If I may, I would like to slightly divert this thread to discuss the practicality of operating a grid with a large percentage of wind power. In order to operate a grid with a fairly predictable load with a lot of intermittent power sources requires the ability to predict the variability of those intermittent sources and, ideally, develop methods of energy storge to flatten those wide variations.
This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_Power_Forecasting give one an idea of the challenge faced by countries like Denmark who gets 16 to 20 percent of it's annual energy from wind. At the end of the article are some of the various models used to forecast wind power. This article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intermittent_Power_Sources says that, "An ICE report on the wind power in Denmark stated that wind power was so variable that Denmark exported most of its wind power rather than use it itself . . ." Indeed, in 2002 the entire system went 54 days with no useable wind power at all. Barring vast energy storage capability, how does the prudent engineer incorporate wind power into a large grid. Studies in the US indicate: "According to a study of wind in the United States, ten or more widely-separated wind farms connected through the grid could be relied upon for from 33 to 47% of their average output (15–20% of nominal capacity) as reliable, baseload power, as long as minimum criteria are met for wind speed and turbine height." So, you can only depend on a maximum of about 20% of your total grid energy coming from wind which, remarkably, is the same number the Dutch claim as stated above. Terry On Mon, Dec 1, 2008 at 4:01 PM, Jed Rothwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jones Beene wrote: > >> > The numbers on land vary from ~27% in Germany to ~33% in parts of the >> > U.S. Some offshore installations reach ~40%. >> >> These could be little more than imaginary numbers, without documentation. > > Since they are documented, they are not imaginary. > > >> The 27% is documented for the best UK offshore sites, but I can find >> nothing higher. > > You have not looked very hard. > > This is rather like discussing cold fusion with 'skeptics' who claim "I have > seen no evidence for [excess heat / tritium / fill in the blank]." They see > nothing because they don't bother to look. > > - Jed > >
