I have been thinking about my presentation on wind energy that I gave to the Virtual Chapter of the System Safety Society yesterday and wonder if there might not be something even more interesting to do with this topic.
It seems to me that there are currently three main contenders for "solving" our energy problems while helping solve the global warming problem. These three are big wind, big solar and small solar. By "big wind" I mean the really large wind turbines designed specifically as central power generators sending all (or most) of their power to the grid for distribution to utility loads. These are usually, but not always, put into very large collections referred to with the quaint euphemism of "wind farms" as if these giants have anything to do with "green" energy, agriculture or farming. By "big solar" I am referring to the large to extremely large solar power plants that cover hundreds of acres to tens of square miles of land and also sell their power directly to the utilities. By "small solar" I am referring to distributed power generation systems that are primarily intended to provide power on the user side of the meter, but are grid connected so that the owners get the benefit of time shifting production and use. Basically these use the grid as a storage device, often making extra power in the summer months or day light hours and then drawing power from the grid during the winter or nighttime.
At the moment, the only one of these that is close to being economically viable without very large, continuing, government and utility (ratepayer) subsidies is small solar. I have been installing rooftop solar on a few houses near my home and find that I can make a very nice profit while installing systems that have a "payback" time of about 4.5 years, giving the owners an ROI of about 12%-15% for their investment over a period of 25 years or more. Actually, when you run it out they turn out to be free because the solar systems immediately add more to the value of the house than they cost - hence the "payback" is instantaneous. Maybe a better view is that a $12,000 investment can save about $250,000 over twenty years (according to Sandia, based upon long term testing they should have a lifetime of over 40 tears). Right now these systems get significant government incentives and tax breaks - but they are perfectly capable of paying for themselves without that benefit. This is all pretty new news, the cost of solar panels has dropped from about $4 a watt to $1.50 a watt (or less in bulk) during the past year - causing the change in affordability. Interestingly, the cost of systems being installed by my local competitors has not dropped, so you need to shop around if you want to get the correctly priced systems. A little over a year ago I installed a system that cost the owner about $8000. He now is asking me for advice on what new electrical devices he could install to use up the extra power that he generates during the year. His system was particularly expensive because in California we pay on a tiered schedule where the price per watt goes up as you use more power. He was already using the baseline amount so had cheap power to offset. Because of the low cost power being offset it will take him about 6.5 years to pay that system back, but he is happy with it.
My presentation was focused on the "hazards"and risks of big wind. I think it would be very interesting to expand the topic to include the risks and paybacks from these three energy sources - and to make comparisons between them. I am thinking of a panel, a workshop or some other approach to present and discuss a cost-benefit study of the three approaches to determine the best (or most optimal) solution. The amount of material involved is quite large, so it would take a day or so to get through the materials in even a cursory fashion. I think most of this could be done along very traditional hazard based lines, but maybe the definition of a "hazard" might have to be expanded a bit to include financial considerations. Maybe not, maybe it could ignore that and just look at the traditional safety, environment and security (including impacts upon the quality and availability of grid power) aspects of the questions. An interesting example of a security problem is a rumor that I have heard that there is at least one foreseeable condition where the presence of big wind as it is currently operated could bring down the entire power grid in the country for over a year! Now THAT would be a black out to set us back aways. Maybe it is not possible, but I am not at all convinced that it isn't a viable problem.
I think this is a topic that would be worthy of the SSS's attention. As it turns out, it is a topic that is not only not being addressed, but that has been forbidden to be addressed by our government agencies such as the NRTL. It is my understanding that they have been chartered to study the feasibility of each approach, and have the ability to address risks associated with each, but they are not allowed to do anything like an evaluation that compares and contrasts the benefits or costs of each. Therefore, what you find when you search for materials on these topics are descriptions of each as if it were the only choice, you get no assistance in prioritizing the choices. Their work comes down to whether or not a particular approach could be feasible and you get answers that are narrowly focused in that direction.
We are experts in not only doing risk assessments, but in finding the better choices. We come with a built-in systems point of view that could (and would) include the entire grid system including the various generators, the power sources, the environmental and societal impacts, the health impacts, and all the rest. We are probably the only organization in the world that is made up of members specializing in the types of analyses and studies that are needed to address this kind of wide open, extremely important, evaluation.
I think we could tackle this problem and have a really good time doing it. Not only that, but maybe we could actually do something important to "save the world." I know we all think of ourselves as instrumental in doing that (saving the world) already, because it is true. But maybe this is a chance for us to expand our horizons a little bit and actually do something "outside of the box" that could have major, long term, beneficial impacts.
As far as I can determine, one of the major risks associated with the current rush to big wind is that the ability to put variable renewable energy on the grid is that it is a "zero sum game" whereby the grid can only accommodate a certain amount of variable power. We are fast reaching the point where the available space is being filled by big wind, and this will eliminate the options that are much better, much cheaper, and much safer. We (the world) are rushing toward the worst choice, and that is blocking access to the best choices.
This might be something to aim for at the next conference. I am wondering if there is any interest in doing such a project. I am interested and would be willing to help however I can. I think it is an extremely important and time critical issue to get before the rule makers and money spenders before we once again get blocked out of making sane choices.
