Re: Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought

On 5 Jul, 22:52, "rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx" <rlbell.ns...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
On Jul 5, 11:57 am, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:



1. Pumped Storage: There is a lot of potential for pumped storage in
Norway - probably 10s of GW days. And the alps have a lot of hydro
which can be enhanced to pumped storage. Currently this is used follow
demand with a nuclear base. But it can also inversely follow wind
supply.

The problem with pumped storage operations outside of the wind driven
grid is that of simple economics. Why will the operator choose to buy
wind generated power when there is considerable excess of french
nuclear baseload power for sale? The operator can maximize revenues
by pumping with cheap excess baseload,and selling at peak rates. The
operator can even get a discount from the baseload plant, if he allows
the supplier to cut the power at short notice (turning the pumped
storage operation into spinning reserve).

Obviously there isn't enough French baseload to go around.

Economical ways of storing electrical energy will kill wind, dead, for
any grid connected purpose; unless someone decides that money is no
object.

If there were a perfect way to store electricity, and an efficient
market, the power source with the lowest average cost would win. No
one knows whether in 12 years wind or nuclear will be cheaper, but it
looks like we'll get both.

Until then, the power source with the lowest marginal cost has a role
for baseload power. Nuclear has low marginal cost, but wind is even
lower.
.

Relevant Pages