Getting a bit OT, but I'll chime in on hydro.
As has been discussed before, one of the big issues with people putting
in their own PV systems or wind is that they cause a less consistent
demand from the grid. We are seeing some power companies backlash by
imposing a surcharge on those persons who take the bold steps of
reducing their grid dependency.
One of the advantages of hydro power is that energy production can be
ramped up and down relatively quickly compared to coal and nuclear.
It's true that we've already tapped essentially all good hydro power
locations. But we've only put in a fraction of pumped storage. Pumped
storage can be built as lakes or done underground in, say, abandoned
coal mines. With pumped storage, existing power companies could meet
their peak demands without building more expensive and polluting plants.
Is there a way we can encourage power companies to build pumped storage
instead of more coal, nuke, or gas turbine plants?
One way is to show the power companies that its cheaper to build pumped
storage than to build new traditional power plants. According to EIA
http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/capitalcost/pdf/updated_capcost.pdf
its is cheaper up front to build pumped storage than nuclear. It is
also cheaper than building a coal plant that provides carbon
sequestering.
Thus, if the power companies were to continue to charge the same rate
for electricity from pumped storage, they are making a better ROI than
from building out new traditional power plants. In effect, the people
installing PV and other systems are doing the power companies a favor!
Peri
------ Original Message ------
From: "Ben Goren via EV" <[email protected]>
To: "Michael Ross" <[email protected]>; "Electric Vehicle
Discussion List" <[email protected]>
Sent: 31-Mar-15 11:37:52 AM
Subject: Re: [EVDL] Making solar work in a conventional vehicle.
On Mar 31, 2015, at 11:15 AM, Michael Ross via EV <[email protected]>
wrote:
So called small wind energy is a money pit with no
real payback - you need an exceptional location for a small turbine
to be
worth the effort.
Wind and hydro are just diluted forms of solar. On a planetary scale,
they can't even begin to compete with solar photovoltaics.
However, there are certain microclimates where the landscape
concentrates either wind or hydro in such a way that either can be a
superlative local source of energy -- especially if the Sun tends to
hide in those same climates.
Both are, ultimately, niche players...but they can be potentially
indispensable in their relative niches.
Again however...the hydro niches are long since already developed, and
the wind niches are mostly certain coastal regions and high mountain
passes. Another interesting potential good use of wind is cropland...a
single individual turbine won't necessarily have impressive generating
capacities, but really big numbers of them can be put in in a way that
doesn't interfere with growing crops and, in so doing, significantly
increase the economic productivity of the land for the farmers.
Residential wind power makes sense for a few people, but only a very
few people. (And it really does make all kinds of sense for certain
people...just not for most.)
Rooftop solar, on the other hand, is economically viable basically
everywhere, including the Pacific Northwest. It's more profitable in
some places than others, but it's profitable everywhere (with a few
footnotes, of course).
b&
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
_______________________________________________
UNSUBSCRIBE: http://www.evdl.org/help/index.html#usub
http://lists.evdl.org/listinfo.cgi/ev-evdl.org
For EV drag racing discussion, please use NEDRA
(http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NEDRA)
