<DrumBeat: October 19, 2006The Oil DrumDrumBeat II: October 19, 2006>

337 comments on Energy from Wind: A Discussion of the EROI Research

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Squalish on October 19, 2006 - 11:13pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Many commentators are going to be pissed when they find their new EVs half charged because it wasn't very windy today(though PHEVs have a bit of an advantage here).  Vehicle to grid requires perfectly sinchronized 60hz invertors at every house with near zero drift.  It requires intelligent load balancing across a network of vehicles so prone to break down that you have a repair shop within a few miles of your house.  I'm all for solar decentralization, perhaps inverted at the neighorhood level. But load balancing based on a vehicle that's driven off the grid, needs to be reliably kept at a high charge percentage, and which relies on battery tech with limited charge/recharge cycles, doesn't seem like a good way to use resources.   Even solar-to-grid is rather difficult - preventing islanding and keeping in phase with good power factor and such are hard.  It's simply much easier to drive the grid waveform from a single or few highly managed sources.  Using car batteries for distributed storage requires very smart management that isn't possible with our current grid.

Shifting charging demand over to certain times is much, much easier.  It's trivial and self-regulating to setup a wifi or wimax network and send out an expected power price over time chart, then have a locally smart charger fill that up with the cheapest juice.

-----------------------

I wasn't really talking about short-term demand, though I guess I'm a bit out of my league here.  Would changing the standard electricity-intensive heavy industry worker over to a night shift be possible as a means of deflecting demand from peak periods?

-------------------------

Sorry I was rather vague in the first statement - I should have stuck to wind capacity.  A ~10% or so average hit in transmission costs from the nearest rural area populated with wind turbines is nothing, compared to the many thousands of percent that would be needed to shift most of our energy production over to wind turbines.

It means that yes, if we wanted to we could built an underwater nuclear complex in the center of the south pacific thousands of miles from the nearest human, and shift over all the energy to our homes at a cost of increasing the complex size by a paltry 50% or so over what we could build right here.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wwswimming on October 21, 2006 - 10:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

hi

why is the synchronization at 60 Hz with system wide phase coherence difficult ?

i'm worked on R&D teams where phase locked loops were up in the 200 MHz ballpark.

there's got to be a way to synchronize phase at 60 Hz.

wwswimming
at
yahoo.com

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on October 21, 2006 - 11:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
he many thousands of percent that would be needed to shift most of our energy production over to wind turbines.

Your cost estimates are WAY off.  With no economic value attached to GW today, the zero GHG grid that I proposed would likely raise rates 50% to 75% (which would happen anyway).

A steady rise in carbon taxes would push us towards that sort of grid anyway (nukes need pumped storage as well to neet anything more than peak load).  Depending on costs associated with nukes (remember costs of the last dozen finished in the US, and the new Finnish one seems in trouble early) and just how steep the decline is in WTs and other renewable costs (WT electricity will be cheaper in 2012 than today,  Not so for nuke) the mix will be somewhere between 23% nuke and ~/2.3rds nuke on strictly economics alone.

More than 2/3rds nuke begins to run into significant problems.  France is able to get up to 90% nuke becasue they sell power all night long to ALL of their neighbors.  Swiss utilites buy night power from several French nukes and save their water for selling back to the French, Germans, Italians at peak (at 3 to 5 times the price).  Perhaps we can do the same with Canada.

Also nuke is VERY risky to build a society on because of common design flaws.  Any design can have a hidden flaw, which, when discovered, requires shutting down ALL reactors of that type for months tp years.  It has happened several times already and will happen again.  No one reactor type should IMHO supply more than 4% of national power.  Unexpectedly losing 4% of your generation is a blow, but it can be worked around with luck.  More than 4% ?  Nope.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.