I have another paper, that is currently in progress, that looks at the effect of wind power on start up costs and profits of conventional generators. No firm results there yet.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jcullen/

I have another paper, that is currently in progress, that looks at the effect of wind power on start up costs and profits of conventional generators. No firm results there yet.

http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jcullen/

BTW, where exactly does the storage come from? People keep on mentioning pumped storage. But there is a limited amount of cheap pumped storage available. Also large scaled pumped storage can only be feasibly built in certain areas. Plus pumped storage has an opportunity cost…..you could be using the pumped storage to transfer cheap baseload nuclear power to meet peak power requirements.

Transmission is the same….it has an opportunity cost.

The way I think of it is this: you have to have supply and demand on any electricity grid exactly balanced. Mismatch cannot be tolerated. This implies that predictability of supply and demand is highly desirable. On the other hand unpredictability is highly undesirable. Wind is bad precisely because it is unpredictable and cannot be controlled. Nuclear is predictable but not totally controllable (it cannot be turned off quickly). Gas is predictable and controllable. The other side of this is demand which is somewhat unpredictable and totally uncontrollable.

A lot could be accomplished by focusing on making the demand side more predictable and controllable via demand shedding.

BTW, where exactly does the storage come from? People keep on mentioning pumped storage. But there is a limited amount of cheap pumped storage available. Also large scaled pumped storage can only be feasibly built in certain areas. Plus pumped storage has an opportunity cost…..you could be using the pumped storage to transfer cheap baseload nuclear power to meet peak power requirements.

Transmission is the same….it has an opportunity cost.

The way I think of it is this: you have to have supply and demand on any electricity grid exactly balanced. Mismatch cannot be tolerated. This implies that predictability of supply and demand is highly desirable. On the other hand unpredictability is highly undesirable. Wind is bad precisely because it is unpredictable and cannot be controlled. Nuclear is predictable but not totally controllable (it cannot be turned off quickly). Gas is predictable and controllable. The other side of this is demand which is somewhat unpredictable and totally uncontrollable.

A lot could be accomplished by focusing on making the demand side more predictable and controllable via demand shedding.

It’s entirely rational for all parties involved to let it go to waste. The generator can “bribe” the grid to accept their power and still get compensated by the tax payer; you can get payed to waste excess power by the wind farms.

There’s no incentive to try and use that excess power for anything.

“They should be tying it to the national grid[...]”

There is no such thing as a national grid. Worse, even within each grid the transmission system behaves more like a singly connected graph where electricity goes in one direction from a bunch of predictable sources to a bunch of predictable sinks; it cannot be easily shuffled from anywhere to anywhere. If you tried it would put serious strain on the grid operators and could all to easily cause a black-out due to a careless mistake.

“[...]Not only will the consumers enjoy lower prices, but the suppliers could make more money.

I am missing the point here? It just seems so obvious!”

Yes. You apparently believe that generating electricity is the hard part, but it’s not. Transmission of electricity is already a bigger fraction of the total cost than generation and that’s with numerous small grids and dependable gas, coal, hydro and nuclear sources. If you install “smart grid” technology, criss-cross the country with HVDC lines and pumped storage systems to make the most of wind with the least proportion of fossil fuels the cost for transmission will be astronomical. When the price of electricity is high people have an incentive to shift towards oil and gas wherever possible and heavy industry is eventually forced to flee or file for bankruptcy(see California).

It’s entirely rational for all parties involved to let it go to waste. The generator can “bribe” the grid to accept their power and still get compensated by the tax payer; you can get payed to waste excess power by the wind farms.

There’s no incentive to try and use that excess power for anything.

“They should be tying it to the national grid[...]”

There is no such thing as a national grid. Worse, even within each grid the transmission system behaves more like a singly connected graph where electricity goes in one direction from a bunch of predictable sources to a bunch of predictable sinks; it cannot be easily shuffled from anywhere to anywhere. If you tried it would put serious strain on the grid operators and could all to easily cause a black-out due to a careless mistake.

“[...]Not only will the consumers enjoy lower prices, but the suppliers could make more money.

I am missing the point here? It just seems so obvious!”

Yes. You apparently believe that generating electricity is the hard part, but it’s not. Transmission of electricity is already a bigger fraction of the total cost than generation and that’s with numerous small grids and dependable gas, coal, hydro and nuclear sources. If you install “smart grid” technology, criss-cross the country with HVDC lines and pumped storage systems to make the most of wind with the least proportion of fossil fuels the cost for transmission will be astronomical. When the price of electricity is high people have an incentive to shift towards oil and gas wherever possible and heavy industry is eventually forced to flee or file for bankruptcy(see California).

It’s entirely rational for all parties involved to let it go to waste. The generator can “bribe” the grid to accept their power and still get compensated by the tax payer; you can get payed to waste excess power by the wind farms.

There’s no incentive to try and use that excess power for anything.

“They should be tying it to the national grid[...]”

There is no such thing as a national grid. Worse, even within each grid the transmission system behaves more like a singly connected graph where electricity goes in one direction from a bunch of predictable sources to a bunch of predictable sinks; it cannot be easily shuffled from anywhere to anywhere. If you tried it would put serious strain on the grid operators and could all to easily cause a black-out due to a careless mistake.

“[...]Not only will the consumers enjoy lower prices, but the suppliers could make more money.

I am missing the point here? It just seems so obvious!”

Yes. You apparently believe that generating electricity is the hard part, but it’s not. Transmission of electricity is already a bigger fraction of the total cost than generation and that’s with numerous small grids and dependable gas, coal, hydro and nuclear sources. If you install “smart grid” technology, criss-cross the country with HVDC lines and pumped storage systems to make the most of wind with the least proportion of fossil fuels the cost for transmission will be astronomical. When the price of electricity is high people have an incentive to shift towards oil and gas wherever possible and heavy industry is eventually forced to flee or file for bankruptcy(see California).

Time-of-use pricing could be a help here, because it would tend to encourage load shifting to take advantage of changes in the cost of wholesale power. I’ve seen a research paper that estimates the benefits of combining real-time pricing with wind power in ERCOT, but I can’t find the reference at the moment.

Time-of-use pricing could be a help here, because it would tend to encourage load shifting to take advantage of changes in the cost of wholesale power. I’ve seen a research paper that estimates the benefits of combining real-time pricing with wind power in ERCOT, but I can’t find the reference at the moment.