Comments on: Wind Power When the Wind Ain’t Blowin’

By: veekram B

veekram B — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 13:04:47 +0000

Well, I agree with the compression idea as far as individual production of energy for each household is concerned. I just do not understand why people are after business with electricity.. Rather why don’t we think of it at the individual /family level.. Any amount you produce will be used to cut down on electricity supplied by companies.. Hence, the more you produced the more economy you make. Now, we must know the amount we are producing and use only that amount- constantly. So, no need to think about what to do with excess energy. The compression of the air will be achieved by the rotating blade connected to a compressor, which in tern will supply regulated air pressure to a turbine that will produce only energy that can be converted to ac through inverters. In this way, electricity will be available 24/24.
veekram

By: Rocky Choi

Rocky Choi — Sat, 13 Oct 2007 16:13:11 +0000

The wind power can converted into hydrogen when the power is over produced. Hydrogen can be easily compress and store in liquid form, and can be transported to not far away gas turbine generator as fuel. Or more advance but expansive, use a fuel cell to turn it back into
electricity when needed.

Rocky Choi

By: Michael Schrage

Michael Schrage — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 16:04:24 +0000

so, what’s a better business: data compression or air compression?

there’s an important similarity between the two techniques and technologies that wade understates….that is, data compression’s value is a direct function of the algorithmic and computational costs of converting, storing and reconverting the data…the analogy (admittedly a crude one) does hold for compressed air/wind…

but the more important analogy is that data compression and wind compression are both COMPLEMENTS rather than STANDALONE techniques and technologies….my bet is that the economics of co-storage/co-generation will prove to be the better value-added business than ‘stand-alone’ windfarms…
complementary design & engineering & business models strikes me as the better investment than ‘purity’…this will no doubt drive the ‘greens’ nuts but then, what doesn’t…?

By: Wade Roush

Wade Roush — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 12:37:18 +0000

Responding to Frank M’s comment –

Of course, Frank, you’re right. The Billerica plant you mentioned is an example of a “peaking plant” that’s turned on only during the hours of greatest electrical demand, when the owners can collect the highest rate for the power they deliver. My somewhat smarty-pants lede for this posting did not take peaking plants into account.

By: Frank M

Frank M — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 03:40:40 +0000

“No one would spend hundreds of millions of dollars to build a coal, gas, or nuclear power plant and then leave it idle two-thirds of the time.”

Where exactly did you pull this statement from? Montgomery Energy is currently planning to build a 348 megawatt natural gas plant (one of the largest in the state of Massachusetts’s) that will only be permitted to run 1500 hours a year. 1500 hours a year means the plant would be idle over 80% of the time.

newspaper link: http://www.townonline.com/billerica/homepage/x1807337003

By: KevPark

KevPark — Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:28:09 +0000

The idea of storing up wind energy as compressed air is a novel one and was an engaging read. It made me think that there could be many ways to implement storing wind energy for future release into the electrical grid, not just using compressed air. It will be interesting to see if another company comes up with a different, perhaps more cost-effective approach to storing and releasing wind energy at peak energy usage periods.

Regards,
Kevin Park, M.D.