That's actually the biggest problem with wind power; when you have excess power, you can't do anything with it except curtail your production and lock your turbines so they can't spin.
To be able to put that power to a good use, while also still realizing revenue (even at a lower per kwh rate) is win-win.
Wind power, without subsidies, is already as low as 3-4 cents/kwh. If the rate of install continues, price will continue to decline, and we'll have even more cheap wind available in the US for large-scale projects such as this.
"That's actually the biggest problem with wind power; when you have excess power, you can't do anything with it except curtail your production and lock your turbines so they can't spin."
There seems like countless ways a society could use "excess energy". What this article talks about is more like time-shifting the energy it's captured. But if excess energy were a problem, wouldn't you be able to store it in batteries, or apply it towards desalinization or other net positive activities rather than just locking the turbines?
That plant is a battery, it just uses potential and kinetic energy instead of chemical processes to store it. However, your comment, and Ufo's comment, got me thinking and exploring, and realizing that some of the biggest users of electricity in california, like the Edmonston Pumping Plant [1], don't have forebays or the like to store water to balance out power consumption throughout the day. Power consumption really needs time-of-day based metering on it so that power consumed during peak hours is more expensive than off-peak hours, to give incentives to better even out the load.
"Power consumption really needs time-of-day based metering on it so that power consumed during peak hours is more expensive than off-peak hours, to give incentives to better even out the load."
I was under the impression that something like this was already in-place.
This the right answer. Desalination is a last resort, that's why its used in places like Israel where there's no other option. Desalination is enormously energy inefficient.
Energy Inefficient for Agriculture use. The cost/efficiency of Desalination has dropped dramatically in the last 10 years. Singapore buys its water for $0.75/m^3. Plenty cheap for residential use.
Energy Consumption is 4.2kWhr/m3 - and that was in 2006. Presumably technology is improving.
With reasonable conservation efforts (low flush toilets, low-flow showers, water efficient washing machine and dish washer) the average individual needs 200 liters a day, which, with desalination, would cost $0.10/day/person or $3/month to supply, (not including transportation - which isn't too expensive for coastal cities).
Follow on article: http://www.waterworld.com/articles/2013/09/singapore-s-secon...The 25-year WPA will see Hyflux deliver desalinated water – through a Design, Build, Own and Operate (DBOO) model - at a fixed low price of S$0.45 (USD $.36) per cubic metre for the first year
Singapore has been leading the way with desalination research, with projects hoping to reduce current energy requirements for membrane desalination from 3.5 kWh to 0.8 kWh/m3, including work on biomimetic membranes
If they do get it to .8 kWh/m^3, I expect we'll see wide(r) spread deployment in arid coastal regions like California for residential use.
An acre-foot is 1,233 cubic meters, so at $0.75/m^3, that cost would be $925. That's actually not too outrageously much higher then the quoted water rates, and the article discusses ag rates as high as $1,400/acre-foot, which would be higher than the desal rates you quote.
I was expecting desalination to be far less reasonable. It's not cheap, by a long shot, but if the values you're citing are valid, it's not beyond consideration.
Also note that ag water isn't fully treated municipal water supply, which is more expensive.
reply