Steve Featherkile said:
T-Bones windmills require fossil fuel or nuc-u-lear fuel plants as backup because the wind in only reliable for 30% of the time. That means that for every 10 mega watts generated by wind, there has to be 7 megawatts of fossil or nuc-u-lear fueled plants already on-line ready to take up the slack at a moment's notice when the wind drops. Some savings, huh?
Steve:
Absolutely not so. Electricity is one of the most versatile forms of energy. While it’s true it is hard to store in its native state, it can be used to very efficiently do all kinds of work. That work can be applied to either create direct storage of (potential) energy, or to make other forms of energy that are easier to store.
Just a couple of currently available examples:
Pumped (water) storage. Very large amounts of potential energy can be stored in pumped storage complexes as the electricity is generated. The same pumps that are driven by electricity during the storage phase are then used as generators to convert the potential of the stored water back into electricity as it is needed. The storage medium (water) can be used over and over, never wearing out. The storage reservoirs can have recreational uses in addition to their primary purpose. This winds up being a very efficient system for storing huge amounts of electrical energy.
Another use for electricity is the electrolysis (electrical decomposition) of water, creating Hydrogen and Oxygen. This is an all natural process, and the resulting Hydrogen is an extremely efficient, very clean burning fuel. Using some more of the available electrical energy to cool and liquify the Hydrogen allows large amounts to be stored in relatively small spaces.
There are lots of ways to store or convert electrical energy, especially if that electrical energy is low cost when it is created. The wind plants would supply this relatively low cost power, thus allowing for conversion and conversion losses without sacrificing much of the initial efficiency.
More ways to store the electrical energy will certainly be developed as the need emerges.
As to Mike’s blast at Pickens’ plan: I would ask what is your preferred alternative?
Here are some possibilities:
*Continue with our import of oil and export of our country’s wealth, including the inevitable military actions that will be necessary to ensure our supply as the world availability truly outstrips the ability to produce?
*Huddle in dark, cold caves? (This seems to be a favorite among many so-called environmentalists.)
*Or as Vic suggests, do nothing and let the following generations deal with the problem?
T. Boone Pickens (I’m not certain why some of you are having so much trouble with spelling his name) is proposing to use our natural resources and technical capability to do something about the coming energy crisis before it becomes a real crisis. We may think paying $4.00+ / gallon is a crisis, but it isn’t even a start on what will come without some kind of definitive action on the part of our government and us citizens.
Pickens is investing millions of his own and his investors’ money to get this started. It’s always easy for the so-called intellectuals to stand back, call someone names, and criticize the efforts, but much harder to join in finding solutions.
Mike, I truly hope your students get better than that from you.
And as to Pickens making money from his ideas and investments: Do all you naysayers do your work for free?
Response & Rants complete!
Happy RRing,
Jerry
