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

On Jul 6, 5:34 am, disgoftunwells <disgoftunwe...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.

The French have a problem with all of their nuclear power being slow
to respond to demand changes. If there is a lot more pumped storage
built, they can price their power to have the pumped storage operators
follow loads for them.

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.

Nuclear power is cheaper, now. On a purely economic basis, the
nearest rival to nuclear is coal. Where wind has not been subsidized,
it is not built. Where subsidies dry up, the wind turbines stop
spinning. What you are suggesting is that some unspecified
developement will reduce the cost of wind power-- without reducing the
cost of anything else

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.

Can you prove that?

The wind may be free, but you still have to maintain the wind turbines.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: John K. Sutherland demolishes the economics of wind power.
    ... who believe that wind power is a key to any rational social ... If each windmill were to operate at full power for the entire year, ... nuclear or coal, or hydro. ... Similar projects with similar very high costs relative to nuclear ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Research: Wind power pricier, emits more CO2 than thought
    ... demand with a nuclear base. ... But it can also inversely follow wind ... wind generated power when there is considerable excess of french ... the power source with the lowest average cost would win. ...
    (sci.energy)
  • Re: Nuclear is clean, cheap and safe. Aye! Richt!
    ... "Nuclear power will remain the cheapest way for the UK to grow its ... Then the other lies you have told are exposed too. ... The reason that the wind turbines were paid to go off line was to balance ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Horreur Nucléaire vs. Wind Power Now
    ... And so it must go with us and our oil ... But with nuclear power you don't get a second chance to ... while new wind and solar power generation facilities are already being ...
    (misc.news.internet.discuss)
  • Re: OT Earthquake and Tsunami in Japan.
    ... tsunami to remind people of the dangers of nuclear power. ... We are never going to be able to build enough wind turbines. ... Wave power is more consistent than wind, ...
    (uk.sci.weather)