[JayHMorrison]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Ludi', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') expect solar power to become competitive

[Devil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', '
')a) Solar has the potential to meet about 10% of our overall energy needs.
b) Wind has the potential to meet about 20% of our overall energy needs.

[JayHMorrison]

Devil, you raise some valid issues on the hurdles and costs.

But the evidence seems to support that wind can handle about 20% of the electric grid load total. During some periods of time in Denmark, wind power meets 100% of the power needs of western Denmark.

I did a search to get updated info and it looks like they are projecting 29% of their electric grid will be wind powered be the end of 2005.

http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/nature/wind.htm

I am also a big fan of biomass. If we could also do 10% of the electric grid from biomass, no objections from me.

[Frank]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Devil', '.')..collect all refuse in special containers, along with all non-recyclable wood, paper, plastics etc.. These are carted away to a refuse-burning power station equipped with suitable waste gases treatment. The cost of the fuel is equal to that of the garbage collection service, which is necessary, anyway. This is done in several Swiss towns and they prove to provide about 9.9% of the electricity consumed in the collection area and the system can provide almost 10% CONTINUOUSLY, so requires no more back-up generating capacity than a nuke or coal-fired power station. Another advantage is that it reduces landfill capacity very substantially (by about 85-90%). This works! The disadvantage is that it is really suitable only for towns with a population exceeding 100,000, so small remote communities are left in the cold. Capital costs are not cheap, because of the need to clean the exhaust gases, but this is offset by low fuel costs.

[Devil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', 'D')evil, you raise some valid issues on the hurdles and costs.

But the evidence seems to support that wind can handle about 20% of the electric grid load total. During some periods of time in Denmark, wind power meets 100% of the power needs of western Denmark.

I did a search to get updated info and it looks like they are projecting 29% of their electric grid will be wind powered be the end of 2005.

http://www.scandinavica.com/culture/nature/wind.htm

I am also a big fan of biomass. If we could also do 10% of the electric grid from biomass, no objections from me.

[JayHMorrison]

It does seem that current electric grid management strategies are limiting Wind to about 20% of total electricity. I see that over and over in any objective study.

Are their any large scale examples that contain significant solar and wind in the same grid area?

The Green party in Germany (junior party in ruling coalition) actually plans to shutdown Germany's nuclear power plants. Their solution is use all wind power. So much for that idea.

[Devil]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JayHMorrison', 'I')t does seem that current electric grid management strategies are limiting Wind to about 20% of total electricity. I see that over and over in any objective study.

Are their any large scale examples that contain significant solar and wind in the same grid area?

The Green party in Germany (junior party in ruling coalition) actually plans to shutdown Germany's nuclear power plants. Their solution is use all wind power. So much for that idea.

[JayHMorrison]

Devil,

What do you see as the eventual mix of energy options for the power grid that makes the most sense?

If we draw the conclusion that wind is likely capped at 15% to 20% for electricity, what is the most likely option to fill the remaining 80%. I am assuming that coal becomes unacceptable in the coming years as global warming evidence accumulates.

The only option remaing that I can find appears to be nuclear. Solar, hydro and biomass all appear to be limited to under 10% each.

[Devil]

On the basis that solar and wind are both variable and must have 100% backup, it is clear that invariable sources must be able to provide the peak demand.

I believe that the first measure is to reduce the peak demand. A good way of doing this is to stagger peak hours over a grid. If ¼ of the normal daytime working population start work at 6 am, ¼ at 7 am, ¼ at 8 am and ¼ at 9 am, this staggers the peak over 4 hours, especially if done over whole states, e.g., New Jersey at 6, New York at 7, Mass. at 8 and the rest of New England at 9. The going-home time would also be staggered accordingly, so that each area could have its TV scheduled accordingly, so that Jay Leno would come on 4 hours later in NH than in NJ. On the same theme would be to forbid the sale of energy-guzzlers, such as tungsten light bulbs, poorly insulated fridges, CRT monitors and TVs and so on. If we could reduce the peak demand by 20%, this would be significant, for starters; it means the whole grid and generating capacity could be scaled accordingly.

Then 10% of current peak can be achieved by burning garbage, so this would supply 12.5% of the reduced peak. Hydro depends on the country: Switzerland is roughly 60% hydro/36% nuke/0% fossil fuel just now. However, hydro is generally very dangerous on a large scale and environmentally devastating. That really leaves only nuclear for the bulk of the supply. However, when the wind blows or the sun shines, the nuke generation can be cut down to conserve uranium, to the limit of ~20% of peak.

This is my view of the short-medium term future.