I thought US had a power grid...

[GaslessInSeattle]

"Wind-power developers say they are losing money both on federal incentives based on production and on contracts to deliver green energy under state rules aimed at creating markets and income for it."

I do find this frustrating so when I signed up for the 100% "Green Up" program with Seattle City Light (http://www.seattle.gov/light/green/greenpower/greenup.asp), I pointed out that 83% of the electricity was said to come from geothermal from Idaho and that I would rather support local wind production, especially since the wind turbines had to stop producing electricity any time their was a glut or not enough public funds coming in to pay the 10% up charge. The person on the phone said they would pass on my feedback... I'm not holding my breath, but I said what I could.

It seems like there should be a "salmon safe" way to let excess water bypass the turbines.
g

 

[DaveEV]

It seems like there should be a "salmon safe" way to let excess water bypass the turbines.

There is - build out the grid with enough transmission or storage to handle these kinds of events - then we don't dump that valuable water downstream without first getting some work from it...

 

[planet4ever]

While I agree with much of what you have said, Andy, and I especially agree with the need to conserve, I don't see how localization addresses the topic of this thread:

Problem: The northwest has so much power they are shutting down wind generation, while much of the rest of the country is furiously burning hydrocarbons to try to keep up with demand. Why is this happening, and what can be done about it?

 

[Caracalover]

There is tech that allows EV's to store excess power, and then feed it back into the grid when it is needed. That would require a lot of "Smart" cars plugged in to the grid and owners willing to participate. The tech exists, implemting it may never happen, but if enough EV's are on the road to build transmission roads (Charge while you drive) this tech should also be utilized. As for putting the roads in and maintenance, use the service roads that already exist under the power lines. They are dirt, wide, and you can travel at 45-50 MPH over many of them. If it is charging you as you dirve you should be willing to slow down a bit, at least until enough people are using them to be worth the cost to pave.

Used car batteries will aslo create storage for the extra energy wind creates, and can't find a buyer for right away.

Transmitting anything large distances is inefficient. you lose energy in the transmission, so electricity from CA to NY is not really desired/feasible.

 

[Herm]

ugg too much dust.

I always wondered why we dont see too many power corridors running along the interstate hwys, I think its Federal land already.

 

[AndyH]

While I agree with much of what you have said, Andy, and I especially agree with the need to conserve, I don't see how localization addresses the topic of this thread:

Problem: The northwest has so much power they are shutting down wind generation, while much of the rest of the country is furiously burning hydrocarbons to try to keep up with demand. Why is this happening, and what can be done about it?

I agree! We have the same problem down here - we have hundreds of turbines planted in west Texas but can only get 10% of the energy back to DFW or San Antonio -- the nuke, gas, and coal plants keep doing their things while the turbines are remotely turned out of the wind. The transmission infrastructure is happening...finally...five years late...and suffered a TON of NIMBY fights and land acquisition headaches. Pickens cancelled some of his turbine orders and planted others farther north because Texas was so far behind on the infrastructure. (As an aside - while it would be good to finally get our governor out of here, I'd certainly not want to foist him on the rest of you! )

Again, though - I'm not suggesting that power should be all local all the time - I simply know that SOME consumers could completely drop off the grid if they wanted, while efficiency could cut a significant chunk out of the need for future grid growth. Bring the batteries - and the solar/thermal and the PV and big wind and micro-wind and combined heat/power and household fuel cells and high-capacity DC links between the grid segments. But don't settle for 'just' building Grid 2.0 because we've lost the ability to creatively solve problems. Hell - CHINA is kicking our collective butts here - and they're getting help from our architects, designers, and engineers!

But also keep in mind that if the grid goes down we lose more than just electricity - so while we're bringing the grid into the 1990s some security and redundancy might be good things as well...

Last weekend I made brownies in the solar oven. This weekend it'll be baked sweet potatoes with a dash of maple syrup. Baking without using electricity and without heating the kitchen (and requiring more air conditioning) is a very good thing!

 

[AndyH]

FYI

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llIbjC49Fjs[/youtube]

 

[AndyH]

One real-world example why simply expanding the grid might not fix all the problems...

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/06/18...ve-any-idea-when-well-be-able-to-start-again/

June 17, 2011:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UmA50mvjuvw[/youtube]

(Reuters) – The Fort Calhoun nuclear power station in Nebraska remains shut down due to Missouri River flooding, but the plant itself has not flooded and is expected to remain safe, the federal government said Friday.

The rising river “has certainly affected the site, but the plant itself, the actual reactor is still dry,” said Scott Burnell, Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman.

Projected changes in long-term climate and more frequent extreme events such as heat waves, droughts, and heavy rainfall will affect many aspects of life in the Great Plains.

How reliable are nuclear plants when they lose either or both of their cooling water supply or the power they need to operate? How reliable are ANY of our power generation plants if we keep using yesterday's 'threat' baseline to prepare the plants for tomorrow's environment?

"That's the way we've always done it" thinking is a guaranteed path to failure.

---
The silly internet keeps providing...

While Japan’s water-dependent nuclear power plants suck and wheeze and spew radioactive steam, “there has been no wind facility damage reported by any [Japan Wind Energy Association] members, from either the earthquake or the tsunami,” says association head Yoshinori Ueda.

This resilience of distributed, renewable energy sources was also demonstrated during the great northeast blackout of 2003 in the US. When power went down, a dozen or so east coast nuclear plants tripped offline, necessitating a restart process that had to proceed, slowly and deliberately, over several days while the power was desperately needed. Meanwhile, wind turbines just kept on churning.

http://climatecrocks.com/2011/03/19/while-japans-nukes-sputter-wind-turbines-keep-spinning/

 

[AndyH]

- ... we need to decentralize the system in a huge way. This is more efficient for the local energy use, can be done close to or below costs of building large plants, is more flexible and adaptable.

Um... no. There is no economically efficient distributed generation available today. Utility rates and government incentives often make solar PV or sometimes fuel cells appear attractive to individual customers, but that does not equal economic effiency. If you have rooftop solar, your neighbors are paying for the backup power, distribution system, transformers, and other utility costs that don't go away just because you generate, on average, over a year, as much power as you consume. Cost shifting <> cost reduction.

Here you are, EricH:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWbyxZCSs8w[/youtube]
Zip ahead to 6:39 if you wish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWbyxZCSs8w&feature=player_detailpage#t=410s

This answers the question we couldn't answer for 30 years...

 

[UkrainianKozak]

Used car batteries will aslo create storage for the extra energy wind creates, and can't find a buyer for right away.

Transmitting anything large distances is inefficient. you lose energy in the transmission, so electricity from CA to NY is not really desired/feasible.

That is sooo not true...
Transmitting electricity over high-voltage lines is VERY efficient, it is much cheaper to transmit electricity over 500kV line from CA to NY then storing electricity by converting it into chemical or mechanical (hydro) energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_power_transmission :
"Long-distance transmission of electricity (thousands of kilometers) is cheap and efficient, with costs of US$0.005–0.02/kWh"

Here's a google answer with a lot of details: http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/271700.html
Bottom line, pure electric losses for long distance transmission is only about 5% of administrative costs (which gives only some fraction of percent for pure electric losses). Where with batteries you would have at best 5% total loss between charge and discharge, and it will greatly depend on charge/discharge rate and temperature (or you'll need to spend additional energy to condition the building)

On top of that, it is not that expensive to throw a 250 or 500kV line along some east-west interstate, much cheaper per mW transmitted/stored than batteries.

Yet another thing, storing energy and transmitting it are totally different things. Transmission over long distances will help balance the network and reduce the need for relatively inefficient storage, while at the same time increasing reliability of the whole system, and in our case will enable to use already available green energy.

 

[EricH]

Here you are, EricH:

Zip ahead to 6:39 if you wish:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fWbyxZCSs8w&feature=player_detailpage#t=410s

This answers the question we couldn't answer for 30 years...

Oh. Billions of Euros worth of "hydrogen storage" - why didn't you say so in the first place? Sounds entirely cost-effective now

If you heard me say "alternative power is untenable/unfeasible", then perhaps I mis-spoke. I think alternative energy works, but I just don't believe it is cost-effective today, or will be cost-effective in the next 10 years. All grid-connected solar PV today exists solely due to the owner's personal beliefs, or due to governmental subsidies; nowhere does it yet compete with conventional (coal, gas, hydro, etc) power plants. The countries with the most solar PV simply have offered the biggest subsidies (Germany, Spain).

Rifkin's vision (all buildings power-independent and interconnected electronically/control-wise, with 'hydrogen storage' distributed to act as batteries to even out the supply/demand mismatches) may well be feasible -- I'm not an engineer -- but it all seems rather expensive, which was my original point.

 

[Herm]

Yes it will be very expensive.. after all its hard to compete with free fuels that you mine or pump out of the ground.. until they run out.

 

[AndyH]

If you heard me say "alternative power is untenable/unfeasible", then perhaps I mis-spoke. I think alternative energy works, but I just don't believe it is cost-effective today, or will be cost-effective in the next 10 years. All grid-connected solar PV today exists solely due to the owner's personal beliefs, or due to governmental subsidies; nowhere does it yet compete with conventional (coal, gas, hydro, etc) power plants. The countries with the most solar PV simply have offered the biggest subsidies (Germany, Spain).

On-shore wind is cost-effective RIGHT NOW. Some biomass is cost-effective RIGHT NOW - as is geothermal and hydro. And that's with the current 'playing field' where externalities are not considered and fossil fuels are subsidized!

I'll agree with your 'personal' PV opinion as long as we stay within the current envelope of ignoring the externalities.

See page 9:
http://srren.ipcc-wg3.de/ipcc-srren-generic-presentation-1

edit...
Eric - the part I hoped we'd all stop to talk about is the part about the recent enabling technology on the information processing side rather than H2 storage. I don't care if it's H2 or hydro pumping or pressurized air or really big batteries.

 

[Herm]

I am skeptical of man made climate change, and a I was a denier on windmills.. until I found out the Chinese are going full blast into windpower.. they would not do that if it was not economically feasible.

China is run by cold hearted engineers, not by left wing dreamers.

 

[DaveEV]

All grid-connected solar PV today exists solely due to the owner's personal beliefs, or due to governmental subsidies; nowhere does it yet compete with conventional (coal, gas, hydro, etc) power plants. The countries with the most solar PV simply have offered the biggest subsidies (Germany, Spain).

Actually, you will find that PV today competes very well with gas during times of peak grid load today - at least in areas where the grid is pretty clean - like California.

http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2011/02/solar-pv-becoming-cheaper-than-gas-in-california

If SunShot even gets halfway to it's goal of $1/watt installed by 2010, it will compete in much larger areas without any subsidies.

 

[davewill]

I am skeptical of man made climate change, and a I was a denier on windmills.. until I found out the Chinese are going full blast into windpower.. they would not do that if it was not economically feasible.

China is run by cold hearted engineers, not by left wing dreamers.

So all we have to do is convince the Chinese and you're in...marvelous. Didn't it occur to you that it might be better to do this stuff ahead of the Chinese?

BTW, all the worthwhile stuff in the world started as someone's dream.

 

[DaveinOlyWA]

ok, until we can talk and accurately quantify the FULL cost of burning fossil fuels, then there is no way we can say one type of power is more or less cost effective than another.

problem with that is fossil fuels have tons of hidden costs, all of which is disputed vehemently by said industries to the point that brain-washing caused by deceptive advertising has clouded the issue beyond recognition.

i have yet to see a coal fired plant rated based on the pollution it creates, additional medical costs to treat the effects of burning coal irresponsibly or the cost of long term cleanup or the pathetic attempts of coal mining companies to clean up their act.

they are rated by cost of coal divided by the power that coal produces. same with cars.

so now we are at a standstill on this discussion. can anyone guess what side i am on?

 

[AndyH]

I am skeptical of man made climate change

Actually, no - SCIENCE is skeptical by definition. Before research is published it's put out to be torn to shreds by many other smart people in closely related fields. The ideas that make it to print has already had the living he!! "skeptic'd" out of it. :lol:

and a I was a denier on windmills.. until I found out the Chinese are going full blast into windpower.. they would not do that if it was not economically feasible.

China is run by cold hearted engineers, not by left wing dreamers.

Interesting. "Dreaming" has been assigned to the left now as well? I'll update my notes - thanks. :roll:
Can you name ONE THING performed, created by, or influenced by humans in any way that did not start out as a dream or idea?

Wind power with battery backup has been profitable in some areas of the USA since the 1930s...
http://www.seco.cpa.state.tx.us/publications/renewenergy/windenergy.php

See Herm, since deniers rely on belief over science, they are strongly biased against logic or fact. And that's a real problem for folks hoping to survive in an increasingly technical world...

For unilaterally assigning dreams to the left, you win this:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-june-21-2011/fox-news-false-statements

 

[AndyH]

ok, until we can talk and accurately quantify the FULL cost of burning fossil fuels, then there is no way we can say one type of power is more or less cost effective than another.

problem with that is fossil fuels have tons of hidden costs, all of which is disputed vehemently by said industries to the point that brain-washing caused by deceptive advertising has clouded the issue beyond recognition...

Nice!

so now we are at a standstill on this discussion. can anyone guess what side i am on?

Fact, logic, and reason?

Wha'd I win? Wha'd I win?! :lol:

 

[Herm]

So all we have to do is convince the Chinese and you're in...marvelous.

You could do much worse, the Chinese dealership is not elected, so they dont pander or greenwash much.. thus my reasoning that if they have chosen to do mass windpower, nukes and electrics it must be based on cold economics. The debate in the West is so distorted by subsidies, political viewpoints (and irrational fears) that you have to be an expert to do an economic analysis.

I'm waiting to see what the Chinese do with solar power at home.. I understand they have lots of solar hot water heating.