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

RE: Argh
By rvd2008 on 11/17/2010 1:55:05 PM , Rating: 0
Red tape or not, it is a reality. If you want to play the game you pay the man. It is not only nuke problem. E.g. Cape Wind project was on hold for 10 years due to NIMBYs and some native american opposition (sacred burial sites on the ocean floor, who'd knew? :-).

Heck, even former home improvement store site next to my office was empty for years because neighbors opposed supermarket and what not until undisclosed deals were reached.

My point is nuke is not an answer. Even from resources point of view. At current levels/prices US has about 72 years of uranium suitable for current "once-through" nuclear reactor power generation. Increase nuclear power share six times and you would only have enough uranium for 12 years. I do not even want to start the discussion that US currently produces about 7% it consumes. The rest comes from Russia, Kazakhstan etc. So much about energy independence, huh?


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.


"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs














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