-Bosch requires nitrogen (air) and purified hydrogen (electrolyzed water) and a crapton of energy.

      5) Conveniently overreving windmills have lots of air and a crapton of energy. Most windmills are either offshore (surrounded by H2O) or are in a non-arid area. Perhaps Oregon has a lack of water, don't know.

      So, the rural areas will make their own fertilizer using excess power. Cool.

      Of course stereotypical Haber-Bosch plants are all designed to run continuously so as to maximize capital return, and why the heck not. That having a variable source of power has never been a plant requirement, so plants would not tolerate it, does not mean that its technologically impossible to design and build a Haber-Bosch plant that only runs during low demand hours, or that can tolerate a modest disruption to incoming power.

      The main problem is electric power companies are not really fertilizer companies. Oh sure, just like any other major American corporation, their management and marketing people spew out vast quantities of B.S., and B.S. is a great nitrogen fertilizer, but its not their core competency. Some fertilizer company would pretty much have to move out there and set up a plant with Very favorable contracted energy cost rates. But most fertilizer companies are dead set on using depleting natural gas as their H2 source...

      --
      "Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
    15. Re:Store in a water tower by RicktheBrick · · Score: 2, Informative

      I live in Ludington, Michigan. There is a pumped storage plant just south of here. It was the world's largest when it was built over 30 years ago. They use excess electricity at night to pump the water up and recover around two thirds of that energy during the day. One third is always wasted but it is better than wasting all of that energy. In order to run those generators at peak efficiency they must be ran at the same output 24 hours a day. They do not want to shut some of them off at night because of the damage caused by constantly allowing contraction and expansion by shutting them off. The Lake Michigan shore area is also an excellent source of wind but there are no windmills here at the present time. If they did build windmills to turn the blades to pump the water up(they are also used to generate the electricity), what would they do with the excess power generated at night? The primary reason for it existence is to store that power. The only way it would work if they could depend on enough wind to always pump the needed water so that they could permanently shut some of the generators down but one can not depend on the wind that much.

    16. Re:Store in a water tower by radtea · · Score: 4, Insightful

      unless they're sociopaths who don't give a damn about other people's health, well being, or livlihood.

      Never assume venality where stupidity will do. There are actually two types of people who are opposed to government regulation: the sociopaths, and the dupes. I know this because I was once a dupe.

      The arguments for "the free market" can sound pretty compelling to someone who is naive and basically decent, who doesn't appreciate the depths of human depravity in the wild. We still see libertarians regularly on /. who are so sincerely addled by their ideology that they don't recognize state failures like Somalia and the tribal lands in northern Pakistan and parts of Afghanistan as real world examples of their theories in action. They simply can't believe that people would behave in such obviously idiotic, sub-optimal ways for centuries or longer.

      Yet anyone who looks at history realizes that stateless, unregulated societies are unstable against tribalism. If humans were economically rational automatons they would not be, but we aren't.

      On the flip side, being "for" regulation doesn't mean that we can't disagree vigorously over what kind of regulation is appropiate. But having that debate means first figuring out that we aren't sociopaths on either the left or the right (and don't kid yourself: at the level of the political leadership the left has always been dominated by sociopaths, just like the right, and for the same reasons.)

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    17. Re:Store in a water tower by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. There needs to be a balance in all things. Let's talk about just the simple things that have improved. When I was a kid and went to the local convenience store the parking lot was covered with pop tops! After going to the beach you checked your feet for tar every day.
      There was lead in the gas and no real emission controls on cars.
      looking back I am amazed just how much better things are now than back in the "good old days".
      Oh and my father worked for a paper mill. They had a car wash at the plant so the fumes wouldn't eat the paint off your car too quickly.
      Not to mention that in the 40s and 50s that people actually thought it was okay to play with nukes above ground! Thankfully that was before my time.
      I am not an extreme green person but regulation is just like any other from of law. A little bit now and then really helps.

      Now back to this wind issue.
      I just don't think that wind will work large scale because of these issues. It is not reliable enough. Yes you could use water pumping to store excess but you then have the problem that in the US most wind fields are not gong to be in the mountains. The great plains are very flat.
      The other issue is the impact of doing that water storage. Damming up valley's is not environmentally clean. You destroy one ecosystem and replace it with a different one. I still think nuclear is the best solution for now. That I an am really hoping the Polywell reactor will work.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    18. Re:Store in a water tower by russ1337 · · Score: 5, Funny

      You want to pump water over what kind of distances? From holland to norway?

      no no no.... use wind power to create electricity locally and heat local water so it evaporates into clouds. Then blow those clouds over the lakes in Norway using really big fans. Then fire lasers at the clouds so it rains into those lakes to get the hydro electricity you need. Do I have to think of everything.... gosh.

    19. Re:Store in a water tower by Rei · · Score: 4, Informative

      Local energy storage with hydrogen, 98% efficiency? HA!

      Round trip, it's closer to 50% using ceramic fuel cells, and the capital costs are absurd compared to other options relative to power provided (and only moderate relative to energy stored).

      The two most cost-effective storage methods at this point in time are batteries and pumped hydro. In most areas, pumped hydro is cheaper. Pumped hydro does *not* require continuous incoming water (beyond what is lost to evaporation), and the water pumped need not be freshwater (it could be a mining pond contaminated with nuclear waste for all they care). As far as batteries go, there are several techs that are all reasonable and depend on what you need -- lead acid and various flow batteries (most famously, vanadium redox) being the prime examples.

      Also, not all energy storage is for *supply* buffering. Worldwide, the overwhelming majority of it is for *demand* buffering. And not all of the demand buffering is even due to power plant limitations; some is due to line limitations. For example, one of the Rattlesnake lines out in Utah has a vanadium redox buffer for voltage support out in Castle Valley. The area is sensitive, so they have trouble building new lines, and a lot of the places that need power are rather isolated, so they can't justify increasing the capacity of their existing lines. So what they did was build a big buffer in the middle of it that stores power at night and releases it during the day.

      Energy storage does add a cost, but it's not prohibitive. It's generally a couple cents per kilowatt hour, give or take.

      --
      The chloride owes the sodium money.
    20. Re:Store in a water tower by Jesse_vd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm from Canada but i was driving through Grand Coulee last week and caught their 35 minutes laser show o nthe history of the damn (they project it right onto the spillway's falling water around 10pm... very cool) The water pumped into Banks lake is mainly for irrigation purposes, only generating power when it is in very high demand

    21. Re:Store in a water tower by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That depends on the losses you're willing to tolerate. Bouncing maser beams off geosynchronous satellites would 'work' in the sense that you'd get some power out at the far end and it would be better than simply wasting excess energy, but it wouldn't be at all efficient (I think around 2% with current technology, 10-20% with some of the stuff that's only in labs and might not work when you scale it up).

      This kind of inefficiency would be insane for a fossil fuel or nuclear plant - it would be better to just transport the fuel - but it might make sense for something where you have no control over the output.

      Another option, of course, relies on your not caring about latency. There's nothing stopping you from using excess capacity in Europe to produce hydrocarbons (or hydrogen), ship them across the atlantic, and then burn them on the far side (or vice versa). This would work better between north and south hemispheres, so that seasonal peaks in demand can be flattened out.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    22. Re:Store in a water tower by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Funny

      A libertarian is an anarchist with a trust fund.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    23. Re:Store in a water tower by ArsonSmith · · Score: 2, Interesting

      but if we run the power lines all the way around the earth we'll turn the earth into a giant magnet and start attracting asteroids and stray UFS will crash more regularly into our planet.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    24. Re:Store in a water tower by Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's only true for the electrical efficiency.

      The political efficiency of losing 90% of your generated power (probably 150% if you count the construction cost amortized over 20 years) in a way that is called "green" by journalists who don't realize that there is anything behind the power socket ...

      What on Earth are you talking about? Pumped hydro storage has a 70-85% round trip efficiency. Energy payback for wind and hydro is a couple years. HVDC has only a couple percent losses over long distances So what are you talking about?

      Really, what's up with this article in general? What, to say "wind turbines have to be feathered during storms"? That's why they make them so that they can be feathered. That's the whole point. Are they trying to point out the "little known fact" (note the sarcasm quotes) that the amount the wind blows in a given area varies? Why not point out *actual* little known facts, such as that HVDC can haul huge amounts of power on proportionally small amounts of conductors over huge distances with losses of about 3% per 1000 miles? Or that by spreading wind out geographically, a sizeable chunk of it can be counted on to be as reliable as our current standards for baseload reliability? Or perhaps they could bust that bird-kill myth that just won't die? Or perhaps that stupid "wind turbines just mean more spinning standby, so they don't actually produce any power" myth?

      Nah, it's an article all about, "OMG! You have to feather blades in a storm, and the wind doesn't blow all the time in a given place!

      --
      The chloride owes the sodium money.
    25. Re:Store in a water tower by n8r0n · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nuclear power is nothing but a band-aid. It is not a viable long-term solution. If the world replaced all its coal or oil with nuclear power (as some smaller countries like France have come close to doing), the supply of nuclear fuel would run out even more quickly than the known reserves of oil would.

      Do not confuse "non-greenhouse-gas-producing" with "sustainable". Nuclear power doesn't create CO2 as a significant by-product, but it is not sustainable. It can help us generate the energy we need to build sustainable infrastructure, but it is not sustainable itself.

      Wind power is sustainable, for as long as we have a sun and an atmosphere. This surge "problem" is a joke, solvable in a handful of different ways. The level of debate is merely indicative of the fact that most slashdotters are not mechanical/civil engineers.

  2. From TFA, wind is fine. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem is not wind power, it is an electricity grid in poor condition. Frankly, that is going to be a problem with or without wind power.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by hey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I agree. Its like a programmer saying "the program works...just don't click there"

    2. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, it is a grid designed for slow turn on/off generators (coal, oil, nuclear) being fed with fast turn on/off generators. It is like taking a truck off-road. A truck perfectly suitable for is normal job is not fit for purpose on un-metalled road. The grid is not fit for the purpose to which it is now being put.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    3. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by noidentity · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, it is a grid designed for slow turn on/off generators (coal, oil, nuclear) being fed with fast turn on/off generators. It is like taking a truck off-road. A truck perfectly suitable for is normal job is not fit for purpose on un-metalled road.

      So it's not like a truck that you can just dump power on, more like a system of tubes that might not be able to handle all that at once?

    4. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Grid maintenance also means you have to update it when requirements change. More reliance on wind energy means you need more flexibility in where your electricity is generated and how much of it is generated. Leaving your grid the way it was while you change where and how electricity is generated, is rather stupid.

    5. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Certainly. But we have a frog-in-hot-water situation here, with political complications. The grid as built can take a small amount of wind power. But as the amount of wind power increases, the limits of its adaptability are reached. And now you have the problem of who pays for the necessary upgrades. The guy who added the last windmill that exceeded the limit? All windmill owners? The Oregon grid, which needs upgrading? The California consumers who want this green power? Everybody says it is not their responsibility and the US, with its dislike of government control, does not have the mechanisms for someone to take charge and decide who pays for it in the short term, and how they are going to get paid back buy the other beneficiaries.

      The trouble is that, since this is a huge one-off, market forces don't work very well. Of course, eventually the pain caused will open a market opportunity and business will find a way to solve the problem. But without a so-called socialist supervisor authority to predict and control, business are going to wait until the pain is excruciating before suppling the demand. In the long term the market will work; in the short term the economy and people will suffer.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    6. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by twisteddk · · Score: 3, Informative

      I could probably quote myself from the comment I made about 6-12 months ago when someone posted an article about the US wanting to buy more green power. But I wont bother to search for the article, so I'll just say:

      THIS IS the problem with the currently renewable energy sources. We do not have control over their output. When they produce too little we need to augment, when they procude too much, we need to siphon the excess. The higher the percentage of renewable energy is being used, the more these extremes will vary.
      So putting out an economic incetive (like the energy credit in the article), means that societys requirements and needs will be countered by politics (however well intended) when they're told they're overperforming, because the energy shouldn't go to waste.

      The exact same thing happens here (where we can't rely on solar during the day, due to heavy clouding during wintertime where powerconsumption is highest), the windmills overproduce heavily at night, where the cost of energy can actually drop to NEGATIVE (yes, you get paid to buy power at certain times of the night on rare occasions in northern Europe). One of the ways to counter this, is actually by tailoring consumption. So if you have a smart house, and an electric car. NOW is the time your batteries will start charging. This is also the idea behind the "better place" http://www.betterplace.com/ Weather you store in a chemical or natural battery (like a lake on the other side of a dam), or you turn down other sources of power, we WILL need a way to regulate that doesn't involve cutting production of the cleanest powersources.

      I admit, there WILL be a cost to the energy infrastructure in the future (or as the article suggest, NOW). And as the energy market goes global, we're not just talking sales from state to state. But that investment should have been obvious from the initial planning of the site. If you can procude 400MW, it's no good if the infrastructure is only made to handle a third of that. That'd be like building a 1 lane freeway.

      --
      --- To err is human... Am I more human than most ?
    7. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by Pascal+Sartoretti · · Score: 5, Informative

      THIS IS the problem with the currently renewable energy sources. We do not have control over their output.

      No : the major source of renewable energy today is hydroelectric dams, whose output can be nearly 100% controlled.

    8. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by Ecuador · · Score: 5, Funny

      Or an engineer saying "the antenna around the phone works... just don't touch it there"

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    9. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Informative

      Solar thermal also does not face this problem. It has very, very predictable peak loads and any excess can be stored directly as heat in an underground reservoir of molten salt or heated oil for nighttime use, or you can simply turn a valve and direct the steam away from the traditional turbines.

    10. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by anorlunda · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No. In most cases it is not public money that builds transmission, but private money.

      Somebody has to convince investors to put their money in transmission projects rather than Google/BP/Pharma/Banks/Apple and so on. That's not easy, especially in the face of regulatory uncertainty.

      How does the investor earn a profit on the transmision line? By fees and/or energy market trading. However, in the blink of an eye government can change the rules and wipe out all that future revenue.

      Regulatory uncertainty (not the regulations but the uncertainty) results in decision paralysis.

    11. Re:From TFA, wind is fine. by seanadams.com · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It also happens to be nicely in phase with peak air conditioner usage.

  3. Fan the Blades? by MagusSlurpy · · Score: 3, Funny

    As in, "Sit in front of the turbines, flapping a big feather fan to generate more electricity?" Great idea!

    --
    My sister opened a computer store in Hawaii. She sells C shells by the seashore.
    1. Re:Fan the Blades? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, you put the fan behind, so it goes against the wind. It not only reduces the generated power, but in addition removes some of the generated power directly at the generation place, so it doesn't hit the grid. As added bonus, the article mentions that the renewable energy credits are only generated when the blades are spinning, however it doesn't tell that you may not use that power yourself (and if there's some regulation to that effect, you simply found a second company to put up the fans, and sell the required electricity to that second company).

      --
      The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  4. Finally... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    Green energy is destroying things. Let's go back to burning things just to be safe.

  5. explanation about the condition of the grid by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why, technically speaking, is your power grid in the CA area in such poor condition? Were there missteps in its construction or maintenance? Why isn't capacity being increased? Is it a problem of deciding responsibility for organising interstate builds, and if so why don't other states suffer the problem? Spain has this on-and-off problem of autonomous regions with lots of water not providing to areas with less water; the ("federal") government of the day can determine the outcome.

    1. Re:explanation about the condition of the grid by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is not in California, it is in Oregon. The demand is in California, but they cannot get the supply out of Oregon. It is not the case of the grid being in bad condition (though it is not in good condition), it is the case of the grid being built for fossil, nuclear, and hydroelectric power which turns on/off predictably and controllably, without major surges, now being used for wind power which surges unpredictably. Water is not a good analogy - surges in the water supply are on a matter of days or even weeks, whereas surges in the wind are a matter of. a second or so.

      Because wind power varies, it has to be backed up by another power source which is turned down and up to fill in the gaps in the wind. But most power stations take at least a few seconds for the most agile (gas turbine) to many hours (nuclear) to turn on and off. If the wind varies too fast, this cannot be done and net grid power - the sum of wind and other - varies in a dangerous manner. The solution is for the wind power not to use the highest peaks, wasting the energy that California would like but preventing damage to the grid and equipment attached to it.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    2. Re:explanation about the condition of the grid by Hungus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is not in California, it is in Oregon. The demand is in California, but they cannot get the supply out of Oregon.

      Sounds to me like a large part of the problem is that Californians are using more than they produce. That in itself is a problem, in fact is the heart of the problem. Californians need to produce more power locally, use less or find a balance of the two.

      The same thing goes with California's other budget issue - fiscal-

      --
      Bad Panda! No Bamboo for you! In matters of importance ACs will not be responded to. Want to say something critical,OK
    3. Re:explanation about the condition of the grid by AlecC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I don't agree. Doing everything in your own back garden is extremely inefficient. Things should be done where they can be done most efficiently - allowing for the cost of transport. You generate wind power where the wind is, solar power where the sun is, wave power where the waves are. Then transport it to where the users are

      By your logic, California should only burn oil pumped in California. In fact, why allow a whole state to share - why not require SF to used only oil pumped in SF.

      And certainly California should not import water in the way it does. Which would lead to most of Southern California being abandoned - it survives only on water imported from the north.

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
    4. Re:explanation about the condition of the grid by mad_ian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think there are limits to how much of a given resource one group of people should be importing.

      There are too many people in SoCal to be able to provide them enough water. The problem isn't too little water, it's too many people. Some of them need to leave, and go where there is more water. People have been doing this for thousands of years. Our technology does not eliminate this process, only allows it to happen less often.

      --
      ~Donald / Just RTFM
    5. Re:explanation about the condition of the grid by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That may be so, but up here in WA we're having to deal with the consequences of the short sightedness and greed of Californians. We could reduce the number of dams we have or allow more water to spill over them here to better serve our commercial fishing industry if we weren't needing to sell that capacity to Californians. Likewise, why should people in Oregon have to lose ground for other purposes so that Californians don't have to put up their own solar arrays?

      Californians have been doing this sort of thing for some time, and while we like the money, it really would be better if they stopped behaving like they have the right to export their externalities when folks up here are actually trying to do something about ours.

    6. Re:explanation about the condition of the grid by AlecC · · Score: 2, Insightful

      At a price... If you don't want your state built over (and I sympathize with you), keep doubling the price. That is the way the market works, and America loves the market...

      --
      Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  6. New efficient energy storage with hydrogen by Framboise · · Score: 4, Interesting

    McPhy claims to be able to store energy at 98% efficiency with hydrogen in solid containers,
    which are precisely aimed for solving such problems.

    http://www.mcphy.com/en/products/iso-containers.php

    If I were investor I would look more closely to such technological advances.

    1. Re:New efficient energy storage with hydrogen by Smidge204 · · Score: 4, Informative

      The site you link claims 97%, not 98%.

      And that's just storage. In practice, you get 70% efficiency for making the hydrogen from water and around 50% from a fuel cell turning it back into electricity. Inverter losses are typically another 2-3% (98% efficiency) on both ends.

      0.98 * 0.70 * 0.97 * 0.50 * 0.98 = 22.6% overall.

      Pumped water storage is between 70% to 85% efficient overall.
      =Smidge=

    2. Re:New efficient energy storage with hydrogen by AdmiralXyz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You're missing the point. The point is that instead of the windmills dumping their dangerously varying loads straight into the grid, use them to charge something like this, which can be discharged (even simultaneously) at a steady pace, and that's what goes into the grid.

      I'm not sure this technology is really necessary though. Magnetic flywheels achieve similar efficiencies and they've been around forever. What improvement does this offer?

      --
      Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
  7. Much ado about nothing by amorsen · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So the wind turbines had to reduce production for a few hours. Is it really worth doing massive build-outs to fix that? It's sad to see energy go to waste, but on the other hand you can go outside and watch all the energy going to waste because there isn't a wind turbine to catch it in the first place!

    As long we're wasting less than 10% of power (and right now we're below 1% at least in wind-farm-filled Denmark) I don't see the problem. I bet planned and unplanned maintenance accounts for several percent anyway.

    --
    Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    1. Re:Much ado about nothing by Ascylon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Wind power is inherently unreliable and completely unfeasible as a large-scale power-generation method. I found the following an interesting read:

      Hugh Sharman, – Why Wind Power ‘Works’ in Denmark
      http://www.incoteco.com/upload/CIEN.158.2.66.pdf

      The gist of it is that Denmark exports almost all of the wind energy they generate to neighbouring countries, because most of the time the power generated is in excess of the demand. Granted, that paper is several years old, but it still demonstrates the randomness of wind-based energy-generation pretty well.

      Wind can never be used for base load energy generation without some kind of (expensive and impractical) energy-storing gimmicks, so instead of that how about just building a few comparatively cheap nuclear reactors and being set for decades? Perhaps at that point wind energy will be more feasible, but until then throwing money into implementing inferior energy-generation methods seems kind of silly.

    2. Re:Much ado about nothing by Halo1 · · Score: 2, Informative

      The gist of it is that Denmark exports almost all of the wind energy they generate to neighbouring countries, because most of the time the power generated is in excess of the demand.

      Denmark is a very small country with lots of wind. I'd guess that they are doing this on purpose, simply producing power as an export product (probably a bit like Oregon in this story).

      In Belgium, currently about 55% of our electricity is generated by nuclear plants. The problem? About 55% of the time (from 21h-6h on weekdays and all day on weekends), the power generated is in excess of demand and simply reducing the output of nuclear plants at night and on weekends is apparently not economically feasible (I can't imagine why they wouldn't do it if it were, it's not like Suez/Electrabel are corporations with a bleeding heart).

      As a result, electricity is cheaper at night and on weekends, and virtually all of our motorways are lighted at night. Sure, it's nice to have all that light (except if you want to look at the night sky), and in the future this will also be useful for recharging electric cars, but the constant power generation by nuclear plants is not without its problems either.

      Granted, that paper is several years old, but it still demonstrates the randomness of wind-based energy-generation pretty well.

      It's not really random, but it definitely is variable. What is however generally more important is the predictability of the generation so you can adapt other means of production. And those prediction models get more accurate every year. In fact, the more wind mills are put into operation, the more accurate the models get because you get more measurement locations.

      In Belgium, if the wind comes from the East, then based on measurements in Germany they can quite accurately predict the output of Belgian wind farms several hours in advance. This allows them to constantly adjust the power production of other plants (in Belgium it's mainly natural gas, often combined with burning garbage because we don't have room for huge landfills) and keep the grid at a more or less constant load.

      Wind can never be used for base load energy generation without some kind of (expensive and impractical) energy-storing gimmicks, so instead of that how about just building a few comparatively cheap nuclear reactors and being set for decades? Perhaps at that point wind energy will be more feasible

      One problem is that nuclear does not play nice together with wind/solar power generation because of its inflexibility in terms of output. It does not make sense to put lots of wind mills or solar panels on a grid that is almost completely fed by nuclear plants, because their production patterns cannot be used to complement each other. As a result, you get less investment in wind/solar power research, which is sort of a vicious circle.

      It's true that you do need a base load guarantee and that localised wind production can in no way guarantee that. One of the keywords is locally though, because if you look at the wind over large areas of land (and/or water), the variations in total available wind power are reduced quite a bit (lots of nice graphs).

      There's no silver bullet, but I think it's incorrect to paint the picture as if wind power is completely unsuited compared to nuclear power. Both have problems in terms of matching the demand and keeping an even grid load.

      --
      Donate free food here
    3. Re:Much ado about nothing by amorsen · · Score: 2, Informative

      Modern wind turbines don't run in phase with the grid, they convert with power electronics. This means that they are a great stabilizing factor on the grid in the short term, especially if the load needs power factor correction.

      Older wind turbines were indeed troublesome for the grid because it is difficult to keep something powered by the wind rotating at a completely steady speed. Luckily this is no longer necessary.

      Anyway, two coal fired blocks are supposed to be closed in Denmark this year according to this article. They have not been replaced by new coal-fired capacity (and that wouldn't make sense anyway, as they are fairly modern and quite efficient).

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    4. Re:Much ado about nothing by Ascylon · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that wind cannot be reliably used for any kind of power generation (except with some means of energy storage). You will still need to provide the exact same amount of peaking power plants whether or not you had any wind-based energy production. In effect this means that wind power will not decrease the amount of conventional power plants at all, and I am pretty sure that the amount of fuel savings they manage for fuel-consuming peaking power plants (by having them run less) during their operational life cycle will not be that much compared to the resources it takes to build the wind turbines and maintain them.

  8. store as Hydrogen by xirtam_work · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I've suggested this elsewhere for other wind farms. How about having a hydrogen electrolysis plant nearby where water can be turned into Hydrogen that can be turned back into electricity during non-peak wind (tidal, or whatever) periods. Hydrogen can be burnt turning it back into water easily and produces heat that can be turned into electricity cheaply and easily. The most expensive part of the whole unit would be the hydrogen storage. This can safely be placed underground to avoid leaks and explosions if required.

    1. Re:store as Hydrogen by hipp5 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've suggested this elsewhere for other wind farms. How about having a hydrogen electrolysis plant nearby where water can be turned into Hydrogen that can be turned back into electricity during non-peak wind (tidal, or whatever) periods. Hydrogen can be burnt turning it back into water easily and produces heat that can be turned into electricity cheaply and easily. The most expensive part of the whole unit would be the hydrogen storage. This can safely be placed underground to avoid leaks and explosions if required.

      They are doing this in some locations. I know that this is what's happening for British Columbia's first wind farm. However, the incentive is not grid stability, but power lines that are too far away. It's cheaper to truck hydrogen than it is to extend the power grid to the farm.

  9. Re:Stop putting it on the grid! by Shihar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a pretty large difference between the a power surge over a few seconds, and slowly, over the course of months, building up a supply of water in a reservoir. Dealing with a power surge over a few seconds is very hard. Dealing with a reservoir that builds up near to full is pretty freaking easy... just turn off some other power sources and slowly and predictably drain the reservoir. Unpredictability isn't the issue, rapid unpredictability is.

    The problem of course is that the more you buffer something like wind energy, the less efficient (and thus more costly) it becomes. Dumping water into a reservoir will pretty much solve your energy surge problems, but it will make your output and cost crap. I bet the solution is probably more technological. Cleaning up a signal that fluctuates wildly is pretty old hat for signal folks, it just needs some scale up.

  10. yes, that is the tragedy of the dutch by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    so smart, but unable to do anything to do anything about it because they're stuck there with their fingers in a dyke

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  11. Re:Stop putting it on the grid! by tagno25 · · Score: 2, Informative

    One thing that you won't be able to predict is when the tank/lake will be so full you can't pump in it any more. I guess I'm trying to say that: what is unpredictable will stay unpredictable (no matter how many buffers you use to cushion against values you cannot handle).

    How is that unpredictable? You should always know the current water level. If you know the mean and maximum pump rates as well, then you can set a computer to fan the blades on the windmills, in turn generating less electricity, when you get near the limit. If you reach the maximum very often you should think about adding a second reservoir.

  12. It can be done - Spain example by davaguco · · Score: 4, Informative

    It can be done. Just check how Spain manages to cope with a 41% wind energy electricity production: https://demanda.ree.es/demanda.html Check January 14th, 2010 (January = Enero).

    --
    Please google and research "peak oil" a bit. You will discover this crisis is a lot worse than they have told you
    1. Re:It can be done - Spain example by John+Hasler · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sure, in a country less than 1000Km in extent and with much of the population right in the center. It's farther from Oregon to Southern California than it is from one corner of Spain to another.

      --
      Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
  13. Distributed storage by Clueless+Nick · · Score: 2, Informative

    In the not-so-distant future, we may see a large number of electric vehicles on the road, with increasing policy support. The batteries in these vehicles could provide a very good distributed storage solution through an intelligent charging infrastructure.

    One of the biggest arguments against wind power has been intermittency and the inability to tailor demand to supply volatility. An on-site storage can provide stability of output from the wind farm to the grid, but the options are either too ecologically-damaging (normal lead-acid batteries), or too radical (underground compressed air storage), or too debatable (hydrogen, in terms of efficiency of electrolysis, transport / storage and reconversion) and in all cases too expensive and unproven. A high capital cost of the wind farm itself ($1.5 - 1.8 mUSD / MW) and low capacity utilisation factors (27% - 35% at Class I windy sites) mean that given the current utility offtake rates in the US make the project barely viable by itself, and no developer would want to add a hugely expensive backup facility.

    On the other hand, the anti-EV lobby opposes the claim of a reduced carbon footprint by a switchover to electric, by calculating the emissions related to power generation, whether through coal or gas. In this case, it would make imminent sense to use renewable sources to generate electricity for charging EV batteries. This still does not solve the issue of a limited range, which is the chief criticism of EVs.

    Companies like Better Place (http://www.betterplace.com) have started lobbying hard, tying up with governments in Denmark, Israel, Australia, and local bodies in places such as San Francisco and taxis in Tokyo, to establish an EV-charging and battery swapping network to provide an innovative and seemingly practical solution to the range problem. The network they are proposing to build will keep talking to the car (such as the Nissan Leaf) to keep track of the charging status, the vehicle's position and availability of nearby swapping stations.

    Further, in order to address the issue of peak demand, they also propose to charge intelligently, especially during non-peak hours. This can be done for both the battery in the car and the stock in the swapping station. Better Place also talks of buying power from renewable sources to keep the carbon footprint low.

    In India, the wind power producer need not be a dedicated utility. Power can be generated by an industrial unit, fed into the grid, and a credit in terms of kWh supplied is available in the industrial unit's power bill, with banking facilities to help adjust excess generation and excess consumption. In some places, time of day metering and credit mechanism is also used to reward generation during peak hours. Similarly, a wind farm can sell power to an unrelated industrial unit too. Such a system could be introduced in the US and elsewhere.

    Continued...

    --
    Chat with other atheists http://secularchat.org
  14. Re:Isn't fanning the blades the problem? by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Informative

    "Fan the blades" is a a term of art meaning to turn the blades so that they present less resistance to the wind (and thus generate less, or even no, power)

  15. hydrogen is a joke by circletimessquare · · Score: 5, Informative

    people please stop talking about hydrogen

    it wastes too much energy in electrolysis and then burning. plus its a nightmare to store and handle. there's far more efficient energy storage mediums that are far easier to manage

    i wish people would just forget about hydrogen, but it seems to have entered the public conscience and will be a long time in banishing from consideration. hydrogen is not a serious green energy contender, and never will be

    its too wasteful to convert to, and then convert back from, and too messy to handle. please understand these simple obvious facts that make hydrogen a complete waste of your time

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:hydrogen is a joke by BeardedChimp · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your problem is that you are conflating the 'hydrogen economy' with energy storage. The problem with handling and storage is almost entirely negated by having it stored on site and not transported anywhere.

      Any form of storage will have efficiency problems, and even if pumping water up hills is more efficient it won't be feasible if your having problems with transporting electricity in the first place.

    2. Re:hydrogen is a joke by mark-t · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How much energy it "wastes" is wholly immaterial in circumstances there is a surplus of available energy in the first place, which is the circumstance that the GP poster was talking about.

    3. Re:hydrogen is a joke by Culture20 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Oregon could add "world's biggest flywheel" to the list of sites to see.

  16. Re:Stop putting it on the grid! by DeathToBill · · Score: 4, Informative

    The word is 'feather', people. You feather the blades.

    --
    Slashdot - News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters, in ISO-8859-1 Has just realised that beta makes this signature redundant
  17. A very steady source of green power is ... by Skapare · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ... tidal. Build a dam across the entrance of the SF bay and capture the power from the tidal flow going in and out every day. Oh, and you could build a roadway across the top of it and get rid of that ugly bridge right there.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  18. Re:Isn't fanning the blades the problem? by rah1420 · · Score: 3, Informative

    As another poster in this article noted the term is "feather" the blades, not "fan" the blades.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens.
  19. Re:Heard of power demand spikes? by AlecC · · Score: 2, Informative

    As I said, consumer demand spikes are generally predictable, so that generating capacity can be warmed up in advance. When consumers are being unpredictable, they tend to cancel out.

    I have never said that renewables cannot generate enough electricity. However, in order to produce a reliable supply, renewables must be backed up by storage sufficient to cover the troughs in renewable supply by storing energy from the peaks. If you add in the entirely necessary cost for this storage, the total bill becomes much greater. We should still do it, but we must recognize the extra cost.

    Wind power is particularly bad in this respect: Its peak-to-trough ratio is very high, very unpredictable, and troughs can be very long. The latest solar generators, by using thermal instead of photoelectric conversion, are able to store heat overnight in baths of molten salt and flatten out the day/night variation. These provide a much more tractable form of renewable energy.

    --
    Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
  20. Re:Compressed air storage? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because you need a fragile motor/compressor for the process, and air tanks have to be re-tested yearly? Because storing air at 3,000 PSI ain't easy? It's actually a great idea; you'd eliminate the generator in the wind turbine itself, and replace it with an air compressor. Then the generator gets to live on the ground with the air motor and the generator, and hopefully the mast can be the tank. But that's still adding an air tank, compressor, and air motor where you formerly had none. Cost is the answer.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  21. Re:Compressed air storage? by mlush · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Because you need a fragile motor/compressor for the process, and air tanks have to be re-tested yearly? Because storing air at 3,000 PSI ain't easy? It's actually a great idea; you'd eliminate the generator in the wind turbine itself, and replace it with an air compressor. Then the generator gets to live on the ground with the air motor and the generator, and hopefully the mast can be the tank. But that's still adding an air tank, compressor, and air motor where you formerly had none. Cost is the answer.

    The key problem here is storage you don't have to store locally. airbladders at the bottom of a lake/sea or storing the air in a disused saltmines

  22. In Texas, the Opposite Problem by 1sockchuck · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are several ways that variable wind generation loads can present challenges. Texas, which has a large concentration of wind generation facilities, experienced an incident in early 2008 in which a sudden dropoff in wind triggered a grid emergency. A cold front came through, generation dipped, and utilities had to implement power shaving strategies, primarily reducing service to large customers who trade lower rates by being "interruptible."

    1. Re:In Texas, the Opposite Problem by s122604 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Texas also produces more wind power than California, and far more than they did when the 2008 incident occurred,
      That gap is only stated to grow
      Reason, the power of the kind of groups that will block power lines, if not the wind farms themselves, is MUCH smaller in Texas...

  23. Does it matter which power goes where? by grizdog · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Lots of Californians want to pay extra for green power, but do they really care who gets which power, as long as the green power is generated and used? I would guess that the vast majority of them would be fine with paying more to have green power generated and used elsewhere, but that isn't an option - when you opt into a green power program, it says you are getting that power.

    The northwest already has plenty of hydropower that can be interrupted briefly while the reservoirs are allowed to fill, or at least not deplete as quickly. The wind power could be diverted to the aluminum potlines and other big users - there is still a grid issue, but much smaller than getting those big surges down to California.

    A lot of this could be solved administratively, if the parties involved really wanted to solve it

  24. The view from the power grid by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's a big problem. Grid operators are concerned about "dispatch ramp rate", the rate at which power sources can be ordered to increase or decrease output. Ramp rate from idle to full power is minutes for gas turbines, tens of minutes for hydro plants, and hours for coal plants.

    Live data on this is available. Here's PJM's dashboard, with the details of the power grid in the northeastern United States. Once the dashboard (a Flash program) comes up, pick one of the graph panes, and use the drop-down menu at the upper left of the window to select "Wind Power". At the lower right of the pane, use that drop-down menu to select "All Data". The green line is total, actual wind power output for the entire PJM control area. Note that today's low is about 80MW, and today's high is about 925MW. That's how variable wind power is; over a 10:1 range in a single day. That's not just one wind farm. That's the entire northeastern US. It's not a big deal for PJM, though; their peak load today is about 130,000MW. Wind power is not yet a significant fraction of their capacity.

    Wind power is not "dispatchable"; the control center can't call for more output. Current thinking is that power grids can tolerate maybe 20% to 30% wind power, maximum. There will be periods of low wind, even over very large geographical areas. Huge reserves of "dispatchable" power are needed to back up the wind turbines. Typically, that comes from natural gas fueled turbines. The backup power isn't needed very often, so the capital cost of the equipment per kilowatt hour produced is high.

  25. Flywheel storage? by kheldan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Likely no one will even see this comment (there are over 300 already), but: Would it make any sense to build flywheels for energy storage on-site at wind farms, to smooth the output as well as not waste excess power generated?

    --
    Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
  26. Nothing to see here by introp · · Score: 3, Insightful

    As someone who works in the solar and wind controls business, let me state: this is not a surprise or really even a problem. People who install big wind and solar systems understand, because of the payback horizon of such installations, the limitations of the local distribution system. It is completely normal for big turbines to have to feather/furl/divert themselves during strong wind. The owners and installers design for this. It's factored into the payback time of the project!

    The problem here is the sensationalist reporting. Yes, we need better electricity distribution systems for distributed generation, but we in the industry know that. We've known it for years. The guys who financed and installed the system at Columbia River Gorge almost certainly knew it.

    So, yes, pump money into building bigger lines in the right places, but that's something we've been doing for more than fifty years. Generation locations are rarely at consumption locations, after all, and that was true for coal, natural gas, etc., just as it is for wind, hydro, and solar. The only problem here is that our 1990's generation locations aren't where tomorrow's generation locations are.

  27. NGM Power Grid Article by sherriw · · Score: 2, Interesting

    National Geographic Magazine did a recent article on the US power grid. Apparently it is way older and sensitive to fluctuations than I thought. It's really not set up currently to handle the erratic nature of 'green' power.

    http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/07/power-grid/achenbach-text

  28. Produce Energy Intensive Products by Billy+the+Mountain · · Score: 2, Informative

    I think another solution to using excess capacity is to produce energy intensive products. For example ammonia is like the second or third most produced chemical because the fertilizer industry buys mass quantities of it. You could think of ammonia as a nifty way of storing hydrogen because it's very easy to compress it into a liquid. For a windmill farm you would probably want to start by eletrolyzing water into O2 & H2. Then take the H2 and Air and produce your ammonia. A windmill farm might build a small mostly automated ammonia plant on site that can be switched on when the wind is blowing hard and be able to store the product for later transportation by truck.

    BTM

    --
    That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
  29. "disrupting grid" is wholly inaccurate by jcrawfordor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Partly due to the title of the original post I think a lot of people are misinterpreting the issue here.

    Sudden surges in wind capacity are not "disrupting the grid." nothing is broken, there are no alarms at the control station. What's happening is simply that during brief bouts of strong wind, the wind turbines are generating so much electricity that the Pacific Intertie (which carries power from Oregon to California) cannot carry it all. Power schedulers are feathering the blades of wind turbines, meaning the blades are being turned to parallel with the wind so that the turbines generate less electricity.

    What does this really mean? To be honest, it's not a big deal. Frankly, I think it's cool - at times we're generating so much power with our wind capacity that it's exceeding the capabilities of the Pacific Intertie, one of the United State's largest long-distance direct-current transmission routes. From the perspective of the Bonneville Power Administration and wind capacity owners in the Pacific Northwest this is annoying, because feathering wind turbines is like opening the spillways on dams - they're effectively letting power flow by uncaptured, which means they can't sell it. If the Pacific Intertie were expanded, they could sell all of the power even during large surges, which means more money for them.

    Really, though, nothing is wrong. We're saturating the intertie, which is a good thing, because that means more power for power-hungry Los Angeles, and more money for money-hungry wind turbine operators. All we need to do now is advance storage technologies (Bloom Boxes, anyone?) so that we can saturate the intertie more often.

    As a note, I'm very interested in bloom boxes for storage of power from unreliable sources. The efficiency numbers Bloom Energy has published are incredibly promising.