Slashdot Mirror
US Wind Power Is Expected To Double In the Next 5 Years
merbs writes: The U.S. Department of Energy anticipates that the amount of electricity generated by wind power to more than double over the next five years. Right now, wind provides the nation with about 4.5 percent of its power. But an in-depth DOE report (PDF) released yesterday forecasts that number will rise to 10 percent by 2020—then 20 percent by 2030, and 35 percent by 2050.
Wind is kicking solar's ass. And there is good reason.
In Rhode Island, at least, the offshore wind demo project is just scam to double electricity rate, while wholesale rates wen down 50%
The only way to guarantee extra wind power.
Has anyone studied the effect on the environment of taking all of that energy out of the wind? What if seeds and dust aren't carried as far? How does that affect terraforming? What about migratory birds? Has anyone bothered to solve the problem of mass kills during migration season?
These questions will never be answered, I don't think, because the politics that drive wind power are the same as those that drive anthro climate change - "We're right, shut up if you disagree?"
The Earth is going to be destroyed by people (on both sides of the political aisle) who refuse to take a reasoned approach to our energy crisis. The root causes of our energy shortage, climate change, starvation, hunger, crime, and disease, are all one in the same: OVERPOPULATION.
We're 7 times as numerous as the Earth can sustain. Unless and until we fix that problem, our habitable climate WILL be destroyed.
Not likely with a change tp a conservative Administration. All wind subsidies will dry up killing the faux industry.
There will certainly be a lot of hot air and bluster to be harnessed leading up to the 2016 presidential election.
So you think we need to get rid of 6 out of every 7 people. Will you be first in line?
My bean consumption is up 32% over last year.
Thanks folks, I'll be here all week. Try our legendary potato bar.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
It produces bugger all difference to mesoscale weather patterns. The removal of forests to plant crops and build towns and cities made far far more of an impact. The building of cities made vastly more difference than any necessary wind power extraction (despite being a tiny change compared to the change produced by deforestation).
When sail power was producing all the industry, especially seagoing transport, we were extracting gigawatts of energy from the wind to do so.
The weather didn't change when we moved to oil/coal power.
Just in time for the world to be destroyed by climate change.
4.5 percent already? I found this number astonishing, I would have guessed less than one percent. Shows what I know. It seems wind power has a bit of a wind problem, or I have a head in the sand problem. 50/50
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
From what I have read, some new wind farm projects have gone belly up. The ideal that this is somehow a practical and sound investment is a bit skewed. In fact in the midwest two factors are killing wind farms. One is local opinion that votes down any wind farm projects, and two those that have been built find their cost of operation a bit higher then expected. Talking with one maintenance worker who maintains them. He says, that many of generators fail to perform optimally and shut down far too frequently then was anticipated. Leaving generators idle for much longer waiting for parts and people to repair them. He says many companies who invest in them were assuming they were a turn key operation and that you install them and forget them. Unfortunately that has not happened.
and it wants it's story back.
Has anyone studied the effect on the environment of taking all of that energy out of the wind?
Yes. It's basically a nonissue.
What if seeds and dust aren't carried as far?
Then they settle someplace else. No actual evidence exists however to indicate wind turbines are actually causing such an effect however on any sort of substantial scale.
How does that affect terraforming?
We're on Terra so terraforming on terra is meaningless.
What about migratory birds? Has anyone bothered to solve the problem of mass kills during migration season?
The number of birds killed by wind turbines is a rounding error compared to the number killed by domestic cats.
The Earth is going to be destroyed by people (on both sides of the political aisle) who refuse to take a reasoned approach to our energy crisis.
What energy crisis? We have no lack of energy. We have a pollution crisis due to a lack of clean energy sources. Wind is demonstrably cleaner than some of the alternatives. There is no ideal energy source with no problems so it's a minimization problem. What is the least worst way to supply energy without resulting in catastrophic climate effects.
The root causes of our energy shortage, climate change, starvation, hunger, crime, and disease, are all one in the same: OVERPOPULATION.
There is no energy shortage. Climate change is due to pollution, not overpopulation. Starvation and hunger are distribution problems, not production problems. Crime has existed since the dawn of mankind and has nothing inherently to do with overpopulation. Same for disease. At most some of these problems can be exacerbated by population but population is not the root cause of any of them.
With climate change, there is more energy in the atmosphere - higher wind speeds.
We won't be able to harness all of this increase of course, generally wind turbines can't handle tornadoes for example.
I personally think that vertical wind turbines (that look like an egg beater sticking up, rather than a large propeller ) are the way to go.
After all, the US has elections coming up. All that hot air can be harnessed for energy even if it will heat the planet by a few more fractions of a degree.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
nt
2016 elections. Need I say more?
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
Natural gas is so cheap and so abundant in the US that wind power makes zero financial sense as a competitor. If wind actually does double, it will be a huge misallocation of resources.
And it won't really help the environment. The natural gas will just be burnt off or vented to the atmosphere instead of being captured to produce electricity.
Not ONE post from someone complaining that wind can't possibly work, and the only possible solution is to build [insert nuclear power unicorn faerie dust machine here].
Wow, the worm has indeed turned.
You just wait until my big brother Fusion shows up. He'll kick all of ya'lls asses!
He said he'd be here any decade now.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Surely this is due to congresses new open door policy!
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
...is still nothing.
I recently noticed an interesting convergence. The long term growth of both solar and wind capacity is exponential. The growth rate for solar is higher than for wind power but wind power is currently ahead in capacity. If we take a capacity factor of 20% for solar and 30% for wind, how long does it take to cover the roughly 20 TW of world energy demand?
For solar, taking 200 MW of capacity in 1995 and 100,000 MW in 2012 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G... we get to 100,000,000 MW in 39 years from 1995 since (log(100 TW)-log(200 MW))/(log(100,000 MW)-log(200 MW))/17 years)=39 years. So 2034 is when we may expect solar PV to cover all energy demand.
For wind, taking 7,600 MW of capacity in 1995 and 369,553 MW in 2014 http://www.gwec.net/wp-content... we get to 60,000,000 MW in 39 years from 1997 since (log(60 TW)-log(7,600 MW))/(log(369,533 MW)-log(7.500 MW))/17 years = 39 years. So, 2036 is where we may expect wind power to cover all energy demand.
So, within just a couple years of each other, either technology can be projected to grow to cover all current demand.
A driver for ongoing exponential growth for PV is the still falling cost of manufacture. It is expected that panels will cost $0.36/W to produce in 2017. http://www.greentechmedia.com/...
This seems to be a faster rate than pledges coming in for Paris are anticipating so we might have some confidence that those pledges are going to be met.
Has there been a wind sustainability study for future use with the climate changing? I mean it's been stated that there will be rain in places where there is no rain now. And rainy places will have drought in the future. So where are the wind models at for the future? I'm sure there are graphs and pretty pictures for us simpletons. And with these studies, by harvesting the wind (slowing it down, redirecting, etc) how does will that affect the ecosystem at large?
Now I'm being a bit facetious, but it should be a study for science. For example, there is x wind on the Earth, you slow down x to y, what are the results? If we are talking about invisible gasses in to the air, that could appear simplistic, but science has proven otherwise. So slowing down the Earth's wind patterns could have long term damaging effects on the Earth. Just as scooping up photons and keeping them from reaching the Earth's surface.
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
Too bad it doesn't work for most of the country. There simply isn't enough wind in many areas to even consider it.
Well, at least there is solar to fill in the gaps. No, wait. We don't have enough sunshine in may parts of the country either.
Fail. Completely. Yet again. Sigh.
It mixed up the percentage of coal and wind.
This a study that makes certain assumptions about usage and capacity and draws conclusions of the realities of what that market will look like into the future. This one is labeled the "Study Scenario' and is paired with the Central Study Scenario' and the 'Baseline Scenario', all of which make differing assumptions about what direction the Wind generation market will become over the next 40 years.
This study assumes significant investment and growth specifically in GW expansion, breaking down costs, difficulties, consequences and lots of other details. The crux of the study comes at ES.2-3 where it shows, in years where there is no Wind power subsidy from the federal government, there is no expansion of generation.
From the Article: ES.5.1 The Opportunity: The Wind Vision analysis modeled a future Study Scenario (with various sensitivities) in which 10% of the nation’s electricity demand is met by wind power in 2020, 20% by 2030, and 35% by 2050.
ES.4.2 Risk of Inaction: Without actions to improve wind’s competitive position in the market, such as those described in the roadmap, the nation risks losing its existing wind manufacturing infrastructure and a range of public benefits.
This is an Energy Dept rationalization for increased funding most especially of the Wind Power Production Tax Credit. The most entertaining part is the repeated mentions of the limitations of wind power (low wind regions, distance from power grid, unpredictable output). They have to increase power usage significantly to predict lower prices (because of the largely insurmountable technical issues with Wind) even though electricity usage has declined for 6 years. In short, this is a brochure for the best case scenario for Wind Power if everything goes right. The original studies (this is an executive summary) dont seem to be available.
.
I live in a pristine ecological region. The mountain tops are being bulldozed and large unsightly farms are built. The aquifer and last remaining old growth forest now disappear at a time when the planet will need them most. Birds migrate along mountain ridge ways. The areas using the power are not where they are being constructed, the State near me using the power has a moratorium on building wind farms there. The human ecosystem was sustainable 200 years ago, it's called firewood, horses, regional small scale farming, animal husbandry fishing. Grass fuels could supply house heating. The infernal combustion engine might have to be used in a much more restricted sense of corn fuels or some such. Mass transit would also have to be mandatory. And of course there is no solution if the population is 6-8 billion people above a sustainable population in an intact ecosystem. If you realy think that in the natural world there is really ever going to another permanent option you must be a lot smarter than me and the natural world that gave birth to you.
No doubt the article mentions the perils of 'climate change' (but not 'Catastrophic man-made global warming', even though they always intend 'climate change' to mean the same thing), etc.etc.
What the hell happened to Slashdot? This 'climate change' hype every single day is beyond sickening.
www.climatedepot.com
www.wattsupwiththat.com
I guess they forgot about the Chinese suggestion we build a Great Wall in the Middle of the U.S. to eliminate "Tornado Alley".
Removing too much Energy from the Rivers of Air over the U.S. could lead to similar problems like shutting down the Atlantic Northern Current and the Gulf Jet Stream.
More than likely it would dessicate the Mid-West and establish High Pressure zones over much of the Country leading to more of a Middle East Climate and drought in many places.
Me thinks we should be Careful what we Wish for...
"May you Live in Interesting Times.."
It's just a lot of wind.
Current wind farms are already decimating migratory bird populations. This will finish them off.
I
> US Wind Power Is Expected To Double In the Next 5 Years...
Finally they're putting turbines in Congress. If all that hot air can be harnessed the whole world can have free, clean, power.
> Fail. Completely. Yet again.
Yes, you did.
> There simply isn't enough wind in many areas to even consider it.
There is 10 times as much wind power in the US as needed to power everything in it.
http://www.windenergyfoundation.org/interesting-wind-energy-facts
> We don't have enough sunshine in may parts of the country either
There is 100 times as much sunshine in the US as needed to power everything in it.
http://ecowatch.com/2014/11/20/solar-energy-power-u-s/
And before you start typing your ill-informed response, it doesn't make a difference what you think, because solar and wind are outpacing all other forms of power generation both in the US and the world. So you're wrong. Period.
Why do you use watt per square meter of home? If you closed off half your home, would you use half the power? Hell no. So it's not a useful stat, is it?
Oh, it'll drop, but not a massive ammount.
One reason why you use a huge amount of electric is that in Europe drying clothes on a clothesline (or clothes horse indoors in winter) is normal, whereas when I've discussed it on slashdot et al, Americans seem to think this is some pre-historic cro-magnon regression, barely above living in caves and huddling around a single fire for warmth.
Air-con isn't popular either, we'll put up with temperature changes in the home, though with common central heating now, it's more likely our homes will be set to warm up more than it used to.
Thank you for the awesome post.
So many times people simply say "no it isn't" in response to some article or position, it's refreshing to see someone who can put forth some qualifiers and make a back-of-the-envelope calculation. Bravo!
(And I'll award triple-word score for making a linear prediction within a logarithmic scale. That's not something most people can do.)
Apart from the highly dubious extrapolation of exponential growth when there are hard physical limits e.g. solar cell efficiency cannot exceed 100% and there is limited land available. There is another problem: what happens on a calm night? There was a study done several years ago in the UK (I apologize but I cannot find the link) which showed that because when you get calm conditions you can get huge areas of Europe becalmed at the same time you would need to convert almost every body of water in the UK into a pumped storage scheme in order to be able to provide power during calm weather...and that's assuming you can get everyone to agree that covering the landscape with wind farms is acceptable.
Wind and solar certainly have their place and are definitely worth developing but they are not the entire solution to our energy problems.
The solar version of Moore's Law is called Swanson's Law: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... Note that the figure has a mistake where 2014 should be 2017.
I run on about 75% green energy, I actually have my own personal windmill to complement my solar array. I also have a hydro generator (basically, a water wheel) but it is only effective this time of year when the creek is up. I'm all for renewable energy.
But those huge commercial windmills are awful. If only they'd put them where I didn't have to see or hear them, that would be great. I know, I know, you people that live in the big city don't have to deal with it, so it doesn't exist. My windmill bothers nobody you can only hear it when the wind is up, and only in my holler & I can lock it up if we are having an outdoor party. There is nothing worse than being out in the back country, trying to sleep, and you hear the low hum of the windmill, or, spend half the day getting to the summit, only to look across the landscape expecting to see the world's natural beauty, but in the distance, the peaks are littered with the big white windmills.
Responsible cat owners -- that is to say, people who want their cats to live more than just a few years on average -- don't let their cats outside.
You have to subtract those numbers from your 76 to 96 million cats or you're just hand waving. We have six cats here; they don't go out at all, and I mean *never*. Most cat owners I know are smart enough to understand that cats have not evolved to deal with traffic; young humans with firecrackers/guns/poisons, curiosity, and little socialization; poisonous pools of vehicle fluids; and so on.
The other owners... well, you can't fix stupid, unfortunately.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I support a bounty on sycodon. See how that works?
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
The stupider people are, the less control they will exert over reproductive issues in their lives.
Pretty sure that's both a major, perhaps *the* major, factor in population growth, and it is definitely a genetically coupled factor.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
First, I should point out that land area is not an issue for solar. http://www.csmonitor.com/Envir... But when we speak of wind or solar doing the whole job, (about our only choice when the oil, gas, coal and uranium run out) certainly we can see how some energy needs will require fuels. Aviation would be difficult without jet fuel. But synthetic hydrocarbon fuels are already a part of Sachs' Deep Decarbonization Pathways. http://unsdsn.org/what-we-do/d... Calm nights can be handled that way as well.
The only rights worth more than the hot air it takes to describe them are the rights where the power exists that can and will enforce said right for you. And -- unfortunately -- rights being delineated in the US constitution ceased to matter when our congress and judiciary decided it was acceptable and practical to ignore their oaths in favor of expediency and funding.
However, in the case of scarce food, you will find that the typical individual will, when food is scarce enough, make very serious attempts to enforce their right to it at the expense of yours.
See, rights aren't what most people think they are. Not at all.
Here's the place where they typically demonstrate they are deluded: When they emit most sentences that contain "you can't", based on an idea. Because, oh yes, they can. The only question is "will they?" and in that case, if they are starving... sure they will.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
It says If we want the benefits of wind doubling, we should subsidize wind farms. It blatantly says toward the end that this is not the Business as Usual model.
It's supposed to be. Out in the ND Bakken undertakings, the law requires that the gas output from the wells be taken off, rather than burned off, within one year of when the well begins to produce gas. Only a small fraction of the wells have done this -- one look at a night time satellite photo of the area shows you the result. Most of them look just like this. No one is rushing to prosecute the well owners, either.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Based on your post, I suspect almost anyone could meet that metric. Unless you're just ignorant. :)
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Studies in Europe have proven that the low-frequency noise from wind turbines causes anxiety in animals and humans, leading to health problems. (search it yourself)
Affects of wind turbines on the atmosphere have been studied. Of course they have a localized effect. Short version is the turbines cause local mixing of higher altitude and ground level air, resulting in minor changes to local weather down-wind. The mixing and turbulence will affect pollen and dust in different ways, depending on particle size and where they were (high/low) to begin with. Overall you're pulling heat out of the atmosphere; so, not a bad thing. Turbine numbers would have to get truly massive in order for them to have any significant global effect.
Could wind farming have an effect , even small, on the west coast weather patterns?
Just asking here.
Interesting link but wow - good thing I was not on her thesis committee because with a claim like that she would fail (either than or they are reporting it wrongly).
The total solar radiation at the Earth, outside the atmosphere, is 1.36 kW/m^2. Multiply that by the area given and the number of hours in a year and you get 762,470 TWh. However this would be the power for a solar satellite always pointing at the sun - so not even in orbit around the earth but say at one of the Lagrange points.
However things are not so simple because the panels on the ground rotate with the Earth. This means that for half the time they get no power and for the daylight period their angle is only optimal at midday. Note that even tracking panels will not help here because they would have to be spaced out so that their shadows did not meet another panel and so you would have less power collected at midday. The day-night cycle reduces the total power to 381,235 TWh and the angle of the sun throughout the day - I'll assume an RMS average here - drops it further to 269,573 TWh.
Now this assumes that the station in on the equator. If it actually was in West Virginia the power would drop further to 209,498 TWh due to the latitude (39 degrees) of the land. Now we need to look at the solar cell efficiency. The best that has ever been achieved in a lab is 46% so this leaves a total energy generating capacity of 96,369 TWh.
Unfortunately in 2008 world energy consumption was 143,851 TWh. Hence there is absolutely no way whatsoever that a solar plant of 25,000 square miles can supply the energy needs of the world. Even if it was located on the equator, there were never any cloudy days, we could mass produce solar cells which have only ever been available in a lab AND world energy needs have not increased since 2008 we still could not power the world from such an area! If the thesis in question makes those claims as reported it is just plain wrong.