dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
Rod Speed wrote
dpb wrote
max wrote:

That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill technology do not require us to build more
fossil fuel plants, and because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems to buffer their
output, should we deem it helpful to do so.

The key word here is "relatively"... relative to what? We as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of.

You need to get out more.

There are a number of those using hydro systems that get the storage by pumping water up at time of excess supply
from the baseload coal generators and return that power to the system at times of excess demand by letting the
water down again. Like the Australian Snowy system that is primarily a storage system for the entire SE
Australian grid and generates only a minor part of its output from a single fall of water.

I am fully aware of pumped hydro storage.

If you were, you wouldnt have made that stupid claim you clearly did make.

No,

Yep.

I simply don't equate pumped storage w/ electricity storage

Then you are just plain wrong. That is precisely what they are.

they're separate forms...

Nope.

one _uses_ the (temporarily) excess power to refill the power supply, the other would be a storage of the electric
power itself to be used later.

They are BOTH storage of electrical power to be used later.

They're of da'ed little value for the locations of most wind farms on the High Plains where there are (a) no
hills, (b) no surface water.

Pity about the SE Australian grid where the wind farms
are part of the SAME grid as the pumped hydro storage.

Well, SE Australia isn't the US High Plains.

You never said anything about the US High Plains in that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have a single
large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"

There would have to be even more currently nonexistent transmission
lines built to supply the power to somewhere there is sufficient
elevation difference and water to complete the system and that
ain't within anywhere close. CO has elevation but very little excess
water. KS, OK, TX, NE, etc. have minimal elevations. Catch-22.

Irrelevant to that stupid claim you made that "as yet don't have
a single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of"

Again, I repeat--even if pumped storage were the pancea,

No one ever said it was.

that _STILL_ is an alternative system that would have to be built as a complement to the wind farm system

Not when its already in place to allow constant loads on
coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.

Well, except it isn't...

It is in some areas, so that stupid claim you made that "we as yet don't have a
single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of" is just plain wrong.

And that one I listed has wind farms too.

which _STILL_ is an added cost burden.

Wrong, as always when its already in place to allow constant
loads on coal fired power stations in massive countrywide grids.

Except it isn't...

It is in some areas, so that stupid claim you made that "we as yet don't have a
single large-scale energy storage system that I'm aware of" is just plain wrong.

And that one I listed has wind farms too.

Your 'as yet don't have a single large-scale energy storage
system that I'm aware of' is clearly just plain wrong.

AND it aint the only one either.

Agreed, used to live just down the road from Smith Mtn. But, it still ain't the same thing...

Corse it is.

Except it isn't...

Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate that stupid claim either.