From: gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.energy
Subject: Re: Wind power
Date: 9 Apr 92 21:25:52 GMT
Reply-To: gary@ke4zv.UUCP (Gary Coffman)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group

In article <1466300054@igc.org> tgray@igc.org (Tom Gray) writes:
>Gary Coffman writes:
>
>(Jerry Miller's question) >>>>Do you think we have the
>transmission technology to feed the grid >effectively with
>variable, decentralized sources?
>
>>>>We know *how*, I'm not sure we can afford to implement the
>solutions.
>
>If we can afford acid rain, mercury contamination and global
>warming, we can afford wind power.
>
>Simplistic, to be sure, but the central point is that once
>environmental costs are properly accounted for in electricity
>pricing, wind energy is going to stop looking so expensive, even
>with increased transmission capacity.

The question is though, *are* environmental costs going to be factored
into electricity pricing at anywhere near the assumed costs? From a
practical political standpoint, I doubt it. Capital costs are up
front while environmental costs are diffuse and gradual. Accumulating
experience with acid rain shows it's not as severe a problem as first
thought, though it is a problem in some areas. Mercury contamination
is also a localized problem, and not primarily associated with power
generation. Global warming is on less sure ground than ozone depletion
or acid rain. It *may* be happening, and it's effects *may* be bad.
Or not. Some people are *sure* it's a looming disaster, others aren't.
That makes for a tough political sell as we have seen with the UN
conference. Capital costs and the associated rate increases are *sure*
things. I'm betting that with the current economic climate, major
investments will be resisted by the Public Service Commissions of
the various states. *That* may be a disaster, but it's political
reality.

>>>>We need to sharply reduce long distance transmission losses via
>high voltage DC trunks, preferrably superconducting. We need to
>install decentralized synchronous inverter systems. We need to
>install decentralized control systems. The list is fairly long,
>and not cheap, of what must change. We know how, theoretically,
>but practical implementation would be a horrendous job. Some of it
>will be done in any event to more efficiently utilize current
>central plants, but not soon.  The direct payback is too long and
>doesn't come under any one state PSC so it's difficult to build
>into the rate base.
>
>I'll bow to your expertise here, Gary, although I believe that
>quite a lot could be done -- that is not now *being* done -- to
>determine how best to reduce these costs in the near term.  We all
>have to talk in pretty general terms here because nobody, to my
>knowledge, has really looked at these issues in a serious way.
>How much storage, for example, is available at existing hydro
>sites?  Nobody knows, because nobody's ever bothered to try to
>find out.  How little new transmission capacity do we need to
>install 50 GW of wind?  Same answer.  I think these are important
>questions.

As I said, we know *how*, and it's likely that costs will be reduced
with further research. Not much is *being* done because it isn't
cost effective under current rate structures. Very little *new*
transmission capacity is needed in total, but the transmission 
capacity is needed in *different* places than where currently 
existing transmission capacity is located. The problems aren't
so much technical as *structural*. The way utilities are regulated
in this country is based on minimum cost to consumers, who elect
PSC members. And while grids are regional, regulation is local.
California is setting the pace here in some ways, but many of
their decisions have the effect of shifting generation *outside*
their jurisdiction.

>>>>>We're partially there today. Almost all the regional grids are
>tied together already. Shipping power long distances is still
>expensive though. Today it's still cheaper to ship fuel than to
>ship electricity when the distance goes over about a 100 miles, or
>when the quanity of energy to be delivered is high. We do it in
>some cases for non-economic reasons, but it costs us. That has to
>be reversed before decentralized power becomes a reality.
>
>Again, incorporation of environmental costs will help.  Also,
>there are significant amounts of wind power available, for
>example, in the Northeastern U.S. at sites that are not so far
>from existing lines.  How much?  "Nobody knows."  New York's
>utilities are studying possible sites for wind right now to try to
>find out more about this, but to my knowledge, that's the only
>state where this kind of work is being done.

Wind surveys are also being done in North Carolina, actually they
were done in the 1970s. California is in the forefront in *developing*
wind sites. Work was done in New Hampshire years ago as well. The
emphasis has been on high potential sites where large amounts of
power can be generated in a small area. That's mostly certain mountain
passes and some coastal sites. Those sites are limited. Where the
bulk of potential windpower exists is diffused across the country.
That's a different problem altogether. Many many sub-megawatt sites
are needed to tap the majority of wind. That's a harder capital
investment problem.

Solutions to most of the *technical* problems are known, though chaotic
grid behavior is still a difficult problem. Solution to the structural 
and regulation problems are less well understood. As with California, 
local regulation often has the practical effect of pushing generation 
elsewhere where regulation is friendlier to the utility's capital 
requirements. Thus well meaning regulation can cause more pollution, 
as with the Four Corners plant, or Quebec Hydro. I suspect a uniform
national, not to mention international, system of assigning costs is
a long way away.

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.energy