I did read the NY Times article by Mathew Wald as having a strong
negative perspective. It is true that wind doesn't blow all the
time, hence other capacity is needed to serve load when wind isn't
blowing.
But other types of plants have down time. Nuclear units are
unavailable for months at a time for refueling -- that capacity has
to be replaced when the plants are unavailable.
And the stress on having stand-by units just to cover wind is wrong
as well. An electrical load fluctuates diurnally as well as
seasonally and utilites have dealt with that for a century. This is
not to say that integrating wind into a system is without problems.
But the industry is learning new tricks, and incorporating new
technology to redce the problems.
All in all I think Wald's story emphasized the negative too much.
Gene Coyle
On Dec 29, 2006, at 7:34 AM, Doug Henwood wrote:
On Dec 28, 2006, at 11:10 PM, Michael Perelman wrote:
The New York Times just published a hit piece on wind.
Hit piece? It said that sometimes the wind doesn't blow so you need
backup. How's that a hit piece?
Doug
