To: axial who wrote (42049 ) 1/14/2013 11:53:38 PM From: Frank A. Coluccio Respond to of 46821 Jim, Larry's question: "What is the cost to the rest of us for keeping power plants operating to provide power when the wind stops blowing and/or the Sun stops shining."... ... is similar to the scenario that poster ftth describes upstream in msg # 42047: "Say they are not used at all most days, but the days they are used (and even then, only part of them) is unpredictable, and the amount of time they are used on those days can vary from 2 to 10 hours. A single case like this is not very friendly to a mobile operator with a business model that has customers expecting 24/7 access. So part of the blame in the reluctance to adopt such things rests with the user expectations. If mobile broadband users only expected a 2 hour window of access each day, sharing and virtually unlimited spectrum would be easy to resolve. That's not the case by a long shot, so it's a difficult problem (not just technically but the business models too)." To Larry's question, the goal is to have a sufficient number of geographically separated renewable sources within expanded "balancing areas", in order to provide a statistical hedge against any one or two sources losing wind, sunlight, hydro, etc. This is not unlike the solution suggested by ftth in the spectrum discussion, where he states: "To make such a sharing scenario ("encumbered sharing" as people call it) plausible, you really need to have a half dozen (or so) of these encumbered sharing bands enabled simultaneously, so that statistically there *is* 24/7 access to some subset of it." Power in numbers, I think they call it ... I suspect these types of problems are what also keep the OpenFlow/SDN crowd up at night developing scheduling algorithms and protocols for orchestrating connections within and between data centers and their supporting WANs/MANs/LANs. FAC ------