
Building the Wind Turbines Was Easy – The Hard Part Was Plugging Them In - jkuria
https://www.wsj.com/articles/building-the-wind-turbines-was-easy-the-hard-part-was-plugging-them-in-11561176010?mod=rsswn
======
epistasis
> “I will tell you as an engineer, with training in operations and planning,
> if you had asked me 10 years ago if we would have been able to reliably
> accommodate even half of that, I would have said no. Period. End of
> discussion,” he said.

This has been the story of renewables since the beginning: highly trained
people bringing up technical concerns that seem like impossibilities, and then
that impossibility being proven to be possible.

I almost never believe a hardened, experienced, smart energy person anymore
when they say something isn't possible, because what they really mean is
"nobody has done that before."

Up until 2000, nobody having done something before probably meant it wasn't
possible: thermal steam turbines have been optimized out the wazoo for decades
upon decades.

As we move away from thermal steam production of electricity, we will need to
re-evaluate everything, something the energy sector hasn't done for a very
long time.

~~~
southern_cross
One of the things not mentioned here is that increasing use of wind and solar
is forcing grid operators to make compromises in the traditional standards of
how they run the grid. For example, IIRC the ability to maintain a rock-solid
60Hz power frequency has largely gone out the window. In the past this was
considered critical for maintaining the stability of the grid and the various
equipment that is plugged into it, but now maybe not so much.

Also, as I understand it the various control systems which used to kick in
just on occasion and take somewhat heroic measures in order to maintain grid
stability are now having to do that constantly. This isn't the exception
anymore but rather the rule, in other words, so it's probably not so much a
matter of "The system is working well" as it is "We're making it work as best
we can, at least for now". This is an important distinction because while in
the past an outage or a hack or whatever would have probably had limited
scope, today the same might end up bringing a much larger part of the grid
down.

~~~
jacquesm
One reason for the rock-solid requirement was that over time instead of just
power the grid became a distributed time-base. After discouraging that kind of
practice the grid operators found they had more freedom. Examples of such use:
record players and various clocks running on grid power would use the
frequency stability to drive synchronous motors.

~~~
gdubs
Interesting. Naive question: does that mean audiophiles with vintage gear have
to rely on custom power setups to get their old stuff to play correctly?

~~~
southern_cross
This stuff was usually easily adjustable, so you could compensate for various
irregularities. But some turntables had built-in strobe lights for aiding in
adjustments, so if the line frequency was off then the strobe would be off and
then your adjustments would be off, too. And even if generally well-adjusted,
should the line frequency vary too much while playing a record then you would
probably notice that. During musical passages it would probably definitely be
noticeable, while during singing and speech maybe not at all.

------
ncmncm
The market for wind turbines has a chance to explode if the wind turbine
companies would invest in small-scale ammonia production technology. Farms
everywhere (a) can use ammonia for both fertilizer and fuel, (b) have room for
wind turbines, and (c) are mostly far from power networks.

A Canadian inventor, Roger Gordon
([http://www.greennh3.com/](http://www.greennh3.com/)) has a refrigerator-size
design that needs only electric power, water, and air, but can't raise
capital.

Intermittent ammonia production is a perfect fit for wind turbines. Who needs
wires?

Industrial ammonia production turns out to be the single biggest methane
polluter. ([https://agreenerworld.org/a-greener-world/it-wasnt-the-
cows-...](https://agreenerworld.org/a-greener-world/it-wasnt-the-cows-after-
all/)) Methane is much worse than CO2. Driving them out of business would be a
wonderful side benefit.

~~~
eitland
I know too little chemistry to say if this is viable or not, economically
speaking, but here are a couple of questions that I have:

\- ammonia/NH3 is highly corrosive IIRC, and also toxic. Do we have good ways
to handle it in a safe manner?

\- while capitalism has its drawbacks one thing it usually manages is to get
funding for anything that seems like a good investment. And while I can
understand why Exxon or Shell might stay clear there are many more who doesn't
have their own oil fields and should be happy to get on the next big thing?

Don't misunderstand me: this sounds extremely cool and useful, but those two
questions immediately crossed my mind.

~~~
ncmncm
> Do we have good ways to handle it in a safe manner?

We handle millions of tons of it every year, already. So, yes. Farmers buy it
in barrels and mount them on their plows.

~~~
tempguy9999
> Farmers buy it in barrels and mount them on their plows

As you said above, ammonia is used to make fertiliser but AFAIK that happens
in factories, but are you saying farmers actually use it directly? I really
struggle to believe that. I'd be curious for more info, thanks.

~~~
wayoutthere
Ammonia isn’t used directly as a fertilizer; but it’s pretty easy to turn into
ammonium nitrate. There are commercially available “mini factories” [1] that
presumably mitigate the carbon cost of transport from a huge centralized
fertilizer factory. The famine prevented by the NPK fertilizer cycle is
probably the greatest contributor to the population growth of the 20th
century, so suffice to say it’s very well understood by agricultural chemists
worldwide.

[1] [https://www.fertilizer-
machine.com/product/Fertilizer_Produc...](https://www.fertilizer-
machine.com/product/Fertilizer_Production_Line/mini-compound-fertilizer-
production-line.html)

~~~
Robotbeat
Ammmonia actually is sometimes used directly as a fertilizer:

[https://www.wfyi.org/files/wfyi/articles/current/050719-anhy...](https://www.wfyi.org/files/wfyi/articles/current/050719-anhydrous-
ammonia-fertilizer.jpg)

------
gdubs
Fascinating section is regarding a 2016 study by the NOAA that found the US
could cut carbon dioxide emissions by 80%, by 2030, _using existing
technologies._

“That scenario didn’t rely on some hoped-for storage breakthrough, just a
network of transmissions lines”

~~~
sjwright
If that was true, it would be implemented quickly if carbon emissions weren’t
free.

(I’m not a rabid greenie but it still boggles my mind that we let companies
dump shit in the air for free.)

~~~
roenxi
You dump carbon emissions into the air; nobody charges you (editing for
clarity - I'm talking about breathing).

It also isn't at all obvious that any given company is doing more damage with
the stuff they dump into the air than the positive benefits they create by
burning fossil fuels, which is why there isn't more support for charging for
carbon emissions.

China is in a much better position to deal with the impacts of climate change
after being responsible for ~25% of last years emissions than it would be if
it had tried to industrialise using solar panels.

Fossil fuels have positive and negative externalities. Just taxing the
negatives and ignoring the positives is not a rational approach.

~~~
ncmncm
What, tax the positives, too?

The positives take care of themselves. The negatives are what need corrective
action.

~~~
roenxi
Externalities don't take care of themselves. That is why they are classed as
externalities.

Logically speaking it would be subsidise the positives, but practically it is
easiest to just let the negative externalities run and enjoy the positives, if
the positives outweigh the negatives.

------
Animats
China is way ahead in long distance power transmission.[1] Some of the ultra-
high voltage DC technology comes from ABB, so it's available from non-China
sources. This isn't technically that hard. It's a land acquisition problem
where some little landowner on the route can block the project.

Maybe forget trying to get to Texas and go east to Illinois, and feed Chicago
and points east.

[1] [https://new.abb.com/news/detail/10464/abb-enables-worlds-
fir...](https://new.abb.com/news/detail/10464/abb-enables-worlds-first-hvdc-
grid-in-china)

~~~
tialaramex
"No" isn't necessarily an answer. In the UK for example the law creates
"Necessary Wayleaves" which basically say well, society decided we need
electricity, and the power transmission company says it needs to put something
here to achieve that, so tough, now your freehold has a Wayleave on it that
you can't remove saying they can have access and put things on your land. You
get paid compensation automatically, but you don't get to say "No".

You can go to tribunal (like a court) but "Too bad, now nobody gets any
electricity" isn't one of the options they have, so unless you're going to
show that they had another better route open to them the tribunal will just
rule against you.

~~~
ahartmetz
It is similar in Germany. Probably just a necessity if you have high
population density and want to get anything done.

But then there are in some cases whole municipalities or larger units of
administration (usually driven by citizens) against new power lines, and they
can prevent them... and that is a current problem.

------
gingabriska
I also made a wind turbine (3d printed with ABS) on Prusa i3 MK3S

