Interesting thread all in all.

It seems to me that the key point is not that you generate green energy but that you consume green energy. If you modify your consumption pattern to match green energy supply then you maximise the market for green energy. This only becomes an issue when renewables reach a significant proportion of the grid. It seems to me that Tom is pointing out a problem that is going to be a big issue rather than one that is a big issue.

Paul Watson may have to wait a long time for electricity storage to become cost effective. At the domestic level, it seems to me, it is better to think in terms of energy rather than electricity storage. A hot water tank or a EV battery is more cost effective than a dedicated device to store surplus energy as it has a primary function of value and performs a storage function as a free byproduct.

Using electricity at times when it is more abundant (aka cheap) instead of when it is scarce (aka expensive) is a remarkably green activity. As time progresses real time markets for electricity will become the norm to encourage people to move load to cheap (aka efficient and/or renewable) production times.

It isn’t all doom and gloom. I hope by starting now that when the storage and metering problems are solved I will be ready to contribute. Then hopefully the environmental payoff will happen too.

And as for 2am washing cycles, doing it a lot lately with a newborn in the house

Second, it’s an interesting point you’re making, but I’m going to raise a few points (in no particular order):

- Demand is steadily increasing and the price of electricity is expected to at least double in the next five to seven years. So, even if everything you said was true, how long will it remain true?
- There are very few places where home micro-generation is all based on wind (or only one clean energy source). There seems to be a balance between wind, solar, geothermal, biomass and solar hot water. Where there’s a mono-culture of home micro-generation, it tends to be solar…. right?
- Solar power output curves follow peak demand curves, with solar falling off a little faster than demand in the evenings.
- Wind and solar tend to be complimentary; most windy locations are windiest during the evenings and at night.
- Demand is traditionally highest on peak solar power output days. (Hot and sunny = high demand and high solar output.)

None of these points invalidates your argument, but you don’t seem to take any of them into account.

Reading through your post again, to paraphrase you: People with wind generation don’t necessarily help the environment, because their wind turbines are most productive when the grid is over supplied with wind energy. (Yes?)

I would really need to see evidence for that before I took that claim at face value. Assuming that’s true (it could well be), and ignoring all the points I raised that complicate things, you’re still overlooking the fact that every grid has to be managed, both in terms of meeting demand AND load balancing.

Most grids are subject to local spots of higher demand, lower supply or lower voltage, so even a grid that can technically meet demand can be subject to local areas of under-supply. This load balancing is VERY tricky, and the best way to deal with it is often to lower local demand either by conservation or micro-generation.

They way they resolve this now on most managed grid is to keep additional dispatchable power supplies in reserve. These have to be distributed so they can serve demand or load balancing purposes. Most grids maintain at least some power stations, usually natural gas or coal, which are kept in reserve for both peak demand and load balancing purposes. Natural gas plants are popular as they can fire up quickly, cost less to have sitting idle and are relatively clean and inexpensive to build and run (as long as you ignore the CO2).

The more often the grid is oversupplied, regardless of the reason, the less often these additional plants are fired up, especially if the over-supply is coming from distributed local generation.

So a more frequently over-supplied grid can easily mean a grid with a lower overall carbon foot print, if that over supply is a result of additional supply from clean sources or lower grid demands (requiring less load balancing) resulting from home micro-generation. In either case, you have a circumstance where the normal (carbon emitting) reserves are running less often, which benefits the environment.

So maybe it’s safe to say that the benefits of wind are more indirect than most people would assume.

I’ll admit, I may have missed something fundamental, and I’ll also admit the only grid I know even remotely well is Ontario’s. I know just enough about California’s and New York’s to know that most of what I said applies there too. (I’ll also admit that I’ve really been burning the candle at both ends this week, so for all I know this whole reply has been nothing more than long winded, incoherent non-sense.)

Still, interesting post, it definitely made me think, and I definitely agree with every word in your update at the end.

Cheers.