backtop


Print 57 comment(s) - last by tng.. on Nov 18 at 12:27 PM


  (Source: worldcorrespondents.com)

  (Source: solarenergyfacts.org)
Integrating Renewable Electricity on the Grid report urges for solutions regarding energy storage, long-distance transmission and forecasting

The American Physical Society's Panel on Public Affairs (POPA) has released a report which offers suggestions on what is needed to both establish a national renewable electricity standard as well as merge the divided U.S. grid system. 

The report, Integrating Renewable Electricity on the Grid, provides several recommendations for setting a national renewable electricity standard and linking the fragmented U.S. grid system in an effort to move forward with a broader use of solar and wind power. 

In the report, the POPA suggested that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) should focus on energy storage, since the wind may not always blow and the sun may not always shine. If there is a shortage of electricity to a household, this could hinder their way of life for an uncertain period of time. The development of a strategy for energy storage in grid-level applications would show regulators the benefits that storing energy brings to generation and transmission services on the grid. The POPA also recommends increasing research and development in basic electrochemistry as a way of choosing materials that could be used in the storage devices. In addition, a review of the technological potential of battery chemistries should be conducted to see if they could be applied to grid storage and energy.

"We need to move faster to have storage ready to accommodate, for example, 20 percent of renewable electricity on the grid by 2020," said George Crabtree, co-chairman of the POPA study panel and a senior scientist at Argonne National Laboratory. "And, by devoting the necessary resources to the problem, I am confident that we can solve it."

Long-distance transmission is another problem facing the grid. The long-distance transmission of electricity from areas that have plenty of wind and sun to areas that do not is a challenge the DOE must overcome. To do so, the POPA suggests accelerating research and development on wide band gap power electronics as a way of controlling power flow on the grid. Creating semiconductor-based circuit breakers at 200 kilovolts and 50 kilo amperes as well as alternating to direct current conversion options could aid in controlling this power flow. Also, the POPA noted that extending the Office of Electricity program on High Temperature Superconductivity for 10 years while concentrating on the direct current superconducting cables for transmission would assist in insuring long-distance transmission.

What makes this report different from many other grid studies is that its recommendations provide scientific and business perspectives. On the business side of things, the POPA urges the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and the North American Electric Reliability Corporation to first develop an "integrated business case" that covers the value of electricity storage and renewable generation as far as transmission and distribution goes. Then, adopt a "uniform integrated business case" that serves as the final evaluation and regulatory structure along with the state Public Utility Commissions. 

Forecasting is the final category of recommendation the POPA addresses, suggesting that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Weather Service and private vendors change time scales from hours to days in order to improve the accuracy of wind and weather forecasts. Also, wind plant operators, regulatory agencies and forecast providers should create uniform standards for both preparing and delivering power and wind generation forecasts. Regulatory agencies and Wind plant operators were also urged to create operating procedures to reply to power generation forecasts, develop criteria for contingencies and response to weather disturbances, and design response other than using conventional reserve, such as electricity storage and distant transmission. 




Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Argh
By Anoxanmore on 11/17/2010 11:04:18 AM , Rating: 5
Go nuclear already! Electricity problem solved. Oh, and also update the grid over the next ten years while building said awesome power plants.

Rabble, rabble rabble.




RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 11:19:58 AM , Rating: 2
easy to say than to do
who is going to pay for it? china?
we are in debt up to eyeballs and nukes are EXPENSIVE
never-mind NIMBY resistance


RE: Argh
By kattanna on 11/17/2010 11:57:37 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
we are in debt up to eyeballs and nukes are EXPENSIVE


LOL, now thats funny

maybe you should look into just what it costs to build a solar or wind generation site that can actively generate 1 GW consistently day and night, and get back to me.


RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Argh
By rcc on 11/17/2010 3:31:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like wind farms along the cost, where the majority of population is concentrated and nuke is a no go.


Next time I drive by the San Onofre Power Plant I'll point out that it's a no go because it's on the coast. Last time I checked the surfers loved it.


RE: Argh
By Jaybus on 11/17/2010 12:44:36 PM , Rating: 2
It is cheaper than an equivalent solar or wind build out. The largest solar power station that I am aware of is the La Florida plant in Spain, that covers a bit more than a half sq km and can produce up to 50 MW. One of the smallest nuclear stations in the US, Watts Bar in Tennessee, has only one reactor operating with a second unit currently scheduled to begin operating in 2013. Watts Bar Unit 1 has a capacity of 1.17 GW. The second unit is a $2.5 billion project that will add an additional 1.18 GW of capacity.

It would take at least 23 La Florida plants to match the capacity of Watts Bar Unit 1 at noon on a bright sunny day. But the nuke runs 24/7, so it would take more like 50 La Florida plants to match the capacity in kw-h. Unless La Florida cost less than $50 million, then I don't see why anyone would think nuclear is expensive.

The resistance is another matter, but certainly can't be due to cost.


RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 1:05:17 PM , Rating: 2
You compare building solar farm from scratch with adding a nuke reactor to existing facility. It's not a fair comparison. Do you have apple to apple example? When was the last nuclear plant build from scratch in this country? Including complete fuel cycle: mining, enriching, storage, reprocessing and disposal? How many decades are needed to build one nuclear plant?

In your example, Watts Bar, one of two reactor units whose construction commenced in 1973. Unit 1 was completed in 1996, whooping 23 years later. The second unit, you mentioned, was about 80% complete when its construction was stopped in 1988. So $2.5 bln is just a tiny bit to complete the work started decades (!) ago.


RE: Argh
By Anoxanmore on 11/17/2010 1:30:21 PM , Rating: 3
You forget about all the red tape that is needed which is why it costs so much to build a nuclear plant from the beginning. If the government would not allow the frivolous lawsuits to be filed to begin with you'd have the start up costs be a lot less, and the time it takes to build one drop by at least a decade if not more.

In addition, I can think of at least twenty different government sectors to cut money from to build an entirely new infrastructure for electricity. Bringing in a total of nearly 2T (Trillion) for money. Which would not all of that be needed.

Try it out for yourself:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/11/13/week...

It isn't that hard to come up with the funds for it. Not to mention it'd be pretty easy to use the funds to have the government build the nuclear plants themselves, not to mention allow them to actually employ(given to private companies to manage/run) 1000 or more people in a permanent fashion in addition to creating a lot of construction jobs for a temporary time.

After many of the nuclear plants are completed (in say 10 yrs) we can use that extra power (assuming 2GW + plants) to help research fusion, which will be the new energy source and that is literally unlimited. Not to mention this could also effect the inception rate for EV automobiles since our power grid would be up to date, and able to support the plugging in that many would do regardless of time of day. Granted, EV cars & etc are more for urban folk(of temperate climates atm), but the point still stands.

This is also the longest post I've ever posted on here. Well, that was serious anyway.

=^-^=


RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/10, Rating: 0
RE: Argh
By Anoxanmore on 11/17/2010 3:21:18 PM , Rating: 2
No it isn't a reality. If you allow people to bring lawsuits that have no merit based on false environmental concerns that only lenghens the time it takes to build said nuclear plants. It is a waste of tax payer money amongst other things.

Nuclear(both fission and fusion) is the answer, and we have the 4th largest deposits of Uranium in the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium_mining_in_the...
{5} Warren I Finch (2003) Uranium-fuel for nuclear energy 2002, US Geological Survey, Bulletin 2179-A

890Million tons. We'd be fine on our own.

As for your "smaller government!!!!!111oneoneone", sometimes it takes over-riding things to get stuff done. This is one of those times.


RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 6:31:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
890Million tons. We'd be fine on our own.

jeez, can't you read? your own link says
890 million pounds , not tons. In tons it will be about 400,000.


RE: Argh
By Anoxanmore on 11/17/2010 6:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
Typo, it happens.

It still does not change that we have 400,000 Tons of Uranium which is the 4th largest concentration in the world.

Again, we'd last hundreds of years with that fuel and we'd have fusion mastered before we'd ever run out.


RE: Argh
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/17/2010 6:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
Plutonium, Uranium, and Thorium are all fissile materials that we can use in our nuclear reactors, we aren't going to run out for a VERY long time.


RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 7:33:40 PM , Rating: 2
it's all good, but you need to breed. you need fast neutron reactors. totally different beast. more expensive, more challenging to design and build, more difficult to stabilize. not economical now, but could happen in future.


RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 2:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
Huh? Do you want more gov control or less? Throwing out "frivolous" suits will be the end of democracy. Who should decide which suit is "frivolous"?


RE: Argh
By Spuke on 11/17/2010 6:12:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who should decide which suit is "frivolous"?
The judge. Which, BTW, is the one that does it now.


RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 6:38:52 PM , Rating: 2
Good. No change then? I thought the guy suggested to throw out any lawsuit G-man says is "frivolous". And ride over ("over ride") poor bas-ards who do not understand the common good.


RE: Argh
By kontorotsui on 11/17/2010 12:44:59 PM , Rating: 2
I'm positive about nuclear as anyone with a fuctional brain.
But you cannot make power 100% nuclear, only.
Lack of redundancy and alternatives would make a country exposed to fuel availability and price fluctuations... even 3rd generation nuclear power station need breeding reactors, which are less easy to build and manage.
Some sort of backup non-nuclear plants are needed, anyway.


RE: Argh
By Spuke on 11/17/2010 1:00:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Some sort of backup non-nuclear plants are needed, anyway.
I agree and solar and wind aren't the backups either. How do you backup 24 hour power availability with 5.7 hour power availability? Ok, store it. How do you store 1MW (or whatever) of power effectively?


RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 2:15:09 PM , Rating: 2
One way to store is EV batteries. They will act as huge capacitors and if deployed with smart grid technologies could take care of energy spikes.


RE: Argh
By Spuke on 11/17/2010 7:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
One way to store is EV batteries.
That's not cost effective at all.


RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 7:39:09 PM , Rating: 2
you forgot to add "now"
but we are not discussing today, do we?
e.g. building nuclear plant from scratch takes decades
auto battery tech will improve and get cheaper in a few years as well


RE: Argh
By texbrazos on 11/17/2010 2:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
The new Tessera plant in Calif. cost 2 billion and will power around 500,000 homes. The Commanche Peak Nuclear Plant cost 15 Billion and suppies 1.5 million. Do the math.
If you built 10 billion worth of these Tessera Solar plants, you would power 2.5 million people and still be cheaper than a nuke plant, plus it is cleaner than nuke.


RE: Argh
By kattanna on 11/17/2010 3:33:11 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The new Tessera plant in Calif. cost 2 billion and will power around 500,000 homes


its actually..

quote:
Tessera's Calico plant will cost more than $2 billion and will power 200,000 to 500,000 homes


off course the key caveat is missing here

DURING THE DAY.

you simply cannot compare solar that can only produce power during the peak part of the day to a baseload nuclear plant.

though, i am very glad to see someone start deploying the concentrating solar to sterling engine method on a more massive scale. They actually have a chance of becoming viable peak load generation.

though imagine is this little nugget was applied to nuclear

quote:
If they start construction by December 31, the plants can qualify for a program that provides a 30 percent cash grant from the Treasury Department


RE: Argh
By Spuke on 11/17/2010 6:25:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The new Tessera plant in Calif. cost 2 billion and will power around 500,000 homes.
How about YOU do the math. 1.5 million homes during the 5.7 hour peak (that's in the southwest) sunlight period or 1.5 million homes 24/7. Are you planning on not using any power in your home when the sun goes down?


RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 6:48:35 PM , Rating: 2
Nuclear power has certain advantages, just like wind or solar. Why should it be only one or the other? Why so much radicalism when it comes to renewables? There are plenty of places where renewables just make sense, don't you agree?


RE: Argh
By kattanna on 11/18/2010 10:49:56 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nuclear power has certain advantages, just like wind or solar


aye, very much so.

quote:
Why should it be only one or the other? Why so much radicalism when it comes to renewables?


its not the average joe that started it. its the ECOnut crowd that did. crying from the rooftops about replacing ALL energy generation with nothing but renewables, else the planet is DOOMED !!!

quote:
There are plenty of places where renewables just make sense, don't you agree?


yep. solar can make a good peak load generation. wind can be a small base load, yet its so variable as to pose issues for use like that.

hydro, geothermal, and wave all make great base load power as they are consistent.


radical
By joe4324 on 11/17/2010 1:44:47 PM , Rating: 1
OR we could just aspire to use less and not build anything. Implement a 'negawatt' program similar to china. Instead of building a new nuke, put the same money into incentives to cut needs by a equal amount. LED lighting, dual pane glazing, induction cooking etc etc.

Renewables need to be the future, too bad we will need a 'real' nuke disaster to prove it. But they won't provide what we need if we keep finding new ways to burn the extra juice we save by new technology.

Move away from centralized generation (this includes large wind plants!) since thats where we loose half our power anyway, embrace renewables, use half what we use now and share your excess power with your neighbors via grid-tie.

Just my two cents, course I'm writing this on a ATOM netbook off-grid. I already went down the rabbit hole and not expecting many to follow.




RE: radical
By tng on 11/17/2010 1:55:18 PM , Rating: 2
Conservation will only go so far until you have to build new.

Allot of people out there think that all we have to do is cut our power usage by 10%, 20% and that will save us. It may for a short time, but in another 10 years you would ask us to cut by another 10%? Where does that stop before you are allowed to use power only at certain times of the day or even certain days of the week?

When electricity went sky high here in California around 2000, allot of us cut our bills by installing CFLs, unplugging things that we didn't use all the time, etc... I cut my bill by 50% and then was told that I should cut it again by at least another 20% a couple of years later. I am sure that I could spend a bunch of money and get more efficient appliances and install LED lighting, but in several more years they will ask for more and I am tired of it.


RE: radical
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 2:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
SO... you managed? What are you complaining about? Stop whining and take example from your immune system: year after year microbes attack it yet you are still alive, aren't you?


RE: radical
By tng on 11/17/2010 3:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, you really are something aren't you?

Oh yeh, I am looking for more ways to conserve, but obviously you would be fine if we all had to live to your standards?

Someday all of your green dreams will come true and you will be sorry that you got exactly what you asked for....

Now go back to your cave and play with your rocks...


RE: radical
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 4:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
Hm, did I touch your feelings somehow?


RE: radical
By tng on 11/17/2010 6:53:57 PM , Rating: 2
Hope you were wearing gloves...


RE: radical
By tng on 11/17/2010 1:57:58 PM , Rating: 2
By the way, I will be more than happy to install solar panels on my roof if you are willing to pay for them personally.

Seems you are more than willing to use other peoples money to provide "incentives", so why not yours if you are so pro on the subject.


RE: radical
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 2:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
Conservation is good, but here we are talking about oil displacement and population growth. How do you conserve 1 CMO? http://spectrum.ieee.org/images/jan07/images/ncmo0...


RE: radical
By Spuke on 11/17/2010 6:30:13 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How do you conserve 1 CMO?
Stop using plastic bags?


RE: radical
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 7:41:47 PM , Rating: 2
ha-ha-ha


RE: radical
By kattanna on 11/18/2010 11:05:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
OR we could just aspire to use less and not build anything. Implement a 'negawatt' program similar to china


oh man, thats a good belly laugh. china? really?? the country that cant build new coal power plants fast enough you use as an example of "negawatt" LOL!!

quote:
Renewables need to be the future, too bad we will need a 'real' nuke disaster to prove it.


renewables do have a place in our future, just not completely replacing all other forms.

and your hoping for a massive nuclear accident to "prove" your point. WOW so many people need to die for you to be happy? not even going to finish my thoughts on that line of "thinking"...

quote:
Just my two cents, course I'm writing this on a ATOM netbook off-grid. I already went down the rabbit hole and not expecting many to follow.


sorry no, i dont follow hypocrites. you flaunt your off the gridness at the same time telling us your using a device that requires massive industrial output to produce, and yet use that as another example of your ECO goodness?

please, you want to go off the grid, enjoy, but dont at the same time show disdain for the technologies that require massive power and infrastructure for you to do that.


Solutions to a created problem
By mkrech on 11/17/2010 11:06:30 AM , Rating: 2
All of these issues that need to be resolved to accommodate renewable energy... existing energy sources do not have these issues.

So, remind me... why are we not using the current resources and technology that already functions perfectly well?




RE: Solutions to a created problem
By pityme on 11/17/2010 11:18:45 AM , Rating: 2
Eco Nazis. The big problem is that the solar and wind are only about 20 percent available and often at non peak electrical usage times. No one will even mention this problem. Eco Nazis again.


RE: Solutions to a created problem
By Redwin on 11/17/2010 1:34:02 PM , Rating: 2
Please, Godwin's Law.

Tree huggers are annoying, it's true.

But only the Nazis were Nazis.


RE: Solutions to a created problem
By tng on 11/17/2010 1:46:20 PM , Rating: 2
However the name sounds, the description that it implies does fit.

I have seen those same people wipe out family farms because of rodents, fish and plants. People who had farmed the same land for 100 years alongside said endangered species and had no impact on the population of them, yet as soon as the Eco Nazis got involved were basically put out of business.

Call them what you will but Nazi is a fitting term. Probably should look at your life and find ways to protect yourself from them. It is only a matter of time until they get legislation passed that will impact you.


RE: Solutions to a created problem
By foolsgambit11 on 11/17/2010 9:19:10 PM , Rating: 2
There are militant environmentalists that may deserve a term like eco-Nazis - ELF, for instance. Although eco-terrorists is a more appropriate nomenclature. However, they aren't the environmentalists who are actually effecting change in our resource management plans. Those environmentalists do not deserve the term eco-Nazis, because their platform isn't analogous to the Nazi platform. Long term stewardship and preservation of our natural resources, including through government intervention, might deserve a term like eco-Socialist, but not eco-National-Socialist. The mainstream environmentalist movement wants to preserve biodiversity, but doesn't want to exterminate humans to achieve it. They want the whole world to work together to preserve our environment, but they aren't going to invade Poland to enforce cap-and-trade legislation. Okay, maybe they want to indoctrinate our children with their ideals, but everybody wants to indoctrinate our children with their own ideals, so that isn't a trait unique to the Nazis. Some of them are vegetarians, and Hitler was a vegetarian, but it's a logical fallacy to call them Nazis because of that - or are recovering alcoholics Nazis because Hitler didn't drink?

I come from the land of the Spotted Owl, from a community with a large logging economy, so I know the economic impacts of the environmental platform. But that doesn't make them Nazis, either. Or would you call prohibitionists Nazis because they put people who owned bars and distilleries out of business?


RE: Solutions to a created problem
By tng on 11/18/2010 9:23:35 AM , Rating: 2
If you come from the land of Spotted Owls, it sounds like I grew up just South of you.

Several years ago I watched at least a dozen family farms go out of business because of a fish. The whole thing was pushed by the Sierra Club and most of those farms were bought by them. After that the banks who funded those farms in trouble (because of the fish) got wise and decided that the farms in trouble could have as much time as they liked to pay back loans and even forgave some of the loans. They wanted active customers, not land that just sat doing nothing.


RE: Solutions to a created problem
By Redwin on 11/18/2010 9:37:10 AM , Rating: 2
yes, because forcing a family off its farm to preserve the environment is 100% analogous to systematically exterminating 7 million innocent people in gas chambers.

I'm sorry, but
Only the Nazis were Nazis

Period.


RE: Solutions to a created problem
By tng on 11/18/2010 12:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
yes, because forcing a family off its farm to preserve the environment is 100% analogous to systematically exterminating 7 million innocent people in gas chambers.
To preserve the environment? The farms had been there 100 years and there were no environmental disasters, extinctions during that time. What you don't realize is it is not the fish or the rodent or the plant that is the target. The people are the target.

Left unchecked, yes, they will be the same as the Nazis. Maybe I am being extreme here but did you realize that the CO2 that you exhale is a toxic gas as determined by the EPA? Scoff at it if you must, but that gives our government ultimate power over you and me.

Can you imagine a world where someone tells you that you and your wife cant have a second child because of the CO2 that the child would produce? You and your family have to move to high rise housing in a crowded urban area because you live to far from your job and your house size exceeds the allowable limit for your family?

Sounds like I am nuts? Maybe, but there are groups out there that are planning long term for just such things (read the Sierra Club, WWF) and the changing the designation of CO2 to a toxic gas was just the first step.


By spamreader1 on 11/17/2010 1:01:43 PM , Rating: 2
I could be wrong, but it seamed like a good idea to me.




By Redwin on 11/17/2010 1:36:05 PM , Rating: 2
Its an excellent idea.

Its also "nuke-u-lar", and therefore a non-starter to your average uninformed NIMBY voter. :(


By kattanna on 11/17/2010 3:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I could be wrong, but it seamed like a good idea to me.


you werent wrong, its an excellent idea. one too good for us though. our gov wants nothing to do with it so your only going to be seeing it in other countries.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 11/17/2010 6:52:39 PM , Rating: 2
This is one of the times I envy China. They can roll out these types of solutions without too much trouble, where as here in the US hell will freeze before we use such blatantly obvious solutions to our problems.


Tessera Solar Plant
By texbrazos on 11/17/2010 2:46:35 PM , Rating: 2
The new Tessera plant in Calif. cost 2 billion and will power around 500,000 homes. The Commanche Peak Nuclear Plant cost 15 Billion and suppies 1.5 million. Do the math.
If you built 10 billion worth of these Tessera Solar plants, you would power 2.5 million people and still be cheaper than a nuke plant, plus it is cleaner than nuke.




RE: Tessera Solar Plant
By tng on 11/17/2010 3:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
And all those homes will be powerless at night and on cloudy days....


RE: Tessera Solar Plant
By texbrazos on 11/17/2010 4:09:00 PM , Rating: 2
663 mega watt. You don't think they have a way to deal with that? I am not sure if they store any excess power, if there is any in battery or hydrogen form. The Tessera plant uses stirling engine tech instead of solar panels.


RE: Tessera Solar Plant
By Spuke on 11/17/2010 6:37:12 PM , Rating: 2
They aren't storing any power at the Tessera plant. The solar heat collectors are used to directly drive Sterling engines which produce electricity.


DT Agenda?
By gregpet on 11/17/2010 11:32:48 AM , Rating: 2
Why has there not been an article on the Volt winning Motor Trends Car of the year AND Automobile Magazine's Automobile of the year...Both were announced yesterday so either DT is lazy or their agenda is only to post negative/non flattering articles...




RE: DT Agenda?
By The0ne on 11/17/2010 12:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
Because when I saw the listed price I laughed? Maybe it's just me. This goes for the Leaf too.


RE: DT Agenda?
By tng on 11/17/2010 1:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see any Motor Trend award as big news. Motor Trend has an award for almost every thing imaginable. Since they make so many awards for so many catagories of cars and trucks, they get their name in the news media allot and that is the point of having all those awards.

They are publicity whores....


“So far we have not seen a single Android device that does not infringe on our patents." -- Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki