What's missing from the current energy debate? Real potential to make progress, unfortunately. If I had the ear of the presidential candidates - any of them - here's what I'd tell them: The United States needs domestic, sustainable energy sources that will allow our economy to grow and prosper. Accomplish this and our nation will own its own destiny - for the long term.
So - I said sustainable, right? That means wind and solar, right? Well, sure....but those are taking care of themselves. Many Americans might be surprised to learn that the United States is the largest market for wind development on the planet; in fact, last year (2007) more wind turbine power(megawatts) was installed in the US than the number 2, 3 and 4 nations on the list combined. Really. And what's more - it's been that way for about 3 years....and is predicted to be that way through 2020. Sometime between 2010 and 2020, the US will pass Europe (as a whole) in total installed megawatts. Part of the reason that this is happening is that major companies (GE, Seimens, Mitsubishi, to name a few) are seeing green. No, not ecological green....money green. Wind turbines are a revenue generating investment for these companies; demand for electricity is always present and there's a good income-to-life ratio for a wind installation these days. The other reason this is happening is technical developments are making 40m and 50m wind blades possible. Because the installation costs don't scale linearly with blade length, yet power generation increases substantially, the base (installed cost per megawatt capacity) is greatly reduced. Short story: it's cheaper to intsall more power these days.
A similar 'perfect storm' of technology and capital are happening with solar installations. That's great, right? Sure.....but....There's always a but, isn't there?
Wind and solar are 'probable' power sources; this means that over the course of a year, one can - with reasonable accuracy - predict how much power will be generated. The wind blows at average speeds...the sun shines for an average of so many hours a day.
What's missing is a tie back to when and where electrical power is needed. Our electrical grid is based on a demand system - as more electricity is needed, more plants are 'turned on' to supply that electricity. In fact, 10% of the existing generating capacity in the US is used for about 50 hours a year. That's it. But - when those 50 hours happen - you need every one of those plants. That's just the reality of the situation.
When demand spikes, more power is needed. In the case of a gas-fired system, you flip on the switch. Ok, to be fair, it's slightly more complicated than that, but it is relatively an 'instant on' solution. With wind you have the unrealistic option of installing 900% more turbines than you need - most spinning and dumping their power into heat because the demand at that moment is low. With solar, you have nothing - if the sun isn't shining - you're out of luck.
Wait, wait you say - what about nuclear? what about hydro? what about....fill in the blank. What about them? You can't 'flip on' a nuclear plant. You don't ever turn off a hydro plant - they are the some of the least expensive generating plants. That leaves burning things. Coal, gas, oil. Combustible materials lend themselves to 'instant on' solutions. The real downside of fossil fuels is that they will run out one day - and that runs against sustainability. Once they run out, we'll be right back buying our power - and sacrificing our independence.
So - how would I deal with this quandary? Stay tuned for the next installment ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment