Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : The *NEW* Frank Coluccio Technology Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ftth who wrote (34545)	7/20/2010 4:06:33 PM
From: Frank A. Coluccio	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 46821

Hi ftth. The reference article, "Too much of a good thing: Growth in wind power makes life difficult for grid managers" in your #msg-26697043 intrigued me, since it reinforces a number of principles we've discussed here in the past concerning the inability of the T&D (transmission & distribution) parts of the grid to deal with surges caused by the unpredictability of some renewable energy forms. However, it's not "all" reinforcing of previous views expressed in this forum. For example, I was disappointed to see how little effort was devoted by the author in recommending solutions, or even half-way measures, in order to smooth things out. The problem, as I see it, isn't one that requires a just-in-time fix on the larger grid's T&D lines every time a new array of turbines happens to appear on the scene (no matter whether it's wind, tidal, solar, or whatever). The problem that comes across loud and clear to me is one of basic architecture and the scale economics that are supported within the various pieces that make up that architecture. A more rationale approach to architecture would result in a distributed model that could support right-sized energy storage facilities, such as one might find in a microgrid, which do not present the challenges found when attempting to build "giant storage supplies" that would be more conducive, if it were possible to build them, to the much longer distribution reaches that are common to the national grid. The mere fact that storage and just-in-time dispatch provisions were never mentioned, not even once, in the entire article suggests to me one of two things: there is either a bit of editorial shilling going on here, or, at a minimum, a certain degree of cluelessness (or dumb like a fox omission taking place) on the part of the author and the publication. Whereas, on the one hand, when the situation is viewed in terms of conserving capacity we have demand-response practices that ordinarily would call for curtailing usage, here we see the the diametric opposite requirement being expressed, rather ironically, in the form of capacity-response, where supply curtailments are being called for instead. I suppose there is some probability that a given user organization could at some time find itself in the crosshairs of both of those dynamics at the same time, especially of drawing renewable energy (on paper, at least) from a distant territory when local supply is running low. In any case, it's crazy, when you consider that the supply, under a better set of architectural constructs, could be stored and harnessed for future use. Here I think we could all stand to take a few lessons in how Internet cloud dynamics are managed through the use of buffering, and yes, even packet discards (which would relate to cutting capacity in this case), but where discards (capacity generation cut-backs) only occurred under the most severe circumstances. -- Some of the comments found in the readers' comments under this article were less clueless (although some were even more clueless), however. I've cut and pasted one of the comments that best approximated some of my own views, although there are still some differences, but they are mostly aligned with my own: SNIP: adunca wrote: "As the region's wind fleet grows, an ever bigger slice of the hydro pie is being reserved to fill in when the wind doesn't blow as scheduled." Boy I did not know that you can schedule the wind to blow :-) I see several problems here: 1. The current energy infrastructure and leadership can only think in terms of central power generation and wide distribution. Nature does not work like that, maybe we shouldn't either. Ideally, power (and food, and everything else) should be generated, stored and consumed in close proximity. Yes this means 1) local power generation; 2) local storage; 3) maybe we should not have big cities in places that cannot produce their own power, food, water, etc. 2. Many places in the world have power that is variable and even intermittent. We should be able to handle that. Most of nature does. Instead, we make huge efficiency sacrifices to ensure that the power never dips or goes out. Kind of like the giant parking lot at the mall which is only filled once a year on black Friday. Yes this may mean there ...END SNIP Cont.: connect.oregonlive.com Thoughts? FAC ------