Re: compressed air to store wind energy

bigcat_at_meeow.co.uk
Date: 03/25/05 

Date: 25 Mar 2005 10:04:35 -0800

analyst41@hotmail.com wrote:
> bigcat@meeow.co.uk wrote:

megasnip

> > Storage is not the only option. It might be one that gets chosen,
but
> I
> > think other improvements would be more likely first. I'm not saying
> all
> > the things above will be used, some I expect will be, some I doubt
> it.
> >
> >
> > NT
>
> all excellent ideas = hopefully the "market" will allow many to come
to
> fruition.
>
> But I think you missed (or I forgot to make clear) the radical thrust
> of my argument. Imagine a coal-based poweplant burning those
megatons
> of coal day after day after day.
>
> Today there is raw coal buried underground in Kentucky or West
Virginia
> - and several years later, thanks to the powerplant - that raw coal
is
> gone, the landscape injured to a greater or lesser extent, humongous
> quantities of burnt residue to be disposed of - toxic effluents
> incuding mercury dispersed all over the earth.
>
> What we call a coal-based power plant is continuously producing this
> transformation - take a concentrated substance buried somewhere and
> deplete it , degrade it into both useless and actually toxic
substances
> and disperse it all over the earth. Clearly something like this
cannot
> go on forever.

I expect thats right, but I'm not sure we can just assume it.

> On the other hand look at the footprint of wind-energy - there is no
> comparison.

Thats the problem.

> There is a small amount of destruction to produce the
> tower, blades and the generating equipment - but the daily operation
is
> almost totally benign.

ok then, you tell us what it would cost to convert from coal gas and
nuke to wind, and what the consequnces of that cost would be. Then
you'll have a rather more realistic view of its 'benignness'.

> SO I want to take away your primary argument
> against CAES - that you can power up or down conventional powerplants
> in the grid to even out the variable power output from wind.

its correct, and with any plant, not just conventional types.

> I think
> ALL COMBUSTION BASED POWERPLANTS SHOULD BE SHUT DOWN PERMANENTLY, ir
at
> least drastically cut down in size.

ok, but for that to be convincing you'd need to give us a coherent
argument in favour of an alternative.

> I want to to generalize beyond CO2 generation - humankind has to
learn
> to live with a gentler footprint on the earth -

do we? I hope we choose to, but I dont see a convincing reason that we
have to.

> and I think wind
> energy is clearly the panacea for this.

even though you dont understand the issues and are unable to address
them. OK, thats fine, as long as you accept it wont get you universal
agreement.

> If people would learn to live
> a simpler life that would be great

that really shows how much you have failed to grasp. A simpler life
would give us a horrible toll of death and suffering. Why there are so
many with this naive idea I dont know.

If you want to convince anyone of anything, start with the numbers.
Tell us what your windpower scheme would cost, and what we'd have to
sacrifice to pay for it. Tell us how many square miles of land it would
affect, and what we'd have to sacrifice for it. Its not difficult to
look numbers up.

If you cant do this you dont know what youre takling about.

NT

Relevant Pages