The VC models are to blame, not the green technologies 34

Comments View as Flat

1. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 11:42 am
   23 Dec 2008

   Questions about windAs you noted, they seem to be into solar and biofuels, but not wind -- but wind is the technology that's expanding and growing.  Why the problem with wind?  There's someone running his own transmission,or at least planning to, from Colorado to California.  And number two, then how did Vestas get going?

   Permalink

2. 

   Sean Casten Posted 11:51 am
   23 Dec 2008

   JonThere's lots of VC $ in wind.  And to be clear, I'm in no way suggesting that all VC investors aren't going to make $.  Simply that if a significant number lose money, the headlines won't be that nuanced, and we ought to brace ourselves.
   More specifically to your question, wind is enormously dependently not only on transmission investments, but also on utilities maintaining spinning reserve to compensate when the wind goes offline.  It may or may not be societally beneficial to make those investments, but they are clearly beyond the control of the investor, so my larger point holds: if wind plants don't get built because of transmission capacity, the headline will be "wind doesn't pencil", not "due to nuances in the design of our grid architecture, wind has challenges that investors didn't notice."
   A final point: you make money as an investor in the the energy space - and indeed, in most spaces - not by the inherent value you create, but by the price that you are able to sell at.  People who bought pets.com early made money if they sold, notwithstanding the lack of long-term value.  So you really need to parse carefully to see if the fact that early stage investors made money implies that they were very careful about long-term value, or simply got lucky.  I don't raise to suggest anything about the specific companies you cite, but rather to caution that questions of the "what about investors who made money on company X" variety do not necessarily equate to long-term value.

   Permalink

3. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 12:02 pm
   23 Dec 2008

   Bottoms Up
   
   Here's the missing element about "Startups".
   They weren't designed to sell stuff.
   They were designed to look like they might have stuff that someday people might one day buy.
   The new model should be:
   find customers,
   then shareholders.
   
   "This is the essence of science...you ask an impertinent question and you're on your way to a pertinent answer." -- Fox Mulder, S1E4, "Conduit"

   Permalink

4. 

   hapa Posted 12:13 pm
   23 Dec 2008

   but that's not what the slides were talking about?the slideshow was concerned that people were looking for jackpot IPO chances in established fields when most times firms or tech were acquired at a smaller scale?

   Permalink

5. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 12:21 pm
   23 Dec 2008

   UnderstoodSean, you bring up an interesting issue, that is, how did the European and Japanese get ahead of the U.S. in manufacturing wind and solar?  I wrote a short article about this, here, and clearly the European and Japanese are doing better at this.  I suppose it has something to do with all kinds of industrial policy, though, but this is being done through private firms.

   Permalink

6. 

   Black Wallaby Posted 2:17 pm
   23 Dec 2008

   Wind TurbinesJon Rynn, you wrote in part:
   how did the European and Japanese get ahead of the U.S. in manufacturing wind and solar?... ...I suppose it has something to do with all kinds of industrial policy, though, but this is being done through private firms.
   Yep, how about you check this link: British commentary
   
   

   Permalink

7. 

   amazingdrx Posted 2:40 pm
   23 Dec 2008

   Look to the internet technology boomYes, lots of companies made bad bets and went under.  A few emerged as leaders, then the boom hit.  
   It's a good model for this coming boom, these periodic busts on the way are normal.  There hasn't been a real boom yet.
   
   http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

   Permalink

8. 

   Jon Rynn Posted 3:00 pm
   23 Dec 2008

   OK mateI skimmed/read the report, it's always good to have writing which shows the worst of a technology.  You could do the same with nuclear, although let's just agree for the sake of argument that nuclear is possible, much as it pains me to say that.  
   It's possible, reading that report, that the U.S. is better situated to take advantage of wind, because nobody will care if North Dakota is covered in wind farms (with all apologies to anyone in the Dakotas that wants to disagree).  And there's lots of wind potential there.
   So it may be, for instance, that tidal and wave would work better for the UK, although those are "always around the corner", as the author says.
   Really, it's going to take some kind of mix, and most of all, it's going to take a lot of different models and work to figure out how to cover the planet with renewable sources of electricity.  One of the problems we have is that it's not like a coal plant -- with a coal plant you just stick it wherever you want, basically.  With renewables, you have to be very much aware of the particulars of the area.
   One more thing about wind, though, and probably renewables in general -- in order to solve the intermittency problem, these systems will have to be continent-wide, unless some large stationary battery technologies become available.  There is evidence that a large distributed system could solve at least part of the intermittency problem.
   So, to get back to the post, I'm not sure how much he market is going to solve this one, because it seems like it's going to involve an enormous amount of both local and continental planning.

   Permalink

9. 

   Jonas Posted 9:11 pm
   23 Dec 2008

   Bottom of the pyramid craves energyA huge market segment is being forgotten here: the 2.5 billion people without access to energy in developing countries.
   There's a huge market for decentralized electricity generation on a village and town scale, in the Global South.
   Take India. A small company founded by an U.S. student and his Indian friend is building tiny combined heat and power plants based on crop residues, in villages. They build a micro-grid, have a smart system of selling the power to each family, and bank in on both carbon credits and on selling ash to the cement industry.
   It's a big winner. (Check them out if you want: http://huskpowersystems.com/ - I'm not affiliated to these entrepreneurs).
   Really sexy venture capital dares to invest in these initiatives. The socalled 'bottom of the pyramid' craves for energy, has enough purchasing power and you don't have the hassle of having to wait until big infrastructure works come your way (as with e.g. wind in the U.S.).
   Let's go South.

   Permalink

10. 

    sunflower Posted 10:25 pm
    23 Dec 2008

    Yesterday's sunshineVC is over committed, no longer viable for AGW mitigation.
    WE had a $5.5m term sheet signed from Boston area VC, assembled a company of MIT engineers in a new Bay Area CA company to develop new solar heat and power in the focus of new solar dish concentrators.  The market crashed, taking oil and gas prices down 75%.  The VC check was never issued and the whiz kids are now looking for other jobs.  What a shame.
    http://raw-solar.com/
    
    http://home.centurytel.net/sunflower/solar_dish.html

    Permalink

11. 

    Sean Casten Posted 10:28 pm
    23 Dec 2008

    JonAt the risk of getting a bit sidetracked, your intermittency issue proves the larger point.  There is a growing cadre of folks asking hard questions about wind - some research at Carnegie Mellon suggests that in much of the country, wind turbines actually increase CO2 emissions because of all the coal plants that go into spinning reserve and gas-fired peakers that run in very inefficient modes where they can quickly ramp up when the wind goes out.  (Folks in the NW have told me that there is some ~700 MW of hydro power that is consistently withheld for the same reason - which at least has the benefit of not being carbon additive, but still raises the odd question of why we're curtailing one renewable so we can run another, and how one calculates the net gain.)
    That in itself is a subject for a much longer post one of these days, and one for which I am getting out of my expertise, other than to note the clear environmental conflict.  But set the environmental issues aside for a moment and simply look at what that means economically: someone trying to make money of wind is innately dependent on someone else spending money to address wind's intermittency problems.  Put another way, wind investors are putting money into entities who's success is based substantially on entities and decisions they cannot control.  From a purely investment point of view, that's dangerous.
    Might we solve the intermittency problem?  I guess - but it's a huge problem, big enough that I think we also ought to at least contemplate the possibility that we can't for the purposes of deciding whether or not to make those investments (whether from a VC or societal perspective.)  Otherwise, we're falling into the hydrogen trap, where we simply assume away the storage problem, in which case hydrogen is peachy, rather than admitting it might be intractable, in which case hydrogen sucks.  The case for/against intermittent renewables is not nearly so stark, but raises identical risks from an investment perspective.
    My larger point is that there really isn't an analogy to this in the traditional tech-investment space and - at least from where I sit - many VC investments are exposed to these risks.

    Permalink

12. 

    Jon Rynn Posted 1:09 am
    24 Dec 2008

    YukWell, it would be good to hear more about this.  Again, it's possible it could be solved with a national network, but that requires an even bigger effort than localized solutions.  Despite what you might think from some of my writing, I think it's much easier to solve a problem if the private sector can do it -- trying to plan a national network would be quite a task...anyway, thanks for the info.

    Permalink

13. 

    amazingdrx Posted 1:34 am
    24 Dec 2008

    Wow This all makes geo-engineering look like the last chance for the climate.  
    It can't be fixed with renewables, too intermittent.  No capital to do it anyway.  
    Confidence is the key to economic recovery.  Give in to anti-renewable talking points and just what can Obama do?  He'll go with the nukers, clean coalies, and fuel farmers.  Oh, they're confident!  And the experts in the new administration trust them.
    I can hear that attitude haunting us from the past...Don't worry Chamberlain will cool Hitler down, we can't afford to get in a war anyway, what with this great depression.
    Those who learn from history are doomed to watch others repeat it.
    Buck up troops, it's just holliday depression.  Don't give in to conventional wisdom.  That way lies madness, I see glow trains, coal trains, ammonia fertilizer trains, and  liquid CO2 trains crashing into our green future and destroying it.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink

14. 

    Max8806 Posted 2:51 am
    24 Dec 2008

    IntermittencySean and John,
    The intermittency problem is not nonexistent, but is generally overplayed because some of the time wind power overdelivers the grid is undersupplied, and some of the time wind underdelivers the grid is oversupplied anyway. System load (aggregate demand) is variable as well, and since load and wind variability are independent, you can't just sum the two to get the total. This means the marginal variability to the system contributed by a variable wind source is significantly less than the variability of the wind source itself. This is why FERC ordered organized markets to ease "imbalance pricing" (charges for delivering less than bid/forecasted) penalties for wind sources in Order 890 (2007), acknowledging the old system was unduly discriminatory.
    NY has applied for, and had granted (from FERC) permission to extend even more generous than FERC-mandated rules to new wind plants (technically for all 'variable resources' but no one's building big solar in NY) from 1,000 MW to 3,300 MW, about 10% of peak summer load. But they are instituting requirements that large wind plants install wind monitoring and forecasting equipment, so the ISO gets updated wind forecasts on the hour-ahead and 15-minute ahead time scale (to go with of course day-ahead forecasts/bids).
    Wind tends to be more variable than intermittent - it is not dispatchable but it is fairly predictable, especially just an hour or even 15 minutes in advance.
    Finally, to address Sean's point about determining net gain from carbon-free electricity that requires more inefficient use of carbon-based reserve capacity. The organized markets deal in far more than "electricity." A number of ancillary services for reliability/reserves are now marketed, as opposed to simply controlled administratively by the ISO. So once we have a cap/trade - all costs will be internalized - both the extra carbon associated with running reserve capacity less efficiently, as well as the need/value of that reserve capacity (since it is determined by the market). Again this is not in all markets yet, and some regions don't even have organized wholesale markets yet, but its over half the country (and national load) and growing. So I don't see this as an intractable issue going forward at all.
    
    Max Epstein

    Permalink

15. 

    amazingdrx Posted 3:34 am
    24 Dec 2008

    What max saysYeah!  On a related note.
    I was wondering if maybe over building of offshore wind/wave power could be justified by putting unused energy in to desalinization and cloud formation.
    Water is the oil of this century.  When the grid is full, dump the extra wind/wave power into pumping seawater, through desalinization systems.  Pump the water onshore through underwater pipelines.  Water is valuable already.
    These floating energy platforms could also spray seawater up into the atmosphere to increase cloud formation, providing a cooling effect.  And increasing snow and rainfall on glacier and desert.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink

16. 

    Jon Rynn Posted 3:52 am
    24 Dec 2008

    Thanks, MaxI was wondering about the bit about the coal plants spinning waiting for the wind to die down.  That seems like a real waste; or the hydroelectric adding less power for the same reason.  Is that a big issue?  Is gas easy to start up, so that you don't have to have something spinning?  I thought there was enough baseload to handle that sort of thing; but I'm not very well educated on  how the electrical system works.  If a national wind system could reliably provide, say, up to 50% of electrical needs, would this problem go away?

    Permalink

17. 

    Sean Casten Posted 4:08 am
    24 Dec 2008

    MaxYou may be right - but I can assure you that utility execs I have spoken with are really nervous about wind and deploy a lot of resources (human, financial and generation) to load balancing.
    Maybe we can fix all that - but we can't assume it away, or assume that it is not a very real current problem, even if we think we might be able to eliminate at some point in the future.

    Permalink

18. 

    Sean Casten Posted 4:12 am
    24 Dec 2008

    JonThe issue is that most generation technologies don't ramp quickly.  A big coal plant goes from cold-to-hot in a matter of days. On the other hand, if you fire just enough fuel to keep the boiler hot and the turbine spinning at low load, you can quickly close the breaker when the load drops out.  Gas turbine start quicker, but again have cold starts measured in minutes - hours that are not amenable to instantaneous system disruptions.  So those also run in very low load (where, like coal, they are very inefficient) so that they can quickly ramp.
    The benefit of hydro is that you can simply slow the flow to the turbines and let the dams behind fill a bit higher so that you can suddenly open up.
    Note that wind is far from the only source of load volatility.  Volatility is caused no less by intermittent reductions in generation (the plant that suddenly has a maintenance trip, in addition to the intermittent resources that die back) as by changes in demand (i.e., your air conditioner motor suddenly kicks on).  The grid manages those volatility spikes in a variety of ways, but the increasing concentration of intermittent resources is exacerbating the system management challenge.

    Permalink

19. 

    Max8806 Posted 4:41 am
    24 Dec 2008

    Jon,Maybe I should back up a bit. We have made a policy decision that electricity is so important, shortages (blackouts) are unacceptable. Since the grid doesn't store electricity, that means the system needs capacity that strictly speaking isn't "economic" if you're only thinking about the market for power, because they don't get to sell power often. When the wholesale market was deregulated in the 90's (this is separate from subsequent state efforts to deregulate retail electricity), it became apparent these vertically integrated utilities did more than just sell power. In the new emerging wholesale markets, how to provide for these reliability services without one monolithic vertically integrated utility responsible for the whole system's reliability became an issue.
    The "organized markets" (new wholesale power markets) began by breaking down these services into well-defined "ancillary services" - regulation, spinning reserves, nonspinning reserves, replacement/supplementary reserves, voltage control and blackstart (some systems break it down a bit differently but this is pretty comprehensive, though I can't go into the specifics about what each does here). But spinning reserve, for example, means plants that are running at not full (and so not fully efficient) capacity, so that they can quickly ramp up if needed. Regulation is similar in this respect. These services are usually gas. Baseload is separate because it provides power but doesn't react as fast to the change in system demand, because it basically runs at full power all the time. This is nuclear and most coal. You could in theory provide baseload wind if it were distributed, but there has been a bit of an issue so far with no one wanting to disburse so much - all the wind farms sorta pop up in the windiest areas. At least NY has mentioned this as an ongoing issue.
    At first these ancillary services continued to be procured by the system operators on a cost-based basis under the old regulatory model. But more and more are now procured similarly to the wholesale power market itself - the system operator purchases as much as it needs (except for ancillary services system demand is based on reliability criteria instead of aggregate demand), and accepts bids from competitive suppliers to supply its needs.
    So the final point here is that in these organized markets that set the price paid for reserve capacity by the market - to the extent wind increases system costs by increasing the need for system reserves, this raises the demand for reserves and so raises the price offered to (fossil fuel) plants that offer these reserves. So this added variability is not a cross-subsidization of wind generators by other competing power sources. They profit from it as well because it expands a market they're in that wind isn't.
    So Sean's point about requiring extra reserves is basically that these are underpriced because they don't currently include the cost of extra pollution of running plants less efficiently. Currently they basically just include the opportunity cost of not selling that extra power in the power market. But once you price carbon, that is no longer an externality. And so along with the point above about the system's cost of reserves also being internalized in the maturing wholesale markets, I don't see a need to fret over how the net gain comes out. It will all be internalized in the relative prices of energy and reserves/regulation.
    
    Max Epstein

    Permalink

20. 

    hapa Posted 4:48 am
    24 Dec 2008

    variable and intermittent as i understand them.wind and solar, without storage, are both both intermittent and variable, to different degrees. both wind and sun change availability predictably by time of day and time of year (intermittent) and experience local fluctuations (variable).
    CSP -- what joe romm calls "solar baseload" -- is the most compatible with the current grid because it generates heat which is much easier to store than pure juice. just needs insulation. so you get smoother ouput.
    i honestly don't know why people call solar PV intermittent, though. storage is integral. a solar PV system requires storage the same way coal, oil, and natural gas require storage. the difference is the PV commodity needing handling comes after generation. batteries=pipelines, except that pipes and tanks are using physical properties so they're even simpler than insulation.
    but when you bring these things up to a grid level, storage becomes less and less necessary. when you don't need it someone does; when you don't have it someone does. this is where a national HVDC network and regional supply consolidation -- making that up, i know there's a word but i can't remember it -- to aggregate many variable sources -- variable both by weather fluctuation AND local demand -- to maintain voltage -- this consolidating network is crucial and must and will be built.
    this is actually the biggest reason we need to commit to efficiency first and always. application by application, the smaller we can make the differences between "on" and "off" the smaller will be the differences between peak and trough. negawatts are also negastorage.
    
     

    Permalink

21. 

    Max8806 Posted 4:56 am
    24 Dec 2008

    Sean,It seems we're talking about different systems. Like I said in my response to Jon, I don't dispute that wind can exacerbate system variability, only that in mature organized markets this is not an externality. Wind's competitors actually internalize it by added profit from selling more reserves. If you are speaking with a utility executive whose gas-fired plants will not be allowed to recoup added revenue for providing extra regulation/reserves because its still selling at regulated marginal cost based rates, that's a different story. But while that remains the present circumstance in some areas, that's not the future of the sector, which has been steadily moving in the other direction for a good 15 years now.
    
    Max Epstein

    Permalink

22. 

    amazingdrx Posted 5:00 am
    24 Dec 2008

    Ocean currentThis is a steady source of renewable energy often overlooked.  Combined with wind/wave power platforms it could provide a consistent base and peak power. Peak could be stored in building mass as heat/cold.
    
    http://amazngdrx.blogharbor.com/blog John Schneider, Northern Wisconsin

    Permalink

23. 

    Jon Rynn Posted 5:05 am
    24 Dec 2008

    thanks, everyonewhile I digest all of this with the latkes, hope we can come back to this at some point

    Permalink

24. 

    David Mack Posted 1:51 am
    25 Dec 2008

    SeanCan you comment on combined heat and power's ability to attract venture capital. How profitable are CHP projects under today's regulatory regime? Are you worried that your access to capital will be reduced if and when the "greentech" boom goes bust?

    Permalink

25. 

    Sean Casten Posted 2:28 am
    06 Jan 2009

    David MackA partial answer is that these are somewhat separate.  The bulk of CHP projects are in the $5 - 50M range while the bulk of VC investments are about the same.  Since investors would like to invest in diverse portfolios (e.g., more than one project), this means that the CHP developers are usually chasing bigger funding sources (private equity, project finance, public equity, etc.) than traditional venture capital.  In some ways, this has added - at least from my vantage point - to the challenge VC money has, because the size it is comfortable investing is more suitable to small scale solar, biogas, etc. where economics are simply more challenging for economy-of-scale reasons even before technology issues are taken into account.

    Permalink

26. 

    Sean Casten Posted 2:35 am
    06 Jan 2009

    MaxWe may be.  As follow on to my point though, I'm hearing from a number of folks that in many parts of the country, maintaining reserve requirements on the system now means that for every 1 MW of new wind we add, we have to add 1 MW of (typically gas-fired) reserve.  That's a big deal both environmentally and economically, and not one that any of us ought to discount in the hope that magic technology will resolve the challenges associated with electricity storage.

    Permalink

27. 

    Max8806 Posted 5:31 am
    06 Jan 2009

    Sean,I would dispute that 1 for 1 figure across most of the country. Certainly it would not be true of solar, which is more reliably present on peak (daytime, summer). But even for wind, say a wind farm has a 20% chance of producing no power on peak, and an 80% chance of producing somewhere between its max. For low grid penetrations of wind, it has a capacity value (value towards meeting required capacity reserves, starting to also be marketed in some mature markets like ISO-NE) of 80% X the average of its average power when operating.
    Or to put it better, its capacity value is its average power. Required reserve capacity requirements are just the capacity required to meet NERC's standard of (on average) one outage every 10 years. Wind's variability (standard deviation of output) hardly effects net load variability (standard deviation of net load) at low penetrations. And at higher percentages will have a decreasing--as percentage of power output but increasing in absolute terms-- and still nonzero capacity value. As these issues become more and more important with ever more renewables, the difference in performance between organized and nonorganized wholesale markets will become harder and harder to ignore.
    http://stoft.com/metaPage/lib/2008-08-Stoft-Wind-Capacity ...
    
    Max Epstein

    Permalink

28. 

    Sean Casten Posted 6:44 am
    06 Jan 2009

    MaxYou're absolutely right.  A system with no wind has no meaningful increase in the need for reserve margins when 1 MW of wind is brought on line.  At the other extreme, a system with 100% wind needs 100% backup to supply power whenever the wind drops off.  But the transition to these two extremes isn't linear; at some point, wind becomes a significant enough piece of the grid that adding more requires a comparable increase in reserve margins.  (Solar can be ignored from this discussion since it simply doesn't contribute materially to the grid today, and therefore hasn't come anywhere near to the point where it's own intermittency is causing stability problems.)
    I am by no means an expert on the subject, but am told by friends in the utility sector that in those places where wind has become a significant part of the grid - in particular, large swathes of the western US - we have been forced to build new fossil assets and/or change the dispatch order of existing generation assets to accomodate the wind volatility.  As you note, new build is driven by NERC rules on 1 in 10 year outages, but the dispatch is driven by the system manager regardless of NERC rules to maintain grid stability (e.g., even if the utility isn't mandated to add a gas turbine, they may still operate one of their existing units in hot standby as a result of greater wind use.)  These same folks tell me that even the NERC rules are important though, as the concentration of wind in windy areas, does create the possiblity that significant chunks of their mix shut down at the same time - again, in those areas where wind has become a significant fraction of the power on the system - thus getting to the 1:1 ratio.
    I don't mean to make a big point of this, as it is ultimately not my expertise; I raised this at the start only to point out the larger issue that if you are going to invest in wind, you better appreciate those risks which are largely beyond your control.

    Permalink

29. 

    Max8806 Posted 7:44 am
    06 Jan 2009

    Sean,When the system manager "changes the dispatch," its a cost to the grid, but not necessarily cross-subsidization of wind by competing fuels. Whether it is cross-subsidization depends on how well the market is designed.
    In those will well-designed ancillary services (e.g. regulation) markets, there is no cross subsidization, because having to procure more spinning reserves or rely more on fast energy markets produces a benefit for wind's competitors that is internalized. Only in an immature market that continues to price ancillary services at marginal cost-based rates will there be cross subsidization, because the MC does not reflect the greater value of the service when demand goes up (and so service becomes relatively scarcer).
    I never suggested that because wind at low penetrations contributes little variability that its capacity should have equal treatment with more reliable sources. Only that there is some equivalency, even if its on a sliding scale. There's no reason why you can't offer different capacity payments to each successive 100MW that comes online. Again, I'm talking specifically about mature markets, this time in regards to having capacity payments (ISO-NE, NYISO, PJM, maybe one or two more).
    The markets are not always obvious because you have to merge economic efficiency with the policy preference that we have no more than one involuntary load shedding event every 10 years. Maintaining that reliability is not just a matter of getting the economics right, its a separate constraint on the market. But these issues, while not always obvious, are not intractable. I'm sure you've detected my theme here, but well designed markets will handle this issue much better than a utility executive trying to judge what goes where, especially with his decisions confounded by potential discrepancies in what kinds of energy services can be recovered under the MC-based regulatory framework.
    
    Max Epstein

    Permalink

30. 

    Karen Street Posted 9:04 am
    06 Jan 2009

    Usually wind and hydro backupIf 100 MW in wind is  built, the backup is pretty close to 100 MW. In Washington and some other areas, as I understand it, wind can reduce the use of hydro. In most of the US, inefficient natural gas is the preferred backup (not coal), and these plants are slowly ramped on and off in line with expected changes in wind power. I thought it took too long to ramp coal power.
    I am curious about the GHG emissions of wind as it used. Have you ever seen such an analysis? I presume that wind plus inefficient natural gas in the Midwest produces less GHG/kWh than efficient natural gas, but is the same true in CA? Does the analysis exist?
    
    Karen Street

    Permalink

31. 

    Sean Casten Posted 9:16 am
    06 Jan 2009

    KarenYou're right in the NW.  Elsewhere, the backup tends to come from fossil.  
    Note that whether coal or gas, the option isn't a cold-start, as even a gas turbine needs several minutes to come on line, while the grid needs to maintain power in fractional-second time constants in response to shifting load and generation availability.  As a result, plants are run at low part load such that they can quickly ramp up to full load as called for.  (Referred to as "spinning reserve" for obvious reasons.)  A direct analogy is to your car: turn it off at a stop light and you'll be slower off the block then if you leave it in idle.  And just like a car, the fuel economy isn't great when you idle.
    Re: your question, I've seen Lester Lave/Granger Morgan's group at Carnegie Mellon do presentations on the carbon impacts of wind, but I don't have the presentations.  Might google a bit and see if anything turns up.  Share it if you find something good!

    Permalink

32. 

    Max8806 Posted 9:22 am
    06 Jan 2009

    One last plug for markets, Karen and SeanNote that this potential for unintended consequence of wind power increasing emissions is due to two market failures - carbon not being priced (which underprices running plants more inefficiently at half power to ramp), and ancillary services are not fully marketed in those areas. With a price on carbon and a market for ancillary services/regulation, these problems go away. If it increases emissions, it will decrease profits, or raise the price of ancillary services so high that significant innovation will be spurred in providing carbon free ways of providing it. One current idea that already has contracts (Beacon Power's) with three organized markets is a flywheel - or mechanical battery.
    
    Max Epstein

    Permalink

33. 

    Sean Casten Posted 12:33 pm
    06 Jan 2009

    No doubt, MaxAlthough that's really not the point of the post - it was simply that if you aren't (a) cognizant of the need for market reform and/or (b) focused on finding companies with the regulatory skills (and chutzpah) to affect such reforms, then you're not likely to get a good return on your money.

    Permalink

34. 

    Max8806 Posted 9:16 am
    07 Jan 2009

    Or you just take your money elsewhereto New York, New England, PJM RTO area, the Midwest ISO area, and depending on what you need from the market California.
    
    Max Epstein

    Permalink