[Mongoose]

Regarding the storage of wind power...why can't we just build some big ol' battery arrays to hold the generated energy until we need it?  I'm not really seeing where the massive conceptual problem lies.

[DarkBasilisk]

Current batteries are inefficient as hell, not to mention that they're usually made out of extremely enviromentally unfriendly materials, and don't last very long. Our battery-tech overall needs a ton of work.

[Kosh]

Regarding the storage of wind power...why can't we just build some big ol' battery arrays to hold the generated energy until we need it?  I'm not really seeing where the massive conceptual problem lies.

1.) Batteries suck.
2.) Even if batteries didn't suck, in order to store the "extra" energy, you'd have to create more energy. Because of the inefficiencies of wind that means wind farms will get much much larger in order to make that happen.

[Klaustrophobia]

I heard conflicting stuff about this when i was doing my debate topic for solar/wind. A lot of solar panel factories are switching to using solar power to minimize the environmental cost. Not to mention the salt storage method works pretty well. And Wind Power is extraordinarily cheap to build in a relative sense, and we don't use a lot of the land we could be placing it on. And note how the article says it can be making power in 2012. Basically nothing else we can deploy can be up and running that fast.

Nuclear for the US is pretty impractical itself, we canned the site we were planning to use to store our nuclear waste, and there's so much red tape in zoning one that it takes years before you can even break ground. Wind Turbines may be ugly/bird-killing, but a nuclear plant is the NIMBY from hell.

Last I heard, they're apparently finding ways to use solar power pretty well in Europe, since the deployment of it over there has exploded in recent years (any Euro-HP's want to enlighten us?)

Also : we're still running like 70% fossil fuel in the US, so take in mind there's probably some biased studies against anything that would try and compete with coal/oil. And any environmental cost the other power methods have has to be put in perspective, since next to cars, power generation is most of the remaining pollution we generate. And as long as we run off of coil/oil, that electric car you're hoping they make is worthless in an environmental sense, since you charge it with power that probably came from a fossil fuel plant.

goddamit this board keeps eating my posts.  

i forget what i said originally, something about renewables.  but let me jump in a sec here and comment on this post.  a few inaccuracies.  (as a nuclear engineer, i feel the need to jump in just about any time it pops up.  i don't mean to jump on anyone if thats what it seems like, but i like to set the record straight whenever possible).  if i may be frank, nuclear power is a headache to deal with only because politicians have their heads up their asses when it comes to the word "nuclear".  the Yucca Mountain cluster**** SHOULD be a non-issue.  we are certainly capable of closing the fuel cycle (the waste goes back in the reactors), but washington is essentially blocking progress on that front.  advanced reactor designs are essentially not being funded in the US (around $100 million a year vs. several billion in some european nations).  in any event, we don't really need a waste repository for a good while, there is plenty of room to store waste fuel on-site at plants.  as for the red tape, that's finally started coming down.  there actually has been groundbreaking at at least one new plant that i know of, and several more have site approval.  the NIMBY mentality is really unfortunate, since it is simply a result of misunderstanding.  a nuclear plant is FAR better to have in your backyard than a coal plant.  you'd get more radiation from the crap coming out of a coal plant's stack 5 miles downwind than you would hugging the containment building of a nuclear plant. (don't try that, they WILL shoot you )

anywho, off the nuclear stuff now.  transportation IS a large source of emissions, but not larger than electricity generation.  though you are quite right in that electric cars don't do a whole helluva lot to cut emissions, only about the 20-30% that is not fossil generation is really a benefit there.  last point: wind generation isn't as cheap as it seems.   the only thing that is keeping it economically competitive is the MASSIVE tax benefits the government gives on it.  for how much they generate, those turbines are rather expensive.

EDIT: you are all aware that the storage issues you're discussing are to same for any sort of electricity, no matter how it's generated, right?  once it is generated, it goes to the grid and it's all the same.  it ALL has to go somewhere just about immediately.  this is why there's the "smart grid" thing popping up.  i honestly have no idea what it actually entails, other than it's supposed to improve this sort of loss.

[Mongoose]

Current batteries are inefficient as hell, not to mention that they're usually made out of extremely enviromentally unfriendly materials, and don't last very long. Our battery-tech overall needs a ton of work.

Yeah, batteries do admittedly suck right now, but even a sucky backup system is better than no backup system, and I'd expect that battery technology will continue to progress to the point where said suckiness and toxicity can be largely mitigated.

2.) Even if batteries didn't suck, in order to store the "extra" energy, you'd have to create more energy. Because of the inefficiencies of wind that means wind farms will get much much larger in order to make that happen.

I can't see why you'd have to create extra energy just to store some of it, provided you regulated the times when storage takes place.  In peak demand hours during the daytime, the generated power can be used as MP-Ryan suggested, to supplement base power.  During off-peak hours at night, the turbines can switch over to energy-storage and charge up the batteries for use the next day.  At least conceptually, it seems like it'd be worth looking into.

(Interestingly enough, my college's secondary campus located in Lewes, DE is currently erecting a wind turbine that's expected to power the whole complex and then some.)

[MP-Ryan]

I can't see why you'd have to create extra energy just to store some of it, provided you regulated the times when storage takes place.  In peak demand hours during the daytime, the generated power can be used as MP-Ryan suggested, to supplement base power.  During off-peak hours at night, the turbines can switch over to energy-storage and charge up the batteries for use the next day.  At least conceptually, it seems like it'd be worth looking into.

It's actually been more than looked into, it's been field-tested.  The problem is that storage is expensive and takes up additional land space, the distribution system for stored energy is more cumbersome, and wind power is really not all that efficient to begin with.  It sounds good in principle, but as both myself and someone else pointed out, wind generation is only profitable for builders and operators due to large government subsidies, grants, and tax benefits.

Really, it's a pointless exercise that does very little but leave a massive blight on the landscape.

Nuclear power really is the best option because it can be produced virtually anywhere, waste can be re-used as fuel, and it has no emissions.  Hydro is a reliable second.  Coal- and petroleum-fired generating stations are reliable but have massive emissions issues, geothermal is geographically limited and has large maintenance costs, solar has a nasty ecological footprint due to construction materials AND is difficult to maintain AND has issues with energy storage, and wind leaves a blight on the landscape, negatively impacts bird species and other animals, and is painfully unreliable.  In other words, we should be building nuclear generating stations.

[Kosh]

I can't see why you'd have to create extra energy just to store some of it, provided you regulated the times when storage takes place.  In peak demand hours during the daytime, the generated power can be used as MP-Ryan suggested, to supplement base power.  During off-peak hours at night, the turbines can switch over to energy-storage and charge up the batteries for use the next day.

What about when the wind isn't blowing?

[S-99]

What about when the wind isn't blowing?

We'll grab your woman. I hear she's a real blaster.

[Bob-san]

I can't see why you'd have to create extra energy just to store some of it, provided you regulated the times when storage takes place.  In peak demand hours during the daytime, the generated power can be used as MP-Ryan suggested, to supplement base power.  During off-peak hours at night, the turbines can switch over to energy-storage and charge up the batteries for use the next day.

What about when the wind isn't blowing?

Then chemical batteries release stored electricity. The issue with that is eventually the batteries need to be disposed of, which means that a minimum of ounces of hazardous chemicals (typically manufactured) is released, usually into the environment. Filling out landfills with more batteries isn't doing anyone a favor. The "fun" thing is that nuclear power is probably the best, cleanest, most sustainable method of making electricity. At least the risks of radiation can be isolated and shielded against. It's not perfect, but you're turning small amounts of matter into enormous amounts of energy. So long as the mistakes are learned from, the risks are greatly reduced. The last nuclear accident was in 2002 in Ohio, where a pressure valve was severely corroded. Almost all of the nuclear accidents have been because of operator "error"; failing to follow directions or standard procedures, mistrusting monitoring equipment, &c.

[Kosh]

Then chemical batteries release stored electricity.

And if the wind isn't blowing for a couple of days?

The last nuclear accident was in 2002 in Ohio, where a pressure valve was severely corroded. Almost all of the nuclear accidents have been because of operator "error"; failing to follow directions or standard procedures, mistrusting monitoring equipment, &c.

It's also worth mentioning that all the reactors in the US are 30+ years old, and aren't as good as modern reactors like this one

Btw, how many people were hurt because of that 2002 accident in Ohio?

[Bob-san]

Then chemical batteries release stored electricity.

And if the wind isn't blowing for a couple of days?

Then there's no more power available. Usually having them at an altitude is the best way to solve the issue of not having any wind, but having too little wind is a very real possibility. Plus, as I pointed out, you could have batteries enough to supply full power for weeks or months, but those batteries will eventually go bad and need to be disposed of, which is extremely dirty.

The last nuclear accident was in 2002 in Ohio, where a pressure valve was severely corroded. Almost all of the nuclear accidents have been because of operator "error"; failing to follow directions or standard procedures, mistrusting monitoring equipment, &c.

It's also worth mentioning that all the reactors in the US are 30+ years old, and aren't as good as modern reactors like this one

Btw, how many people were hurt because of that 2002 accident in Ohio?

Perhaps a few workers who chose to risk life and limb to service a nuclear power plant, but the valve was replaced and the accident (of not having the valve's failure on record prior to critical time) was averted. Mind you, there are many dangerous occupations. Servicing a nuclear power plant isn't that dangerous anymore, especially as radiation is more fully understood now and the employees are fairly compensated. You can say that anyone and everyone deserves a 6+digit salary for hazardous occupations, but the value of the job is in how much you're willing to pay.

The sites are 30+ years old, but reactors don't last forever and there have been quite a few shutdown and replaced. Last one I remember hearing about was a new reactor at an existing site being completed around 2007, I think. I would not mind having a nuclear plant in "my backyard"; much safer than the high-output alternatives (oil, nat'l gas, coal).

[Klaustrophobia]

there have been ZERO nuclear industry fatalities in the united states.  as far as i am aware, no one has even been exposed in excess of the NRC dose limit for radiation.   yes, the plants are old, but their equipment is constantly upgraded and replaced.  the design lifes for most have been extended from the original 40 years to upwards of 80. 

[Bobboau]

And if the wind isn't blowing for a couple of days?

then you picked a _really_ ****ty place to build a wind farm.


also with all of the talk of batteries, I'm getting the idea that most people think that you would be dealing with a huge pile of NiMH or LiIon batteries, the technology for storing huge amounts of electricity in a fixed facility is vastly different than you would use in a car or a cell phone. what you would use would be something like this.

[Klaustrophobia]

hmmm.  i think this number is important to note

25 Wh/kg

so a kilogram of this stuff can power a lightbulb for less than half an hour.

[Bobboau]

energy density is not important when you don't have to move it. what is important is the thing never wearing out.

[bobbtmann]

Storing energy isn't restricted to chemicals, either. How about compressed air? Use excess energy to pressurize air. When there's not enough power, open up the valve and spin a turbine.

[Bob-san]

Storing energy isn't restricted to chemicals, either. How about compressed air? Use excess energy to pressurize air. When there's not enough power, open up the valve and spin a turbine.

Usually has to deal with efficiency and reliability. How good is an air turbine if the pressure varies wildly? In short, it's not very good at all. What COULD work would be tens of thousands of smaller chambers released at regular intervals, but you're still looking at an issue of efficiency to first store the energy (hopefully with a minimum of CO₂ emissions and chemical waste) and then how efficient it is to release the energy. A common idea to store energy (and a pretty good one at that) is to heat water. That works a touch better than air I'd presume.

[Mongoose]

Of course even the best method isn't going to be incredibly efficient, but again, we're talking about at least some amount of recoverable energy being better than none at all.

[Iss Mneur]

Storing energy isn't restricted to chemicals, either. How about compressed air? Use excess energy to pressurize air. When there's not enough power, open up the valve and spin a turbine.

Usually has to deal with efficiency and reliability. How good is an air turbine if the pressure varies wildly? In short, it's not very good at all. What COULD work would be tens of thousands of smaller chambers released at regular intervals, but you're still looking at an issue of efficiency to first store the energy (hopefully with a minimum of CO₂ emissions and chemical waste) and then how efficient it is to release the energy. A common idea to store energy (and a pretty good one at that) is to heat water. That works a touch better than air I'd presume.

Why would the gas (it doesn't have to be air) pressure vary wildly?  We do have the tech to make air pressure regulators. If you live in a building that has gas furnace (propane, natural gas, etc.) you *will* have pressure regulator.  If you don't have the pressure in the reserve to run turbine at optimum, then you just shut down, rather than try an squeeze every last put of energy out of the store.  That way when you start generating with the primary again, the store does not have to start at atmospheric pressure.

Also, if we are going to use pumped storage, I would suggest a liquid in an accumulator as we have much higher efficiency liquid pumps and turbines. 

We could also put the fluid into a pipeline and join the wind farms together.  In fact I have heard suggestions of just doing away with the electric generators in the wind farm and just have the farms generate compressed fluid, which is then run to bigger electric generating plants.  This system to join them together would also average out the variations in generating capacity.  Admittedly, it is not quite as convenient to do in the ocean, but nevertheless, we know how to run pipelines under the ocean.

[Mongoose]

As the current situation shows, we'd just have to make sure the fluid isn't something that could wreak utter ecological havoc if it leaks.