Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Like storage, continentspanning supergrids have applications beyond windpower, some of which are far more economical, and will therefore take precedence.

Gird europe with a network of HVDC lines capable of doing transmission on the scale you envision, and what you have actually done is unbind powergeneration from location, which means that new generation capacity will be built where the production cost is lowest. This could potentially be quite bad if it turns into a game of regulatory arbitarge with the result that we end up getting our power from coalburners in whatever jurisdiction still lets them pollute as much as they like. It could also be quite positive if it results in the utilization of remote hydro /geothermal, and the buildout of nuclear for the export market in places with sane regulatory regimes and existing expertise.

What will not happen is the exclusive use of such a grid for wind. Now, in fact, some wind will be transmitted on such a grid, simply because such a radical delinking of locality and power consumption would get a lot of windfarms constructed at places with optimal prevaling wind speeds (The economics of wind are all about location!) but it would be very unlikely that the penetration of wind into this supergrid would be very much higher than in the present national grids.

by Thomas on Mon Jan 31st, 2011 at 06:56:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We have not yet seen where the long-term wind penetration in national grids ends up, so it seems somewhat premature speculate on whether the penetration in a properly integrated European grid is going to end up above or below the average national grid penetration. An integrated grid with demand-side load-balancing makes it possible for wind penetration to go clear up to 100 %, or near enough as makes no matter.

Of course basing your entire grid on wind is unlikely to be efficient, for the same reason that basing your entire grid on any other single mode of generation is unlikely to be efficient. But since a kWh of wind electricity is still cheaper - including load balancing costs - than a kWh of nuclear electricity under present industrial conditions (the fossil fuels are not even within shouting distance when you internalise their externalities), it is unlikely that nuclear power will crowd out wind to any extent that obviates the economic value of an industrial policy for wind energy.

Which is really all that matters at this point in time.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 1st, 2011 at 10:44:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series