Tilting at Turbines: Why Alternative Energy Won't Solve Our Problems Anytime Soon

There are actually ways to store power. Most grids do it with pumping stations that are filled with water overnight and have the water released to drive turbines during peak load mid-day. There just is not a huge amount of spare hydro capacity available to absorb much more excess off-peak generation.

But, it is very difficult to transmit AC power over long distances without incurring a lot of loss. AC likes to jump to ground more readily than DC. This is why Europe is considering a DC transmissions grid. It would allow transmission over long distances which would allow wind power from Spain to fill reservoirs in Norway.

Another technology being considered for storing power is compressed air. This has some great advantages in that the turbines could be used to mechanically drive the compressors. That would save the mechanical-electric-mechanical conversion losses.

The notion that we can convert the nation's fleet of vehicles to run on natural gas, a rapidly dwindling supply of NG, is truly misguided. What will the millions of homes use for heat if this is done? The price of existing NG will go through the roof (not that Boone Pickens would mind) and it will be used up much more quickly than it is today.

However, in principle the wind power investment is a good idea. The problem of course is getting the generated power to the consumers on both coasts. This would require a massive upgrade of the power grid and that in turn would require the federal government to essentially force state and local governments to cooperate in that effort because of the balkinized nature of ownership and management of the existing grid. This is a massive undertaking, not the sort of thing that can be done in a decade as the optimists suggest. But in the long run, sure, why not?

Upgrading the nation's power grid is long overdue. The ASCE's report card for America's infrastructre has listed the power grid as a priority item for quite some time.

AC is subject to radiation losses.(what Jay calls jumping to ground)
DC is subject to what are called I squared R losses ( it depends on the current and the resistance of the conductors) which is why it's done at very high voltages; a million volts or more.. the higher the voltage the lower the current required for any given power transfer. There are always losses when converting from one form to another; even rectification, which is required to convert AC to DC is lossy to some extent and then it has to be reconverted to ac, more losses. No free lunch anywhere, the laws of thermodynamics being what they are. Now if we had room temperature superconductivity on a practical scale...

a rapidly dwindling supply of NG,

I thought there was a lot out there (or down there rather) that we haven't tapped yet...CNG is the easiest conversion scenario, much faster and cheaper than say Hydrogen or even electric. More nukes for non-portable power needs and cng to take the load from petrol would be better in my view than the T Boone plan. How much longer would the NG last if we weren't using it to generate power?

How much longer would the NG last if we weren't using it to generate power?

I don't know and I have not seen any solid data on that. Perhaps someone in Newsvine is more familiar with the numbers on existing NG. But there are reasons to be concerned if his plan is implemented.

Unlike oil wells that generally deplete on a gradual curve, when natural gas wells run dry, they stop producing all together. We might be are nearing peak production of natural gas and the depletion rate of NG has been increased massively in the past few years due in part to better technology that allows more thorough depletion of existing NG deposits. If we add to this the demand that would be created by converting the nation's truck fleet to NG (not to mention building thousands of fueling stations across the country) the price of existing NG would sky rocket even if all the gas used to produce electricity were supplanted by wind and/or nuclear generation. This price increase would not go over too well in areas that depend on NG for cooking and heating. Natural gas is also used to produce chemical fertilizer, so there is yet another competing use.

Even if supply issues are not a problem, a vast infrastructure would need to be created to supply fuel to the converted vehicles. Who will pay for it?

That said, it is good the Pickens is discussing this issue in a high profile manner. He is a seasoned and successful businessman who has spent his life in the oil/energy industry who should be listened to by anyone interested in energy issues and deserves to be commended for his efforts. I do not think he is foolish enough to actually believe the US can or will become "energy independent" however. He brings a respected and sober voice to an issue that does not receive adequate and responsible attention in our discourse. This should be a major issue in the presidential campaign, sadly neither candidate gives it thorough or realistic consideration.

According to the Department of Energy newest numbers available US natural gas usage is 635.1 billion cubic feet per year, and we have 211 trillion cubic feet of proven reserves in the US. So with current usage which include vehicles already using CNG there's a little better than 200 years worth of reserves. And that's just based on American proven reserves worldwide the numbers are to huge to write. Russia has around 20 times the proven reserve of the US.