Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

BlueStreak

(8,377 posts)
17. That's interesting. Do you care to explain why
Tue May 21, 2013, 04:24 PM
May 2013

a) there are so few of these if it is all working out so well; and

b) there continues to be so much research in other technologies (such as flow batteries) if this is such a well-proven concept?

What they never want to talk about is the efficiency. It seems to be decent -- maybe 40% or a little better -- if you are talking about a 24-hour cycle. It isn't clear to me that any of these operations sees this as a technology that is suitable for working well beyond the 24-hour cycle. You know, not every day has exactly the same AC demand on the grid. And not every night has the same amount of wind available for generation. Clearly pumped water provides storage that has minimal degradation over weeks or even months. And flow batteries potentially could scale to provide something similar.

Again, I am not against the concept, but an not convinced it is "all that". I make my living investing and see all sorts of hype in the news as schools pitch ideas for research bucks and entrepreneurs try to get seed money from the equity markets. So I hope you will understand why I am skeptical of all this current hype surrounding compressed air. The fact that it has been around so long and never really established much of a foothold is a pretty good reason to be skeptical, I think.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

There are so many things about this that are bad. Gregorian May 2013 #1
Naturally there are losses… the question is whether they are acceptable or not OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #3
It's like hydro but with huge thermal losses. It might be good for special situations. Gregorian May 2013 #5
CAES figured prominently in Scientific American’s “Solar Grand Plan” in 2008 OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #6
No prob if it's solar. That's a whole different ballgame. I assumed worst case- fossil. Gregorian May 2013 #8
I was taught that everything was solar energy (at one time) OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #12
Hmmmm ... BlueStreak May 2013 #2
Your assessment of the availability of suitable locations isn't accurate kristopher May 2013 #10
And can they hold 100 PSI of pressure, for example? BlueStreak May 2013 #11
Well, if you don't believe it then all those academics and researchers must be wrong. kristopher May 2013 #13
We'll see how this works out. BlueStreak May 2013 #14
And by “working out” you mean… OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #15
That's interesting. Do you care to explain why BlueStreak May 2013 #17
By all means! Be skeptical! OKIsItJustMe May 2013 #18
There are more than two photovotaic installations in operation in the world BlueStreak May 2013 #19
"The fact that it has been around so long and never really established ..." kristopher May 2013 #20
Thanks for your financial advice BlueStreak May 2013 #21
"f I understand the facts correctly" kristopher May 2013 #22
I am in the presence of greatness. Sorry that it wasn't as obvious to me as it should have been. BlueStreak May 2013 #24
You're the one out of line. kristopher May 2013 #25
You don't know what you're talking about. kristopher May 2013 #16
Worth trying. silverweb May 2013 #4
Theoretical this, theoretical that... wtmusic May 2013 #7
Poor little nuclear loving wtmusic... kristopher May 2013 #9
Denholm was writing "studies" about this years ago. Lovins was handing out this bull in the 1970's NNadir May 2013 #23
Poor Nnads... kristopher May 2013 #26
What a surprise... NNadir May 2013 #27
The larger problem has been dipshits pretending that a few nuclear plants will do anything... kristopher May 2013 #28
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Environment & Energy»Not just blowing in the w...»Reply #17