--- In [email protected], Rick Archer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > There are also some cool new > small wind turbines for home use. Imagine the impact if these were installed > in virtually every building in America.
Some Issues with Renewables An issue with wind and solar is that they provide power on a partial and or variable basis. No solar at night, and varies summer vs winter. Wind happens when it happens. Electricity is totally in the NOW. Large storage is not cost-effective -- batteries can be used -- but that adds greatly to the cost of a renewable system. Electricity to convert hydrogen rich substances to pure, usable hydrogen is another "storage" possibility, but not currently cost-effective. So wind and solar usually cant meet all instant aneowus needs through the day. And if there is no storage, power needs to be supplemented from the grid. Someone mentioned selling power back to the grid. Thats done a lot, but it may not be at times the power system needs it. Energy at 2 am may be 1/10 the price of peak power -- often summer afternoon for many areas, winter evenings for others. And non-dependable / sporatic energy is much less valuable to a power system than that which is highly reliable at a particular time period. Thus, renewable buy-back rates in many cases are legitimately quite low. And selling "random" energy back to the grind can actually increase energy inefficiency and create greater use of fossil fuels. It sounds counter intuitive, but it has to do with the longer run capital investment decisions of power systems. New power plants are always more efficient -- often radically so -- than the older retired ones they replace -- and the power system as a whole. So when random renewable power is sold back to the grid, it actually eats away at the core of "need" for large base-loaded (runs 18-24 hours a day) highly efficient new generation. For the technically inclined, it thins out the load duration curve. The net effect is that newer far more efficient power plants are delayed or not built at all -- which when if and when build and brought on line, would reduce overall system fuel consumption -- even taking into the account fuel savings from buy backs from renewables. Thus, renewables and their sellling back to the grid, can, not always, have the effect of delaying new plants which in turn reduce total system fuel needs due to their much higher efficiencies. This "paradox" would be diminished or removed there was a radical shift in the system. If wind and solar saturations became quite large, quickly, 20-60% of homes and businesses, over say 5 years, then, in aggregate, then renewables as a power source become more "predicable". To bring this about in five years or so, would require things such as mandating solar and wind on all new construction, and on resale homes. And provide deep incentives 40-70% of inital capital and installation costs -- for which the most economically efficient and equitable way would be to heavily tax "BTUS" -- all fossil fuels. This would burn the candle at both ends -- make renewables less expensive, and make the cost-effective thrreshold much lower (that is they would be competing against much higher cost end-use fuels / electricity.). Though this has been a known and reseached method for real energy independnece and much lower pollution levels -- the public, quite short-sightedly -- will not not stomach it. Though if they had 20 years ago, total energy costs per capital woul be much lower over the past 20 years than they actually have been. For those adopting renewables quickly under this plan, their total energy bills would not be greatly effected -- when averaged over 2-4 years. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
