caraher states
So far from saying 20% is a cap, they actually say 50% is NOT a cap, but something that would require a lot of changes. No surprise there. And this is mostly engineering and economics, not physics...
Evidently caraher didn't understand the NAS 2009 report; or understood it as BADLY as kristopher did.
The 20% is the limit if we are going to have an electric system that in any way resembles what we have now; where we have sufficient power on demand at all times, and that power is clean 60 Hz AC power.
You can have 50% penetration by renewables if one is willing to accept a power system that is NOT always there when you need it; or doesn't always have sufficient capacity or the power delivered by the system isn't clean AC; but is crapped up by loads of harmonics, reactive power, and other CRAP.
We discussed recently how one of kristopher's favorite schemes necessary to provide the backup power to unreliable renewables, namely V2G, Vehicle to Grid' would be responsible for loads of crappy power on the power lines, and harmonics from the inverters needed to convert battery DC to AC. The switching power supplies in computers may take this crappy power in stride; but electronics that use linear power supplies like stereo amps and the like won't be liking the crappy power that comes from inverters.
I have to disagree with the above that the only requirement is English. NO - one needs the technical competence to know what is meant when the English words say "..would require a lot of changes".
Although, the harmonics and reactive power can be mitigated to a degree; but not totally eliminated; the basic problem that renewables have is not one of engineering.
The main problem that renewables have is that we do NOT have a throttle on Mother Nature. Renewables are NOT "dispatchable"; they can't deliver on command. When you get your power from Mother Nature, you have to be content with what Mother Nature is offering at the time. If Mother Nature "slacks off" on the power generation because a cloud is shading the solar array, or the wind died down that was powering your turbines; then you can't command Mother Nature to pick up the slack.
That's a basic Physics problem; which is why NONE of the scenarios that the NAS offered as possible deployment scenarios had renewables with any greater penetration than 20%.
I'm sorry you don't like what the scientists are saying; but neither do the climate deniers.
The good thing about science is that it is true, whether or not you believe in it.
--Neil deGrasse Tyson
PamW
= new reply since forum marked as read
