by paul spencer
Wed Feb 12th, 2014 at 01:44:48 AM EST
Most of my experience with these folks finds them to be quite sane and often just enough ahead of conventional wisdom to help to shape it. This article is eurocentric, so I'm very curious as to y'all's critiques.
front-paged by afew
Here's the link: http://blog.rmi.org/blog_2014_02_06_celebrate_renewables_disruption_of_electric_utilities
I think that I commented a few months ago on one of the ET diaries that I had attended a BPA (Bonneville Power Authority) presentation, where three of their engineers reported on current status of wind-power integration. Basically, they said that BPA had solved their problems by improved weather forecasting and one-hour reporting from all operating generating sources and the transmission utilities. (They were going to demand 15-minute reporting cycles, but now seemed to have backed off to 1/2-hour reports. The three almost seemed apologetic about that action due to current performance with the 1-hour reports.)
This is sharp contrast to 2 years ago, when there was nearly a revolt by BPA engineers and technicians at the actual switching and the hydro-generation stations. Apparently, BPA management took a measured, but hard-nosed stance, that they would implement the measures noted above - and it worked.
With the new U.S. federal budget approved, plus the Farm Bill, it appears that renewables are getting a bit more support - though it tends to favor bio-fuels. In the meantime, states with fairly strong (for the U.S.) renewable-energy-derived portion standards appear to be moving toward deployment again. Should be mentioned that conservation is probably number one in both investment and in cost/use reduction.
In any case I'd like to hear from y'all on the RMI article.