Wind destabilizing the grid is a non-issue at the moment; renewables are only 2% of our generation as a whole. Worrying about that now is like trying to optimize code that does not even compile yet.

In the long term, though, I can see this being an issue if grid storage does not pick up on its own. There is a fight brewing already in some places that gas power plants are the only solution to counter potential renewable growth and keep the grid stable.

I think to make progress we need to end this fuel uses mantra (coal is baseload, gas is peaking, solar is unpredictable). This severely limits thinking in policy. Like we overhauled energy policy and extracted generation from distribution in the past, I think we need to overhaul again and strictly extract generation from storage in future policy.

1. 1) Generation (just the average electrons coming in regardless of source)
2. 2) Storage (exclusively what is used to ramp up and down with usage)

That way all generation is treated equally and we create a new clean and clear market for electric storage for private firms to compete in (much like firms compete for gas storage).

Not true for all the US; in New England the strogest wind is off the coast and most of the population is on the coast line.

Somthing to think about; if you remove a dam and the pond from hydro and just use the turbines it is exactly the same as wind; weather dependent and uncontrollable. The pond and dam are the grid storage that make hydro rock-solid baseload.

Companies I have worked for outright think in binary:

• 1) Only top-talent in the US (rock star programmers).
• 2) If someone is not top talent move the job to India for rock-bottom-cost.

It has unfortunately become simiar in other trades; if it is highly custom specialized woodwork for a mansion, hire the top-talent carpenter; otherwise might as well hire illegal immigrants to bang nails.

It has not always been this way.

You are correct in the corner-case that is Hawaii.

In New England, however, our local grid operator (ISO-NE) has not even attempted to implement the most basic technology to even see solar's effect on the grid.

Yet our local electric utilities such as National Grid are trying to neuter residental solar because of its "effects on the grid"

In other words, they haven't even tried to be pro-active about potential problems before they launched a war on solar. It is all about the situation at-hand. For example, yes, driving could kill you however if you drive drunk with your hands tied behind your back whose fault is that? Do we ban driving or fix the problems?

You have to compare sealed lead acid deep-cycle (SLA) batteries to the Tesla battery. The reason is standard car batteries can't be deep-cycled and the release hydrogen when charged (which could blow up an enclosed house). Cost-wise the Tesla battery is on-par with a good SLA setup while being smaller and lighter and a 10-year warranty. Right now it is a good deal. If the price drops significantly when the Gigafactory goes on-line it could be a game-changer.

The problem is not the ads themselves. Advertising is free speech. The problem is that the ads don't show the purchaser (the sponsor) so the reader has no context on potential bias.

Basically Google is enabling astroturf campaigns.

No matter how misleading a political ad is, there is always a "paid for by X" at the end of it. We should require the same of all advertising.

The article's main point was that given limited resources an engineer tackles the problems that have the biggest impact on safety, not the most publicized or scary ones.

But the article missed the point of a key quote from an engineer: "Then how do I have enough information to make a compelling case to convince an executive panel that they really should spend thirty million dollars on a recall". This is the core problem; safety resources rely on someone taking initiative to make a compelling business case against other competing objectives like features, sales, marketing, etc.

If safety were truly taken seriously then the way safety is approached should be the opposite: all observed safety issues should be on the docket to be fixed by default, and then the case should be made why it does not make sense to fix particular problems (for exampe, unlikely to happen, a rare defect, etc).

Massachusetts did ot shut down Cape Wind. Cape Wind is delayed because rich people on Cape Cod launched endless lawsuits because it would affect their view from their private compunds (even thought it was to be 4.8 miles off th coast).

It was so bad that the judge even commented on it: "There comes a point at which the right to litigate can become a vexatious abuse of the democratic process."

This dried up Cape Wind's financing which lead to National Grid and NStar pulling their power purchase agreements.

Arguing off-shore wind on its technical merits or detractors that is useful; spreading misinformation is not.

> I doubt very very much if the final decision was made by an engineer. It was far more likely made by either an accountant or a lawyer.

This is the key. I remember taking a required ethical course in engineering because it was felt that engineers must learn the human factor of their decisions. All the cases we studied where unethical decisions was made was a result of business or political decisions, not engineering decisions.

Like a private gets blamed when a general messes up, engineers get blamed when a VP messes up. There is a reason why generals and VPs rarely write down orders or decisions.

Sealed Lead Acid Batteries (SLA) for home use go for about $250/kw. The current Tesla/SolarCity Pilot batteries go for about $1300/kwh; which means even with the 50% PG&E rebate it is still more expensive then SLA.

Unfortunately lithium-ion does not have many advantages over SLA for home use because, unlike a car, weight does not matter.

I really hope that when Musk does the actual product announcement that the packs are either much more powerful or much cheaper. Otherwise this really doesn't change anything. . .

At first I had no idea why Fiorina would run for president. . .but now I get it, she's the attack dog for Hillary. Amazingly similar to how Underwood used Jackie Sharp to attack Dunbar in House of Cards.

The victors get to write the history. . .or at least attempt to.

What as up with everything having BASIC back then? I remember reading the BASIC manual for the Commodore64 (a great manual) and writing BASIC programs only to find it severely limited in what it could do. That experience turned me off from programming for the next decade. It was only when I learned C that it became clear to me how powerful programming can be. . .

Am I the only one who thinks this is the right thing done the wrong way? All cars the same? Swap cars at pit-stop time? There is an opportunity here for competition through racing to push the envelope on what is possible in electric cars; why is it effectively being wasted? It was racing that helped perfect the gasoline car; heck Lois Chevrolet was a racer and Henry Ford did his fair share of racing.

Looking at the SRT_01E stats I think a stock Tesla P85D *family sedan* would actually have a chance against it!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spark-Renault_SRT_01E

If recharge time were part of the race a P85D would likely murder a SRT_01E with a battery swap.

This is the type of innovation that should be encouraged in races; not discouraged by using only one make and model of vehicle and creating silly rules to make up for its inadequacy!