Interconnecting Wind Farms To Smooth Power Production

Roland Piquepaille writes "Wind power is one of the world's fastest growing electric energy sources, but as wind is intermittent, a single wind farm cannot deliver a steady amount of energy. This is why scientists at Stanford University want to connect wind farms to develop a cheaper and more reliable power source. Interconnecting wind farms with a transmission grid should reduce the power swings caused by wind variability and provide a somewhat constant and reliable electric power (or 'baseload' power) provided by other power plants."

Re:WTF??

[JackMeyhoff]

You mean things like these? http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6153958.html [freepatentsonline.com] http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6211589.html [patentstorm.us] http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:-TuUthMBszcJ:www.bretagne.ens-cachan.fr/pdf/mecatronique/EnergiesRenouv/Flywheel_Bernard_PCIM2003.PDF+energy+storage+centrifuge&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=11 [64.233.183.104] http://www.google.com/search?q=energy+storage+centrifuge&hl=en&start=10&sa=N [google.com]

prediction is more important

[wasteur]

There are two incorrect assumptions in this discussion: a) that we have to make generation fit usage, not the reverse, and b) that we don't know what the wind is going to be doing in a few hours time.

a) Many industries could use power when available, not on demand. Desalination is a great example. The problem is that energy delivery and markets are not structured to work this way. Yet.

b) With short-term prediction of hours to days, you can master the variability by scheduling conventional generation around the wind. The concept of a baseload is not helpful: just plot the wind at the bottom of the chart, and the problem is different.

Re:WTF??

[necro81]

Coal is that cheap energy you enjoy. Even if it's not part of your electric plan, you're still using it when shopping for other goods and services that are using it. Unless you plan on replacing it with something as cheep, everyone will feel the pain.

I only ask this. Once the cost of electricity goes through the roof because you were in favor of getting rid of coal; don't bitch about it! If you and your supporters are ok with this ramification, then by all means go for it.

Coal won't be cheap forever. It is artificially low because it doesn't include the price of carbon emissions; neither do our consumer goods. This will change - it in inevitable. Eventually, either in terms of cap-and-trade, carbon capture and sequestration, the cost of coal will go up, as will the cost of gasoline and natural gas. Taxing emissions at, say, $30/ton suddenly makes all kinds of cleaner energy sources viable.

We're not talking about the cost of electricity going through the roof. Carbon capture and sequestration, depending on whose numbers you believe and what technology you use, requires 15%-45% more energy to generate the same amount of electricity. So, throw in the amortized capital cost of the equipment involved, and you are looking at, maybe, a 50% increase in the cost of electricity if you require sequestration.A 50% increase is no small amount, I'll grant, but when you consider that the cost of gasoline in the U.S. has tripled over the last decade, a 50% increase doesn't seem so bad.

Here's another measure. In the U.S., about 1.35 pounds of CO2 are emitted for every kilowatt-hour generated (page 1 of a DOE report here [doe.gov]). That works out to 750 kWh/tonCO2. A $30/ton tax on CO2 would increase the cost of a generated kilowatt-hour by $0.04. So, at worst we are talking about a doubling in the cost of generating coal-based electricity. Wind is cost-competitive now, even without such a tax. With the tax, all sorts of other energies become viable. I am fine with having the cost of my electricity double. It makes generating my own electricity more attractive. More importantly, higher prices encourage conservation, which is sorely needed in the world. The United States, as a matter of policy, can choose to forge a lead in these energy and conservation technologies, or else continue business-as-usual until we have no choice but to adopt them. One path creates a promising new economic sector that we can export to the world, the other forces us to import as greater cost.