Water in Oregon pipeline is tapped for electricity

Water in Oregon pipeline is tapped for electricity

Lucid Energy has developed a renewable energy system that makes use of water moving through pipelines. The company's LucidPipe Power System converts pressure in water pipelines into electricity. They have a patented, lift-based turbine technology and last month they made news in a project involving Lucid Energy, the Portland Water Bureau and Portland General Electric. A 200kW LucidPipe Power System installed in a Portland Water Bureau water pipeline in Portland, Oregon, came online and began generating renewable energy for Portland General Electric. In short, one of the city of Portland's major water pipelines has started producing renewable energy.

The Portland Water Bureau (PWB) and Lucid Energy "flipped the switch," reported PennEnergy. The LucidPipe Power System uses the flow of water inside a PWB pipeline to spin four 42" turbines to produce electricity for Portland General Electric. The company said the system is expected to begin full capacity power generation by March. (LucidPipe can operate across a range of flow conditions, volumes and velocities. The lift-based vertical axis spherical turbine design generates electricity by extracting excess head pressure from large diameter [24"-96"], gravity-fed water pipelines and effluent streams. Several LucidPipe systems can be installed into a single pipeline; LucidPipe systems can be deployed three to four turbine diameters apart, so up to four LucidPipe units can be installed in a standard 40-foot section of pipe. The company said on their website that one mile of 42" diameter pipeline could produce as much as 3 megawatts or more of electricity.)

Fast Company called it an "ingenious new system" that "captures energy as water flows through the city's pipes, creating hydropower without the negative environmental effects of something like a dam." Or, simply put, "Turn on the tap and you're getting water and energy for the price of one."

Discussing the process, Ben Coxworth in Gizmag said, "As the water flows through, it spins four 42-inch (107-cm) turbines, each one of which is hooked up to a generator on the outside of the pipe. The presence of the turbines reportedly doesn't slow the water's flow rate significantly, so there's virtually no impact on pipeline efficiency."

The company said this was the first project in the U.S. to secure a 20-year Power Purchase Agreement (PPA) for renewable energy produced by in-pipe hydropower in a municipal water pipeline.

The project will generate approximately $2 million worth of renewable energy capacity over the PPA period that is used to pay for the development, installation and ongoing operational costs. After 20 years, the PWB will have the right to own the system and all the energy it produces, said the company.

"It's pretty rare to find a new source of energy where there's no environmental impact," said Gregg Semler, CEO of Lucid Energy, in Fast Company. "But this is inside a pipe, so no fish or endangered species are impacted."

What effect will the installation have on drinking water? The company said the system generates electricity from fast-moving water in pipelines without disrupting pipeline operations and with no environmental impact. It was tested and Certified by NSF International to NSF/ANSI Standard 61 for use in potable water systems and is suitable for agricultural, industrial and wastewater pipelines. Semler spoke in a video in 2013 about renewable energy and what his company is able to contribute. "We replace an existing pipe with our own pipe. Inside the system is a turbine that then connects to a generator sitting on top of the pipe. All we're doing is recapturing energy that exists inside these pipelines." He said that managers of water pipelines can reduce the major cost of delivering safe clean drinking by deploying their pipeline technology. Unlike other systems, it does not depend on the weather. "It is not dependent on the sun shining or the wind blowing," he said. As the website also put it, the advantage is "clean, baseload energy without the intermittency of wind and solar."


Explore further

NREL releases the 2013 Renewable Energy Data Book, detailing increases in installed capacity

More information: www.lucidenergy.com/

© 2015 Tech Xplore

Citation: Water in Oregon pipeline is tapped for electricity (2015, February 21) retrieved 24 January 2019 from https://techxplore.com/news/2015-02-oregon-pipeline-electricity.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
5613 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Feb 21, 2015
100 1000 megawatt fission plants flashing sea water into steam, as part of electrical generation, and then pumping that new freshened de-ionized water back into the various depleted aquifers.

California is too progressive to allow its citizens to do anything more than sit in the dark and freeze (or sit in the sun burinng up) while everyone gets a little more thirsty by and by.

Stupid Progs. Stupid voters.

Feb 21, 2015
Seems futile. Usually the water from the supply mains is pumped up into elevated reservoirs or water towers to provide constant pressure in their service area.

If you extract power out of the flow, that reduces pressure at the outlet. That means you need more pumping power to lift the water up, which means you're spending electricity in one place to generate it at another. You can get net energy out, but only at the expense of reducing outlet pressure at the consumer end.

Even if your main water supply is higher than the entire service area, you still need water towers because of the pressure loss in the system along long distribution lines. When you open the tap, the pressure drops because the length of pipe resists the flow, so you need an intermediate reservoir close to the point of consumption.


Feb 21, 2015
100 1000 megawatt fission plants flashing sea water into steam, as part of electrical generation


What would you do with the salt and other detritus?

It's not quite that simple.

Feb 21, 2015
Seems futile. Usually the water from the supply mains is pumped up into elevated reservoirs or water towers to provide constant pressure in their service area.

If you extract power out of the flow, that reduces pressure at the outlet. That means you need more pumping power to lift the water up, which means you're spending electricity in one place to generate it at another. You can get net energy out, but only at the expense of reducing outlet pressure at the consumer end.

Even if your main water supply is higher than the entire service area, you still need water towers because of the pressure loss in the system along long distribution lines. When you open the tap, the pressure drops because the length of pipe resists the flow, so you need an intermediate reservoir close to the point of consumption.



My thoughts exactly.

Feb 21, 2015
Water pressure often needs to be reduced when sending it from a higher to a lower altitude. If the energy from reducing that pressure could be recovered, then why not?

It won't be a huge amount of energy, but why waste it?

Feb 21, 2015
Water pressure often needs to be reduced when sending it from a higher to a lower altitude. If the energy from reducing that pressure could be recovered, then why not?

It won't be a huge amount of energy, but why waste it?

Exactly. By adding back even a little bit, you reduce the overall net loss...

Feb 21, 2015
An old idea put to good use with updated efficient technology. My friend in a remote rural ranch has employed a natural spring fed waterline generator for the last thirty-five years.The Southern California utilities should jump on this technology ASAP.

Feb 21, 2015
Eikka and Xstos: In flat areas, where water has to be pumped uphill, you're right: This wouldn't work. But most of Portland's drinking water, and water in many mountainous areas, flows downhill by gravity, and, as ab3a says, the pressure has to be reduced anyway. The technology is new, mostly to keep the water drinkable, but this is basically a 19th century hydroelectric system, using pipes running down a hill, instead of the massive 20th century dams. No reason it wouldn't work very well.


........if like you say that it's all downhill & friction loss through the turbine blades does not impact the pressure the end user receives. You can be sure the engineers have already made the friction loss calculations for the entire loop into which the turbines are being installed, these turbines and electric connector take-off points are not a cheap capexp.

Feb 21, 2015
http://www.thesci...ear.html [-generators in wheels]
...just a couple concepts I have been declaring for years needing research and develop...

do you believe there will be any credit for intellectual property?
[...and please see the opinion at the time on "the'science'forum"...}

Feb 21, 2015
http://www.thescienceforum.com/pseudoscience/25871-kalopins-off-topic-post-solar-wind-nuclear.html [-generators in wheels]
...just a couple concepts I have been declaring for years needing research and develop...

do you believe there will be any credit for intellectual property?
[...and please see the opinion at the time on "the'science'forum"...}

Did you beat Viktor Schauberger to the punch?

Feb 21, 2015
Time will tell. Full time begins in March. As for the electricity generated, how is it stored? Is it directed back to a central facility? Would these systems be utilized on site for large buildings or factories? That would be a better use than trying to centralize the energy created.


Feb 21, 2015
Hydropower is an old and well developed technology. The Fourneyron was more than 80% efficient before 1820.
In areas where storm water runoff is trapped in pipes already and is channelled downhill, not using this technology is wasteful. St. Louis City is rebuilding its sewer systems to separate sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff, and not one turbine is going to be in the system. The energy from the runoff on its way to the Mississippi will be completely wasted, and it is a whole lot of energy.

Feb 21, 2015
Yeah sorry I spoke too soon. Is it's gravity fed this makes sense.

Feb 21, 2015
If you extract power out of the flow, that reduces pressure at the outlet. That means you need more pumping power to lift the water up, which means you're spending electricity in one place to generate it at another.

NO, it means reduced consumption. So less water to have to refill. Subsequently, less electrical expenditure to refill...


Feb 21, 2015
Hydropower is an old and well developed technology. The Fourneyron was more than 80% efficient before 1820.
In areas where storm water runoff is trapped in pipes already and is channelled downhill, not using this technology is wasteful. St. Louis City is rebuilding its sewer systems to separate sanitary sewage and stormwater runoff, and not one turbine is going to be in the system. The energy from the runoff on its way to the Mississippi will be completely wasted, and it is a whole lot of energy.

Excellent points, Susan.
Additionally, using Schauberger technology would increase flow rate, thereby adding even more power to the turbine flowthrough...
The sum is usually always greater than the parts...

Feb 21, 2015
I can't see this being effective.

I'm guessing the pipes this will be installed in are downhill gravity action. So this would result in recovering some energy.

But is the cost worth it if the payout time is measured in decades? I'd think wind/solar/geothermal/conventional hydro would offer a quicker ROI with less capex spending.

Feb 21, 2015
Water pressure often needs to be reduced when sending it from a higher to a lower altitude. If the energy from reducing that pressure could be recovered, then why not?


If that is the case, then the system does work for dynamic pressure regulation, though not for static pressure regulation.

The electrical analog of the system would be a DC circuit with a variable resistor. When the current is flowing, it can impede the flow and reduce the voltage at the load, but when the taps are closed, the voltage (pressure) can build up.


Feb 21, 2015
The energy from the runoff on its way to the Mississippi will be completely wasted, and it is a whole lot of energy.


The question is rather, how often do you have such storms and downpour?

If it's only a handful of days a year, the recovered energy isn't worth the investment because the surge of power into the grid will cause more problems than it solves.

Eikka and Xstos: In flat areas, where water has to be pumped uphill, you're right: This wouldn't work. But most of Portland's drinking water, and water in many mountainous areas, flows downhill by gravity, and, as ab3a says, the pressure has to be reduced anyway.


As I said, even if your source is on higher ground, the length of pipes along the way provides resistance and reduces pressure. The static pressure may be high, but when everyone's drawing water out of the mains the pressure drops, necessitating the use of water towers as intermediate reservoirs.

Feb 21, 2015
For example, in a standard 60-inch-diameter pipeline, with flow velocity of seven feet per second and 92.3 ft of head (40 psi) of excess head pressure, a single LucidPipe unit could produce up to 100kW of power while extracting about 11.5 ft of head (5 PSI) from the system.

However with 40" pipe a mile of pipe with a turbine every 10 feet 528 to produce 3MW, lets say 600 for 3MW is only 5KW per turbine. Seems sort of crappy. Moving parts, maintenance, replacement cost, water supply interruptions. Survey says no.

Feb 21, 2015
For example, in a standard 60-inch-diameter pipeline, with flow velocity of seven feet per second and 92.3 ft of head (40 psi) of excess head pressure, a single LucidPipe unit could produce up to 100kW of power while extracting about 11.5 ft of head (5 PSI) from the system.

However with 40" pipe a mile of pipe with a turbine every 10 feet 528 to produce 3MW, lets say 600 for 3MW is only 5KW per turbine. Seems sort of crappy. Moving parts, maintenance, replacement cost, water supply interruptions. Survey says no.

Feb 21, 2015
This idea is pretty much a no brainer. Using contained piped water that has a reasonably constant flow is a great way to generate water and get dual usage of it. The only thing is how much will be the wear and tear of the turbine blades in the pipe. If it proves out most cities today could retrofit something like this to supplement their grid without having to build more mega plants. In the NW most of the water uses gravity flow so there are no additional costs to get the water moving.

Feb 21, 2015
This idea is pretty much a no brainer. .....The only thing is how much will be the wear and tear of the turbine blades in the pipe.


Mineral deposition on the turbine blades over time is something the engineers will need to be on the lookout for, this of course eventually throws the blades out of balance leading to eventual destruction of the entire turbine. Engineers in these instances already have a pretty good idea what to be on the lookout for & have a preventive maintenance plan prepared long before installation.

The other thing is insolubles suspended in the flow stream of the water which can shred the turbine blades. I'm sure the engineers have thought about that as well & may install proper filters as necessary to keep sediment from entering the system & acting like sandpaper on the turbine blades.

Feb 21, 2015
Portland's main water source is a feed from the Bull Run River at a point 800+ feet higher than the city. The water comes with plenty enough pressure to operate the turbines. No extra pumping is required, as someone here suggested. That would be foolishly counterproductive.

My first job was in engineering at the Louisville Water Co in the 70's, surveying and drafting. Here we DO have to pump water from the Ohio River, with our newest intake plant using a natural underground below-river aquifer to do the initial filtering.

What is unavoidably wasteful in the power industry is the perpetual over-generation of electricity to meet any unexpected demand of the moment. That excess WOULD justify pumping water up to a reservoir for later power re-generation, if properly designed and managed.

Feb 21, 2015
The static pressure may be high, but when everyone's drawing water out of the mains the pressure drops, necessitating the use of water towers as intermediate reservoirs.

The tower and standpipes ARE the main sources. Water companies use automated pumping systems to maintain the water volume in the towers. From there it is gravity fed to the system.

A well-regulated and well-gridded water system will also have automatic pressure valves to isolate various "pressure planes" to sustain pressure at different local elevations if necessary. Outside times of extreme water use, pressure is easily maintained. A tank at a high-elevation will feed the top pressure plane and automatic valves regulate pressure down to lower planes throughout the grid.
Seems sort of crappy. Moving parts, maintenance, replacement cost, water supply interruptions.

The turbine pipe would normally be installed with a bypass pipe and valves for maintenance or replacement. No interruption necessary.

Feb 22, 2015
I thought it was science technology news and not outcrop of ancient water mills. What about use of MHD (Magnetohydrodynamics) based new technology, being developed for navy submarines. It would be something.

This whole thing is not a breakthrough at all but perhaps just a way to some small reduction in energy needed to pump up water to storage tanks in the first place. But I think these guys stock price will definitely pump up and may be it is just all about that and smoke screen. The way how we think about renewable energy is unfortunately skewed and wrong.

Interesting take on renewables in wider context can be found at: https://sostratus...lusions/

Feb 22, 2015
"What is unavoidably wasteful in the power industry is the perpetual over-generation of electricity to meet any unexpected demand of the moment."
----------------------------------------------

That does not happen. All the electricity generated at each moment MUST balance the amount used at that exact moment, or the voltage, frequency, and other factors change. A small amount is used for "spinning reserve", and some units are not at full production and on on standby for increased generation, but none produce unused power.

If you want really fast power changes, you are better off with static sources, not rotary ones.

But this is just another example of how we can harvest energy from disparate sources, giving us a more flexible and resilient systems.

Feb 22, 2015
"The only way to generate more than is used is to store the excess, and even then the storage device is a "load", using the energy."

nkalanaga, yes, but the point is unless we intentionally want to store it in a particular place, we do not overgenerate. We match the production and the loads precisely at every moment, made much easier with large diversified and predictable loads. And yes, we sometimes use hydro spinning reserve, and do it electrically usually, instead of running excess water.

In all cases, modulation of the exciter voltage is necessary with any other changes.

Feb 22, 2015
nkalanaga, your post is correct. I consider nuclear to be thermal also; the primary difference is in the source of heat.

Feb 23, 2015
We match the production and the loads precisely at every moment


There is some leeway due to the amount of spinning stock on the grid. If there's excess power in the grid, the energy is stored in every synchronous motor and generator in the system acting as flywheels. Normally the frequency is constantly changing up or down slightly because energy is being stored and released.

More recently though, systems like wind turbines and solar panels have started to undermine this system of power regulation because they are internally non-synchronous to the grid and output their power through electronic inverters which do not produce the flywheel effect.

Older wind turbines were grid-synchronous, but that presented problems with wind gusts constantly throwing them off-sync and dropping offline, and optimizing turbine speed to wind speed required expensive and fragile systems of gears. Having seen some, they were just constantly broken or parked due to error.


Feb 23, 2015
Gas turbine plants I'm not familiar with.


Gas turbine plants come in various sizes, and the smallest units are generally used for load matching because they spool up quickly. They're also the most expensive to run because they sit idle most of the time, so they have to make back all their running costs on a handful of prodution hours per year.

The larger units are increasingly of the combined generation type, such as CHP for industrial process heat and district heating, or combined cycle operation for increased power efficiency in electricity production. In both cases the exhaust heat from the power turbine is used to heat water to make steam.

The combi-plants are slower to adjust, so they run much like coal or nuclear, although CHP plants can adjust down fairly quickly because they can quickly dump a lot of heat in the pipes, which ends up wasted out the other end.


Feb 23, 2015
overgeneration is avoided whenever possible


A good example of the point:

A single stage gas turbine produces something on the order of 30-40%, while the combi-plants operate from 60-90% thermal efficiency. The problem is, they lose that efficiency very quickly if you need to adjust the output.

A local baths was looking to save money by heating their pools buying excess wind power off the grid at essentially zero cost. Trouble was, they were getting their heat from a CHP plant, which takes so much time to adjust their output that whenever the baths would shut off their heat exchanger, it would simply dump hot water from the district heating system into the sea.

So the CHP plant would lose money by not selling the heat, and lose fuel because the heat would be wasted, so obviously they said "If you install the electric heaters, we'll just jack up your rates", so they didn't.

The moral of the story is that what sounds good on paper doesn't often work in practice.

Feb 23, 2015
@Eikka

You've been a consistent debbie downer when it comes to alternative energy sources. In light of AGW caused by fossil fuels what is your prescription to avoid the dangers of a warming world?

Feb 23, 2015
gkam: I agree with your posts, but was pointing out a detail that can confuse those who may not be familiar with electricity, which includes most of my family and coworkers. No, overgeneration is avoided whenever possible, even with storage ability, because if there's no place for the power to go, it causes all kinds of problems.

Banks upon banks of super caps...

Feb 23, 2015
You've been a consistent debbie downer when it comes to alternative energy sources. In light of AGW caused by fossil fuels what is your prescription to avoid the dangers of a warming world?


I consider myself a realist. There's too many starry-eyed dreamers who take the industry propaganda hook, line and sinker, because it's either convenient for their political agenda or they're simply ignorant.

1) Stop all rate subsidies to renewable power to force the industry to consider power quality and reliability issues rather than just push power into the grid to collect easy money.

2) Use the billions of subsidy money saved to large public projects for massive grid-scale energy storage and development thereof.

3) Sell this newly built storage capacity at a reduced rate to all the producers using clean forms of energy that need the storage to function on the grid. Such as: wind, solar.

Only after #3 happens does it make sense to build more wind and solar power.

Feb 23, 2015
Banks upon banks of super caps...


Precisely.

Or, something else that is more feasible.

In order for the renewable revolution to happen we need the ability to take in all the disparate energy sources and dish them out when needed. That requires the availablity of Terawatt-hour scale storage in every major country, or roughly a million-fold increase in the ability to store electrical energy compared to the hydroelectric dams or pumped reservoirs, or battery systems we have around the world today.

Building any of the intermittent energy sources is just futile piddling and a total waste of money until we do, because without grid level storage it is plain impossible to scale renewable energy up to substitute the fossil fuels.

Feb 23, 2015
To make a more concrete point of comparison:

Germany currently has approximately 220 TWh worth of natural gas stored in its pipelines and distribution networks. This is enough to last them 3 months of use, should for example Russia decide to cut their delivery. Similiar stockpiles exist for coal, oil, gasoline etc.

For equal energy security with renewable sources such as wind power, solar power, wave power, etc. using pumped hydroelectric storage, one would need to dam all the larger fjords in Norway three times over. Norway would have the technical capacity to store about 84 TWh of energy if it was all built up with hydroelectric dams.

That's the scale of the issue.

Currently proposed massive scale renewable systems, such as the Supergrid, or the DESERTEC system don't address redundancy and energy security at all. If someone cuts the cable at Gibraltar, the whole of Europe would go dark in a matter of seconds.


Feb 23, 2015
Water pressure often needs to be reduced when sending it from a higher to a lower altitude. If the energy from reducing that pressure could be recovered, then why not?

It won't be a huge amount of energy, but why waste it?


Recovered? It was never in the system to begin with. Engineers don't input extra energy where gravity can do the work for them. Besides there is a critical flow rate that requires an airspace above the water surface, and the flow rate is maximum for given diameter and slope. Even the Nabateans at Petra knew this.

Feb 23, 2015
Having served all other energy technologies with subsidies, Eikka wants now to take them away from alternative energy. The others got subsidies forever, but now, because Eikka does not like alternative energy, he wants them all to get nothing.

Too late for that. Eikka seems like the knight in the Monthy Python movie: No matter how much he loses, he still argues.

Good spirit, . . but one has to know when to quit.

Feb 23, 2015
Water pressure often needs to be reduced when sending it from a higher to a lower altitude. If the energy from reducing that pressure could be recovered, then why not?

It won't be a huge amount of energy, but why waste it?


Recovered? It was never in the system to begin with. Engineers don't input extra energy where gravity can do the work for them. Besides there is a critical flow rate that requires an airspace above the water surface, and the flow rate is maximum for given diameter and slope. Even the Nabateans at Petra knew this.

Steve, Technically it IS in the system as a freebie provided by gravity. Tapping some of it can't be wrong...

Feb 23, 2015
Water pressure often needs to be reduced when sending it from a higher to a lower altitude. If the energy from reducing that pressure could be recovered, then why not?

It won't be a huge amount of energy, but why waste it?


Recovered? It was never in the system to begin with. Engineers don't input extra energy where gravity can do the work for them. Besides there is a critical flow rate that requires an airspace above the water surface, and the flow rate is maximum for given diameter and slope. Even the Nabateans at Petra knew this.

Steve, Technically it IS in the system as a freebie provided by gravity. Tapping some of it can't be wrong...


If you remove the energy that necessary for optimum flow rate in lieu converting gravity fed hydraulic energy into electric potential then you are merely sacrificing your apples for oranges. Optimal water flow or a little extra energy.

Feb 23, 2015
[qIf you remove the energy that necessary for optimum flow rate in lieu converting gravity fed hydraulic energy into electric potential then you are merely sacrificing your apples for oranges. Optimal water flow or a little extra energy.
I vote for a little extra energy... A portion of which can used to optimize flow...

Mar 09, 2015
Great idea, my company is working on something similar however on a much smaller scale

Mar 10, 2015
"Having served all other energy technologies with subsidies, Eikka wants now to take them away from alternative energy."


No other form of energy gets subsidies paid per kWh and a right of way on the grid. There's a fundamental difference in the way which renewable energy is subsidized, in which others are not. If you do not recognize this difference, you cannot even begin to comprehend the argument, and your objection to it is simply arguing from ignorance. If you will not recognize the difference, you're being fraudulent.

"The others got subsidies forever, but now, because Eikka does not like alternative energy, he wants them all to get nothing."


You are simply proving yourself to be a simple-minded demagogue with each of these successive strawman arguments you try to pass over me. Why don't you complain that my feet smell while you're at it?

Mar 10, 2015
The simple fact of the matter is, that feed-in subsidies discourage power producers from taking responsibility over the power they supply. If they could get away with it, they'd simply sink huge resistor banks in the sea and burn up all the wind power while collecting the subsidies. It's simply a matter of cost-benefit analysis whether it's cheaper to pay someone to take your power, or waste it yourself.

Demanding the removal of feed-in or rate subsidies as ineffective and counterproductive isn't demanding that all subsidies must end. The demand #3 above for example is a subsidy for renewable energy: it is subsidizing the means for making the production meet demand, which shifts the competition from lobbying politicians for more FiT subsidies to who makes the cheapest energy.

As you see, there are better ways to spend the common effort.


Mar 10, 2015
" If they could get away with it, they'd simply sink huge resistor banks in the sea and burn up all the wind power while collecting the subsidies."
----------------------------------------------

You have a rather bad view of Humanity, Eikka.

Is that what you would do?

Mar 11, 2015
"You have a rather bad view of Humanity, Eikka.

Is that what you would do?"


It's simply a matter or realism. Corporations follow their bottom line, and if wasting power is cheaper than having someone use it, power will be wasted. Even individual people do this. There are countless examples of this kind of "inhumanity", and thinking they wouldn't if they could is simply naive.

The people who build and operate wind turbines or solar panels are not in it to save the world. They're first and foremost making a living for themselves, and that directs their political and practical decisions. There are very few saints when it comes to money, and even the saints help themselves first.

Besides, those resistor banks actually do exist. There are some dummy loads on the grid that can be turned on at a time of excess, when there's absolutely nowhere else to put the power.

Mar 11, 2015
If you set up a system of subsidies that can be abused for more profit, then you will eventually find it being abused because the abusers will make more money and expand faster than the people who are using the system responsibly for what it's meant for.

The system of FiT subsidies means a company can legally get paid to waste power, so it is naive to assume no such companies exist or will not exist. When the spot prices go negative, there is an incentive even to set up dummy companies to recieve money to use up the power and transfer the money back to yourself.

And it's more than likely, because there are so few means to use such intermittent surges of power.

Mar 11, 2015
"There are very few saints when it comes to money, and even the saints help themselves first."
----------------------------------------------

Wow. You must come from a selfish society. I thought ours was the most selfish, with conservatives running things, but you have the spirit of one who scorns without alternatives.

Megawatt resistors to burn up excess electricity? Time out, Toots. We just turn down the exciters.

Perhaps you are unaware of how electricity works.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more