Down under - PLEASE do a guest post describing these issues - because you are right, 99% of us here do not understand these issues.

I have had a lot of discussion with Alan from Bigeasy about balancing wind with a variety of other sources - which seemed quite straight forward.

What we are talking about here is upgrading the energy quality from wind so it can be used - and it is really high time that this issue got settled once and for all.

See my long summary at foot thread.

CW

Look, I will but I haven't wanted to go off half cocked,and not back up what I am saying.I will use the references of a number of Professors or experts in Electrical Engineering two of whom have much experience in wind turbine outputs. I am not against wind or solar or anything else but some of these power sources cause problems, for instance 10% may be the maximum. Last year the Irish and South Australian electricity boards announced that under no circumstances would that let more than 10% wind or any other intermittent supply connect to the grid because of stability problems. Please read the 2004 and 2005 wind reports of E.on Netz the big German Grid operator. There is also a very good report by the Federal German Energy Agency on this whole subject which I will find a link for.
            Reactive power occurs when the voltage and current don't go up and down together in the AC frequency cycle, i.e. when the current and voltage are out of phase with each other by 90 degrees and is measured as VARs (voltage,amps reactive), it is used to control voltage and balance generator output by travelling back to the generator and through the windings of the excitation fields and travels back in the circuit in opposition to active power. Often wind generators can't provide this reactive power or are too far away to be effective.It is a strange concept to get your head around and is sometime called phantom power. Google "Reactive Power" for better explanations than mine
            Probably what's needed is an explanation of why AC was first used over DC, it can produce far more power(over 100,000 volts) for a given generator size because of the use of three phases and the ease of taking off power from a fixed armature with a rotating field rather than a DC generator with a rotating armature with the output collected from the rotating commutator.
             I will contact you by email shortly. I am not an electrical engineer and in fact have only a very basic understanding of electrical systems which are more complex than most people realize. I was first exposed to the complexities of reactive power, phase balancing, voltage and frequency controls etc when I converted onto B727 aircraft many years ago and have had to go back to the books to refresh my memory.
             I simply haven't had the time to do a good post on this with the necessary references and make sure that what I am saying is correct.
             
I have heard from people involved in netmetering, in both California and Thailand, that the grid operator's view of technical issues is often influenced by non-technical factors.

In both cases grid operators insisted that connecting small external generators would destroy the stability of the grid.  The reality was that it is easier, and possibly more profitable, for them to have monopoly control over the grid and that their life is much easier without all those pesky small generators.

Once regulations were passed that forced them to accept small generators, they had no choice and made it work. I wouldn't be surprised if something similar wasn't at work here. Grid operators have always done it the old way and have no incentive to take risks and make changes. Allowing wind into the grid is all risk and no gain to them. However, it is a small risk and huge gain to society.

In the case of netmetering, the grid operators were reminded there were more important interests at work than them having easy jobs. And now the electricity delivered to the grid by small generators is far greater than the levels that the engineers said would bring the whole system to a halt.  

I am just bringing this up as an example and to show that the various interests involved in the discussion each have their biases. I do not know if this is the case here, only that the similarities are remarkable.

Ah, SWR!

Lessons In Electric Circuits -- Volume II
Copyright (C) 2000-2006, Tony R. Kuphaldt
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/index.html

Chapter 11
Power in resistive and reactive AC circuits
http://www.ibiblio.org/obp/electricCircuits/AC/AC_11.html

Power Systems Engineering Research Center
What is Reactive Power?
Peter W. Sauer, Dept. Electrical and Computer Engineering
Univ. Illinois
http://www.pserc.wisc.edu/Sauer_Reactive%20Power_Sep%202003.pdf

Regulatory and economic issues:
Federal Energy Regulatory System
Principles for Efficient and Reliable Reactive Power Supply and Consumption
Staff Report * Docket No. AD05-1-000 * February 4, 2005 (warning - 177 pages!)
http://ferc.gov/EventCalendar/Files/20050310144430-02-04-05-reactive-power.pdf

--... ...--  ;-)

JMG
     Four very good links there. I have read the one by Peter Sauer. The last link on page 7 has a good insight to part of the problem
Thanks DU - will look forward to hearing from you.

CW