by aahala2 » Sat 20 Sep 2008, 10:58:15
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('newbonic', '[')url=http://www.easier.com/view/News/Motoring/article-204855.html]Wind Farms blasted by 'clean energy' boss[/url].
Basically, a H2 electrolyser/fuel cell co CEO says:
"[i]Renewable energy without storage offers no energy security solution and little in the way of CO2 reduction. There’s no point in building 20 new wind farms if you have to simultaneously run back-up power stations in parallel to provide electricity in case the wind drops and the turbines don’t turn.
I agree with the last sentence. What I don't agree with the implicit claim one must simultaneously run backup power in exact parallel.
First, unless the only source of power is wind, there will be others
in operation. Some of these other sources, like coal and nuclear,
are not so good at large instant upticks in production, but NG
and hydro are. Second, 20 wind farms have a low probablility of
going from a large amount of production to near zero in a short
time frame. This outcome is even less likely to be a surprise,
wind prediction isn't perfect, but it isn't a dark science either.
In the Texas event a few months ago, wind power dropped by
a large percentage(but not really close to 100%) and electrical
demand increased sharped, the hours in question nearly led
to wide spread blackouts.
The impression some may have gotten reading this item, was
that wind was to blame. Well, the surge in demand far outpaced
the drop in wind power. And the direction of both WERE known
by anyone who read the previous day's weather
forecast -- higher temps and lower wind speeds tomorrow.