A Reality Check for Wind Power Investors [View article]
John - - -
I just read your March 23 article on challenges for energy storage: seekingalpha.com/artic... You have detailed chart which shows all the storage processes commonly discussed.
This all brought me back to the question of how energy storage is defined. To me, all fuel based systems (fossil and nuclear) are ultimately energy storage vehicles. Also, geothermal is stored energy. Traditional hydro is a special case of pumped hydro, with Mother Nature doing the pumping.
This all comes back to my questions about generation management. How much can be gained by classifying traditional hydo and fuel based systems as storage (secondary generation) and solar and wind as variable output primary generation?
Based on what I have read over the several years, I expect that the use of solar and wind are still limited in such a process to a small percentage of production, but that small number might be many times the minute levels derived from these sources today.
Back to my previous comment, I'm looking for an economic analysis and a mechanism to follow the generation and grid system economics as we move forward. I think we may not know what we don't know yet. It is important to be able to specify what you don't know before you can be efficient in learning.
Someone may be able to fill me in on this subject and maybe there will be a response from a reader.
A Reality Check for Wind Power Investors [View article]
John - - -
Great discussion topic and good analysis in the article. I have tried to read most of the comments and I have not seen anybody broach the subject of using hydro as an energy storage proxy to smooth the unreliable wind powered generation. In your graph it appears that the hydro production is operating independently of wind power production.
Why not defer sufficient hydro production to fill in for low wind production? This seems to be an attractive generation management process as long as hydro production exceeds wind. It would probably become problematic when wind capacity exceeds hydro capacity and production smoothing would then require other co-generation facilities.
I would like to see analysis of co-generation systems management and learn if that can provide any economic advantage. I can see that there is little to question about the environmental advantages of such management, but what are the capital and operating costs comparisons?
Again, this is an outstanding article that raises many issues.
Why America Must Focus on Domestic Energy Solutions Instead of Imports [View article]
John - - -
This is a great discussion of a topic that is central to the economic future of the U.S. Forgive me for going off in a different direction. (I will come back to the main theme at the end.)
I was intrigued by your first table showing the high cost per job of the government funds poured into the alternative energy funnel. I think this question deserves more consideration. If those are the costs of jobs that last for one year, they are obscene. If they last for 10 years, some are still way too high (Smith, Compact Power, JCI-Saft) but others are more reasonable on a cost per job per year basis, if there is any appreciable growth multiplier during the ten years.
For example, if the start up leads each starting job to grow to nine more (your second and third tier jobs) over ten years, a $300,000 cost per job in year one becomes $3,000 per job per year after ten years.
That brings my discussion right back to your theme - none of this makes sense if the process does not bring us to increased domestic energy production and reduced imported energy. If it does produce that result, then the cost per job can become negligible after several years as domestic employment is pushed up and trade deficits are pushed down.
A Reality Check for Wind Power Investors [View article]
I just read your March 23 article on challenges for energy storage: seekingalpha.com/artic... You have detailed chart which shows all the storage processes commonly discussed.
This all brought me back to the question of how energy storage is defined. To me, all fuel based systems (fossil and nuclear) are ultimately energy storage vehicles. Also, geothermal is stored energy. Traditional hydro is a special case of pumped hydro, with Mother Nature doing the pumping.
This all comes back to my questions about generation management. How much can be gained by classifying traditional hydo and fuel based systems as storage (secondary generation) and solar and wind as variable output primary generation?
Based on what I have read over the several years, I expect that the use of solar and wind are still limited in such a process to a small percentage of production, but that small number might be many times the minute levels derived from these sources today.
Back to my previous comment, I'm looking for an economic analysis and a mechanism to follow the generation and grid system economics as we move forward. I think we may not know what we don't know yet. It is important to be able to specify what you don't know before you can be efficient in learning.
Someone may be able to fill me in on this subject and maybe there will be a response from a reader.
A Reality Check for Wind Power Investors [View article]
Great discussion topic and good analysis in the article. I have tried to read most of the comments and I have not seen anybody broach the subject of using hydro as an energy storage proxy to smooth the unreliable wind powered generation. In your graph it appears that the hydro production is operating independently of wind power production.
Why not defer sufficient hydro production to fill in for low wind production? This seems to be an attractive generation management process as long as hydro production exceeds wind. It would probably become problematic when wind capacity exceeds hydro capacity and production smoothing would then require other co-generation facilities.
I would like to see analysis of co-generation systems management and learn if that can provide any economic advantage. I can see that there is little to question about the environmental advantages of such management, but what are the capital and operating costs comparisons?
Again, this is an outstanding article that raises many issues.
Why America Must Focus on Domestic Energy Solutions Instead of Imports [View article]
This is a great discussion of a topic that is central to the economic future of the U.S. Forgive me for going off in a different direction. (I will come back to the main theme at the end.)
I was intrigued by your first table showing the high cost per job of the government funds poured into the alternative energy funnel. I think this question deserves more consideration. If those are the costs of jobs that last for one year, they are obscene. If they last for 10 years, some are still way too high (Smith, Compact Power, JCI-Saft) but others are more reasonable on a cost per job per year basis, if there is any appreciable growth multiplier during the ten years.
For example, if the start up leads each starting job to grow to nine more (your second and third tier jobs) over ten years, a $300,000 cost per job in year one becomes $3,000 per job per year after ten years.
That brings my discussion right back to your theme - none of this makes sense if the process does not bring us to increased domestic energy production and reduced imported energy. If it does produce that result, then the cost per job can become negligible after several years as domestic employment is pushed up and trade deficits are pushed down.