Wind Power Beats Nuclear Power in Texas

[Fledermaus]

Texas has more wind power than it can use, and that partly explains why NRG Energy, Inc. has backed out of a plan to build two new nuclear reactors in the state. To be clear, the stated motivation for the decision was the nuclear disaster resulting from last month’s earthquake and tsunami in Japan, which among other things has affected the regulatory landscape here in the U.S. However, it’s also clear that rapid growth in the alternative energy field is rapidly chipping away at nuclear power, helped along by new grid and energy storage technologies. This triple threat is undermining the foundational reason for investing in nuclear power, which is (or should be) to get the most abundant and reliable energy bang for the buck.

Renewable Energy Beating Nuclear
On a global scale, energy capacity from renewable sources passed up nuclear for the first time last year, which was long before the tsunami damaged Japan’s Fukushima nuclear plant. The problem, of course, is to get energy from renewable-rich areas to those without. That’s a problem that certainly hasn’t stopped the fossil fuel industry, given the shipment of coal and petroleum around the world. For renewable energy, massive transmission projects like DESERTEC are at hand. The future could also bring advanced energy storage technologies that would enable renewable energy to be shipped in battery-type devices (reusable or recyclable ones, of course).

Wind Surplus in Texas
The wind surplus in Texas could have a ripple effect on energy investments in other states in the U.S., even without the development of new smart grid technology. One example is Pattern Energy, which has proposed building a 400-mile line connecting wind power from Texas to existing transmission lines that serve Alabama and several other southern states. Unlike the decades-long process involved in siting and building new nuclear facilities, the company anticipates a permitting and construction process of about five years. Also slated for Texas is a gigantic new wind power storage facility, which other states are already eyeballing for the Pacific Northwest renewable energy infrastructure.

http://cleantechnica.com/2011/04/21/wind-power-beats-nuclear-power-in-texas/

[krispos42]

1. Would it be possible to move electricity by train?

Here me out before you fall out of your chair laughing!


A freight train can carry over a mile's worth of cars. If each car is 60 feet long and can carry 100 tons worth of batteries, then a single train can carry 10,000 tons of electrical storage.


That would seem to be a hell of a lot of gigajoules.

Let's see... a lead-acid battery has about 35 watt-hours per kilogram.

So 10 million kilograms worth of battery would be 350 million watt-hours. Or 350 megawatt-hours.

The average American home uses 11,000 kWh annually, or about 30.2 kWh daily. So one trainload could move enough electricity from an area of high wind-power generation to an area of high electrical consumption to power nearly 11,600 homes.


And if the locomotive of the train was electric...



Am I just crazy?

[DCKit]

3. Lead-Acid batteries have a rated expectency of 350 charge/discharge cycles...

to 20% charge. They're not even a good choice for off-grid solar, just the ONLY choice.

We need to upgrade the grid anyway.

[Confusious]

6. Charging lead acid batteries and moving them

Would be horribly inefficient. High weight and low power density.

Line loss from one state to the next isn't to bad, moving power that way is a much better choice.

[krispos42]

7. Yes... if the power lines are available

That was what I was thinking about.


Maybe replace lead-acid with lithium-ion or nickel-metal-hydride, but you see what I'm driving at... if the train tracks already exist and the power lines don't, and trains can haul large amounts of cargo very cheaply, then maybe that's an alternative.

:shrug:

[Confusious]

9. It would be easier just to build the power line

There's also the problem of plugging in and power densities. Cities consume huge quantities of power. Trying to get 2 gigawatts through batteries and trains would be like the Berlin airlift.

[krispos42]

10. Easier, yeah, but those things take years to get built.

Emminent domain, land purchases, etc.

:shrug:

Jus' saying, if they want it now, then there's an alternative, piss-poor though it may be!



Actually I thought a good way to move wind power from the midwest would be to use the electricity from the turbines to distill ethanol, instead of using heat from coal or natural gas. Resistance heaters powered by wind would reduce the carbon footprint of ethanol.

[Confusious]

11. I like you second plan a whole bunch more then the first.

Not that I'm a big fan of ethenol. There was a post about using excess power to create liquid nitrogen, and then transporting that.

As it heats up, it expands exponentially, and can be used to drive turbines or something.

[krispos42]

16. Or maybe just regular air.

Or heck, even creating hydrogen. Electrolysis of water is not the cheapest way to make it, nor is it the best use of wind electricity to reduce carbon emissions, but if the electricity would otherwise go unused, then why not?

Heck, maybe a fossil power plant could inject the hydrogen gas into the fuel supply to reduce the consumption of the carbon fuels.

[wtmusic]

13. Interesting.

IMO there's more potential here than first meets the eye.

One of the major hurdles to wind power adoption is getting easements to erect turbines and transmission lines.

It would take significant improvements in storage (batteries), so that the wasted energy in transport would be a much smaller percentage than that delivered.

I see the biggest problem as being that of dependability - big snowstorm, trains can't get through, etc.

[krispos42]

15. I wasn't thinking of it as a replacement, more of a supplement.

Train pulls in, somebody hooks it up to the inverter and pumps it into the grid, the coal plants burn a little less coal that day then they would otherwise.

:shrug:

[kristopher]

8. No, in reality it wouldn't be possible

The economics would preclude it. 350 MWh would be the equivalent output of a small thermal plant running for a few hours. A large thermal plant of 1000Mw would produce that much electricity in about 21 minutes. Each MWh of output would be worth (depending on the plant) between $40-110.

If you got the maximum of $110/MWh (which you wouldn't) that would be $38,500 per load, but that would have to take into account the costs of getting the electricity out of the batteries and into the grid/homes.

No matter what else happens with our electrical supply, we have to spend a lot of money upgrading our grid management systems and enhancing transmission capacity. The current system is increasingly unreliable and the efficiency gains from better transmission are too large to ignore. The question is what upgrades do we want to focus on; those that are targeted at enabling centralized thermal or those that are targeted at enabling distributed renewables?

[krispos42]

17. Oh, pooh. Reality is for the birds.

:D

Well, a lithium-ion battery has 5x the capacity for the same weight. Maybe that's the ticket. ;-)

[kristopher]

19. If you keep running through the possibilities...

you'll end up at transmission lines. If you have a RR then you already have some degree of right of way. Transmission can be expanded as more load comes online, and it is instantaneous.

There was a proposal a while back by a very interesting gentleman. He wanted to build an offshore solar/wind/wave energy park and produce H2 to power NY.

I forget the project name, but I remember that the person making the proposal told me about D-Day where he had worked as a bomb disposal expert in the thick of the invasion.

Anyway, H is probably the best alternative to transmission; but all energy projects look first at basic efficiencies, and storage/mechanical transport can exact a pretty significant energy penalty that you'd only want to pay if it cant be avoided.

http://ocsenergy.anl.gov/guide/hydrogen/index.cfm

[Fledermaus]

21. No, you are not crazy. Liquid Nitrogen can be used to store energy and it could run the train.

It could be ship in tanker cars. Its non toxic if it spills it could kill by freezing or drive off all the oxygen for a certain time.

[DCKit]

2. O.K., but I'm still confused that these non-starters cost them $341 million.

Where did all that money go, and how much are the rate-payers on the hook to repay?

[kristopher]

12. They have been planning the S.Texas nuke project for 6 years.

Here is a bare bones history of the project. It doesn't get into the lies and deceit that were used to sell the project to the public, but that story, and the entire project is a case study in what is wrong with the way the fission reactor industry does business.

http://www.psr.org/nuclear-bailout/resources/south-texas-project-timeline.html

[DCKit]

23. Oh, yeah, I know about the lies and deceit.

The way it was presented, those plants would have been paid for with $400 million.

But they spent $341 million, for nothing tangible. The Emperor's new clothes.

[wtmusic]

4. That's why Texas has the highest carbon output per capita in the country

70GW of natural gas capacity to back up those lame-ass "green" turbines when the wind isn't blowing.

You must be Pickens' best friend.

[midnight]

5. Great link...

[JohnWxy]

14. recommended.

[txlibdem]

18. Wind and solar need storage to get above 20% of the energy mix

-------------------------------------------------------
Xtreme Power to install a 36-megawatt battery at the 153-megawatt Notrees Windpower Project near Kermit, Texas.

That's one big battery. Such technology is likely to become crucial as wind farms become ever larger but erratic suppliers of electricity to the grid. In wind-blown West Texas, the region's massive turbine farms can generate more electricity than the grid can handle at some times while all but ceasing production at other times. That creates headaches for grid operators

http://www.grist.org/wind-power/2011-04-15-no-trees-big-battery-texas-to-install-worlds-largest-wind
... found this inside your linked story
---------------------------------------------------------

Sometimes produces too much power for the grid to handle... or all but cease production at other times.

Energy storage is an absolute must.

[kristopher]

20. Your header is wrong; but you know that.

This is a readable description (from the view of those selling storage) of what the strategic market profile will be for storage as wind is integrated. It doesn't deal with solar or the movement into the transportation sector of battery storage in EVs , but, it shows the way that the *most* variable resource works in a grid with existing dispachable generation is to shave off the use of existing dispatchable generation for a considerable period; and it discusses how the value of storage is expressed in this evolving relationship.

For some reason certain fission proponents want to miscast this; I suppose it's tough to watch the collapse of the house of mis-information cards they've spent 10 years building. Even so, it is hard to see what they think they can gain when the dynamics of these grid components really have nothing to do with public opinion.


http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1164
Energy Storage - Supporting Greater Wind Energy Usage
12.16.05 Richard Baxter, Sr. Technology Analyst, Ardour Capital Investments, LLC

Coupling energy storage technologies with wind turbines can solve many of wind power’s operational issues and support the continued expansion of wind energy production. It should be noted that many types of renewable energy production already benefits from energy storage technologies. By decoupling the production and delivery of energy from renewable resources, storage technologies can make the generated energy more useful and more valuable.

To date, the wind power industry has made great strides in enhancing the capability of wind turbines and how they are integrated into the overall power market. Although the direct production cost may now be competitive with other power generation resource at certain locations, its effective usage cost is sometimes still higher due to inherent qualities of the wind resource. Storage technologies can provide additional flexibility to mitigate these issues.
Small Grids: Provide system stability (frequency and voltage).
Large Grids: Provide local system stability and enhance transmission deliverability.

Storage Technologies

A number of energy storage technologies are currently in use or being evaluated for use in conjunction with renewable energy resources. Some of these technologies include:...

http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1164

You can see how that coincides with this popular press article where the jagged border region is the need for dispatchable power. That role will be filled with a shifting combination beginning with existing natural gas and giving way to stored renewables, geothermal, biomass, and all versions of hydro.

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/02/3081889.htm



This is a quick read on the topic that some seem to have trouble understanding,
http://www.ieee-pes.org/images/pdf/open-access-milligan.pdf

[txlibdem]

22. My header is 100% correct, and you know it

But, as a person who has claimed a number of times to be an "expert" you can't admit when you are wrong. And you have been proven wrong again and again on the topic of storage needed for solar and wind to dominate the energy mix. Facts are facts. You should get acquainted with them sometime.

Here is a direct quote from your post:
----------------------------------------------
Coupling energy storage technologies with wind turbines can solve many of wind power’s operational issues and support the continued expansion of wind energy production. It should be noted that many types of renewable energy production already benefits from energy storage technologies. By decoupling the production and delivery of energy from renewable resources, storage technologies can make the generated energy more useful and more valuable.

To date, the wind power industry has made great strides in enhancing the capability of wind turbines and how they are integrated into the overall power market. Although the direct production cost may now be competitive with other power generation resource at certain locations, its effective usage cost is sometimes still higher due to inherent qualities of the wind resource. Storage technologies can provide additional flexibility to mitigate these issues.

...snip...

A number of energy storage technologies are currently in use or being evaluated for use in conjunction with renewable energy resources.
...from your link: http://www.energypulse.net/centers/article/article_display.cfm?a_id=1164
----------------------------------------------------

[kristopher]

24. No.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=289817&mesg_id=290004

[txlibdem]

25. Yes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=289817&mesg_id=290007

[Kablooie]

26. But if one of those windmills goes rogue it will kill thousands and destroy the environment!

Or something ... won't it?