What is Digg?369 Comments
- Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -12/+18When will people realise that 1MW from wind energy is not the same as 1MW from Nuclear or Coal? For every MW of Wind, you need a MW of always on capacity elsewhere in the grid. If you don't, there is going to be rolling blackouts and brownouts whenever the wind doesn't blow. People often don't realise that there is currently NO WAY to STORE electrical energy. Pump Hydro can do it, but is only possible in a limited number of locations. Whichever way you look at it, the conclusion is that we need nuclear power.
- jugglingjon, on 05/19/2008, -1/+16You are exactly right Spetz, but I think while the availability of pump storage systems in the US is probably sparse, the amount of wind farms large enough to justify one are pretty rare too. I think that when one of these larger, efficient wind farms are built (like this one in Texas), one of those pump systems will become necessary and a lot more of them will start springing up.
For anyone who hasn't heard of it, the pump hydro system that Spetz is talking about to store energy, uses the excess wind power to pump water into a tank at elevation, when the wind power would otherwise not be needed, like late at night. Then later on, water can be released from the tank and it naturally flows downward because of gravity (the tank is elevated). That running water can be run through a hydroelectric turbine to create electricity on demand, from the 'stored' wind power. So this technology allows wind power to be stored in the potential energy of water due to gravity.- c0mputar, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0Hadn't heard of that pump hydro system, makes perfect sense.
- inactive, on 05/19/2008, -5/+4I am no huge fan of this. Seems to me the capital costs are grossly out of line with the power produced. But off peak power can be used to drive reverse electrolysis of water to form hydrogen, which can be used to store energy.
- soulkitchen, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Looks like the anti-hydrogen crowd is out to get you amightywind! While you do lose energy due to the inefficiency of conversion, Hydrogen makes a hell of a battery.
- inactive, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2I think a hydrogen combustion turbine makes more economic sense than large fuel cells. The turbine could be generating any reasonable chemical dissociation to store energy, it doesn't have to be Hydrogen. I don't mind being dug down. Most people on this site thinks that the country could run on lollipops and moonbeams, and that only Dick Cheney stands in the way.
- soulkitchen, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Looks like the anti-hydrogen crowd is out to get you amightywind! While you do lose energy due to the inefficiency of conversion, Hydrogen makes a hell of a battery.
- jugglingjon, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4I'd also like to point out that I agree with Spetz on the need for more nuclear power generating capacity. While it may create waste that we cant deal with yet, at least it's controlled. A coal power plant also generates huge amounts of toxic material as it operates, but its waste is shot into the air and can't be controlled at all.
I'd rather have the problem of storing waste we can control, than remain ignorant of the waste that coal plants freely disperse in the air. - rugabug, on 05/19/2008, -4/+9I guess you have never heard of the newly invented product called the battery.
Yes they are expensive but they do work.- inactive, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Whats a battery? Lol I love all the people yelling that renewable resources will never work. So I guess when oil reserves run out then everyone alive at that time is ***** huh? Coal and gas and oil is the "only" way.
- Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5I hope you're joking. Batteries do not work at that energy level.
- Koookie, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Battery energy density = 2,5 MJ/kg (Wikipedia)
To store energy for a day of half-speed winds in the wind park =
(1 d · 24 h/d · 60 min/h · 60 s/min · 4000 MW)/(2·2,5 MJ/kg)= 69 120 000 kg ≈ 70 000 tons ≈ about 1000 large trucks full of batteries. Sounds expensive, and batteries wear out too.
A less windy week? Multiply the above by 7...
- inactive, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Whats a battery? Lol I love all the people yelling that renewable resources will never work. So I guess when oil reserves run out then everyone alive at that time is ***** huh? Coal and gas and oil is the "only" way.
- astroslut, on 05/19/2008, -1/+9I agree, we need to stop being so afraid of nuclear power.
- warriorscot, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6There are more than a few ways to store electricity pumped hydro is definitely one of the best options as it is well proven technology. And the US is a huge country I would be very surprised if there were not enough suitable sites at least in mountainous regions. They are also very flexible systems and cost effective they are used extensively even with non renewable energy sources for storing off peak energy production.
There are a number of new storage technologies available now, often clever variations on pumped hydro or at least inspired by it such as below ground gas storage. You can also store it as hydrogen, you can add hydrogen production and storage facility to wind turbines quite easily it increases costs a little but it makes them much more flexible and self contained.
Nuclear power is a good thing to have it makes a nice back up, but the reasons you state are not correct, you want it in case of storage being depleted or compromised and new power unavailable, essentially it is your reserve system but one you should not have to use very often in a well designed system. - darthvalium, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5wrong. this is what the investors in large scale power plants and fossile energy want you to think. you do not need large scale power plants if you have a decentralized system of multiple renewable energy power sources spread all over the country. provided that several different sources of renewable energies are developped and deployed gradually, there is no need for large plants providing reserve capacities in case the wind does not blow.
and there are indeed efforts to develop storage devices like the ones stated in the comments above.
the risk of widespread blackouts is even smaller with a decentralized system, because there may be one wind turbine that stands still or even a windpark, but that won't lead to nation wide blackouts.- Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yes but then you need to put in huge capital investments with no payback potential (such as building a power station does - at least you can sell the electricity you produce) to completely change the national energy grid system. No one's going to invest in infrastructure out of their own choice in a privatised energy market.
Even if you do, you'll still suffer instability in a completely decentralised system because there are different types of load demand. A large proportion of electrical power goes into supplying heavy industry, which has completely different load characteristics than home users.
Look up some terms for a further description: Base Load, Mid Load, and Peak Load.
- Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yes but then you need to put in huge capital investments with no payback potential (such as building a power station does - at least you can sell the electricity you produce) to completely change the national energy grid system. No one's going to invest in infrastructure out of their own choice in a privatised energy market.
- Labourer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3electricity can be stored in a flywheel, electricicty is used to speed up the wheel , which is then used to power a generator when required. They are used as uninterruptible power supplies , not sure how far they can scale up though.
- Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1They cannot scale up. A lot of people do not understand that there is NO WAY TO STORE ELECTRICAL POWER at sufficient level for utilisation in a grid system. By all means, invent a method - you'll become insanely rich.
- rugabug, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Yes they can be scaled up but they are not economical.
- Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1They cannot scale up. A lot of people do not understand that there is NO WAY TO STORE ELECTRICAL POWER at sufficient level for utilisation in a grid system. By all means, invent a method - you'll become insanely rich.
- robbibaba, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1The great thing about nuclear is the potential to lay vast areas of the country uninhabitable and to sky rocket cancer rates--that means fewer people actually using electricity (as they are all dead, see?). It's a win win. And with all that nuclear waste laying around, it's only a matter of time before homemade nuclear bombs take out some major metropolitan areas. How cool is that?
And with coal, you've got all those cities along the east coast going underwater--again, massive death rate! Not to mention collateral deaths from global warming related drought-famine, wildfires, etc. win win win.
I can see you guys are really thinking ahead!
Of course, with enough solar and wind, we'd need so little back up generation, we could probably just use the natural gas plants already constructed. And there's that plan to tie millions of electric vehicles into the grid to stabilize it during the day. Oh well.- psevium, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Huh... I guess the studies showing there is NO correlation between nuclear plants and cancer rates or sickness for that matter don't apply here, nor do the fact that nuclear plants are more or less the most secure installations ever built (probably being able to withstand a severe bomb blast), and that nuclear waste is properly disposed of OR recycled completely? Yeah ***** facts, they suck. Coal sucks though.
Solar and wind are good, but not good enough now. I can't wait til we can rely on them but we simply can't until they're more efficient, especially solar. Nuclear power is safe, clean, non-polluting, held back by ***** mothers concerned about their kids growing four legs and retarded politicians.
- psevium, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4Huh... I guess the studies showing there is NO correlation between nuclear plants and cancer rates or sickness for that matter don't apply here, nor do the fact that nuclear plants are more or less the most secure installations ever built (probably being able to withstand a severe bomb blast), and that nuclear waste is properly disposed of OR recycled completely? Yeah ***** facts, they suck. Coal sucks though.
- secrity, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Have you done any sort of analysis on this?
It would be silly to have wind generated power become the dominant source of power, just as it would be silly to become dependent upon any one source of power. Considering the likely geographical dispersion of wind power generation and the use of power grids to spread out the usage and supply, this may not become a significant problem.- Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yes plenty. I don't really have the time or inclination to write a 10,000 word essay on it to explain exactly what I'm on about. I can't exactly teach engineering principles over digg... Do some reading and then come back and argue with me.
Yes I agree. Having no single source of power is definitely a good thing. However, you can pretty much class all renewables, bar large hydo, as unstable sources of supply. The theoretical limit to renewable generation capacity is 20-30% with our current grid architecture. That's a hard physical fact.
- Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yes plenty. I don't really have the time or inclination to write a 10,000 word essay on it to explain exactly what I'm on about. I can't exactly teach engineering principles over digg... Do some reading and then come back and argue with me.
- beersnob, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2You don't have to build extra coal/nuclear plants to backup these wind generators....The backup capacity already exists....We're using it right now. When these come online, existing coal plants can cut back. No, wind isn't a perfect solution, but it is better than nothing at all!
- Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Yes but electricity demand is growing.
- elementop, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1Spetz,
You've never been to NW Texas, have you? The wind *always* blows there ;)- Spetz, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1It's still not the same sort of electricity as you get from a coal, oil or nuclear power station.
- Nenb, on 05/19/2008, -0/+0This is exactly why it is good to have a mix of energy sources:
When there is wind: Wind and wave power will be abundant, when there is no wind there tends to be sun which means that solar power plants will produce more power instead. And the US large that there might be hurricanes in one part of the country an no wind and unhindered sunshine in another.
Also tidal power plants and such will help produce a stable source of energy.
- jugglingjon, on 05/19/2008, -1/+16You are exactly right Spetz, but I think while the availability of pump storage systems in the US is probably sparse, the amount of wind farms large enough to justify one are pretty rare too. I think that when one of these larger, efficient wind farms are built (like this one in Texas), one of those pump systems will become necessary and a lot more of them will start springing up.
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is