The article "
seems helpful until one contemplates the importance of the differences between assertions, facts, and demonstrable experiences. Cogeneration is indeed a superb way to realize more effective use of an energy source (coal, gas, oil, or whatever), but there are painfully severe limitations on its practicality. It is essential that a reasonably adjacent user of the "waste heat" be suitable not only for the quantity and quality of the "waste heat stream," but also the timing of its availability. The costs of heat recovery systems are seldom inexpensive (both physically and financially), and waste heat is just that. "Waste heat" is indeed a "waste" because its value is degraded below the point of local usefulness. For example, 1000 Btu's at 1000F are obviously much more valuable and potentially useful than 1000 Btu's at 200F. If an evaluation fails to take such facts into proper consideration, false and misleading conclusions can easily be reached.
The "smart grid" concept is also potentially useful, but only to the extent of its capabilities. It does not add any energy to the grid, it merely provides some control capabilities.
Remote wind, solar, or other energy sources still carry with them the transmission system losses which inherently increase with distance.
The long and short of all of this is that there are no simple, easy solutions, and everything involves very substantial investments (both physical and financial).
The inherent reliability problems of wind and solar power do indeed make them preferentially more costly because of the burden that their reliability limitations impose upon the relibility needs of the connected system. The article "
should be read and re-read until understood by anyone and everyone. It very nicely expresses the very problems that seem so often to be dreamily dismissed by those with overly hopeful attitudes about "renewable" energy sources.
Energy storage does offer some aid to the reliability problems, but energy storage systems have their own inherent problems. The main one is the physical reality that "energy out" will always be significantly less than "energy in" for any such system. Therefore, that inherent lost energy must come from some source either conventional or renewable. The practical balances may prove to be very different from anyone's initial presumptions.
I very much favor the development of new and different energy conversion and power production systems, and the more truly environmentally friendly the better. The diffences that I have with many, if not most, "environmentalists" is their failure to recognize that the mere declaration that something is "environmentally friendly" provides no assurance that the subject device, system, or proposal will not have adverse consequences that greatly overwhelm the anticipated good presumed to be provided by that device, system, or proposal.
It is very easy to "draw a line around" some seemingly wonderful item for the purpose of evaluating its performance and decree that it is wonderful. Unfortunately, when that "magic line" is drawn around the truly complete system (mining, manufacturing, transportation, ...) the evaluation is sure to be less favorable.
Plug-in electric cars provide a convenient example of this problem. They are commonly described as being zero-emission vehicles. Looking at just the vehicle itself, it may indeed have near zero emissions (abraded rubber from the tires surely constitutes an emission, for example). The complete evaluation of its zero-emission status changes dramatically when one is forced to consider the energy sources, transmission & distribution system losses, manufacturing, .... How can the complete system associated with such a vehicle ever be considered to be zero-emission other than by denying the existence of reality? Similar problems are associated with all systems whether conventional or otherwise, and nothing can be considered to be truly "environmentally friendly" unless the entire system and its effects are thoroughly and fairly evaluated and then found to be truly beneficial in the whole.
Valuable advice from a professor many years ago: First, design for graceful failure. Everything we build will eventually fail, so we must strive to avoid injuries or secondary damage when that failure occurs. Only then can practicality and economics be properly considered.