RegGuheert said:
WetEV said:
Maybe. Maybe not. I notice you didn't answer my questions:
Suppose that a firmware update (almost no cost other than engineering) on the windmills solves the grid stability problem tomorrow. Would that change your opinion?
About whether or not this project met its objectives? Of course not. This project did not meet its objectives. It appears that in the low-wind months, it CANNOT come anywhere near its objectives.
The project has not meet it's objectives, but that doesn't mean it will not. Unless, of course, you require absolute certainty, no risk, in which nothing will ever get done. Nothing at all can be done, as everything has risks. Especially new things. And this was a new thing.
BTW: Was there really a month by month objective? I understood an average objective of about 60%, not a month by month objective. Are you moving the goalposts a little bit, eh?
RegGuheert said:
BTW,
the system ran for 55 hours straight (from midnight on the morning of July 11 until 7:00 AM today, July 13) while we have been having this discussion. Hopefully that indicates that the operator needs to make this system FULLY operational in its third year of operation.
Of course the operator wants the system fully operational. Buying diesel costs money. What isn't clear to me is why the system isn't fully operational.
RegGuheert said:
WetEV said:
How about modest cost modification of the hydro pumps and/or generators tomorrow? Would that change your opinion?
That would make the $100M expense even greater. At a price of about $10,000 for each man, woman and child on this tropical island,
Your problem with the project is that it was ever built to begin with. The fact that the system seems to have run into stability issues is just gravy, isn't it? I'm interested, as this project is a way of learning, and a way of teaching. Even if it is a bad example (and I don't think that is true, yet) knowledge is very important. And the payoff may be far away. As an example, the grid in the Great Plains in the center of the USA is getting more and more wind power. Would you rather have a grid stability problem on a tiny island, where it can be understood and corrected at moderate cost, or a grid stability problem covering much of the USA at a much higher cost?
Ever consider that a small project for $100million that "fails" would be far cheaper than doing a similar design on a national scale?
I'm making the assumption that the large fraction wind power is behind their problems. Might not be true. Might be other issue(s).
What I do fault the project on is the lack of public discussion of issues they have run into, at least so far.
RegGuheert said:
there are much more reasonable options for providing electricity.
Sure, several small nuclear reactors. Unlikely for political reasons, unless we have explored alternatives, and finally realize we need to limit CO2 release. Maybe in my lifetime.