Slashdot Mirror
Slowing Wind Energy Production Suffers From Lack of Wind
HughPickens.com writes: Gregory Meyer reports at the Financial Times that electricity generated by U.S. wind farms fell 6 per cent in the first half of the year, even as the nation expanded wind generation capacity by 9 per cent. The reason was some of the softest air currents in 40 years, cutting power sales from wind farms to utilities. The situation is likely to intensify into the first quarter of 2016 as the El Niño weather phenomenon holds back wind speeds around much of the U.S. "We never anticipated a drop-off in the wind resource as we have witnessed over the past six months," says David Crane. Wind generated 4.4 per cent of US electricity last year, up from 0.4 per cent a decade earlier. But this year U.S. wind plants' "capacity factor" has averaged just a third of their total generating capacity, down from 38 per cent in 2014.
EIA noted that slightly slower wind speeds can reduce output by a disproportionately large amount. "Capacity factors for wind turbines are largely determined by wind resources," says a report from the Energy Information Administration. "Because the output from a turbine varies nonlinearly with wind speed, small decreases in wind speeds can result in much larger changes in output and, in turn, capacity factors." In January of 2015, wind speeds remained 20 to 45 percent below normal on areas of the west coast, but it was especially bad in California, Oregon, and Washington, where those levels dropped to 50 percent below normal during the month of January.
EIA noted that slightly slower wind speeds can reduce output by a disproportionately large amount. "Capacity factors for wind turbines are largely determined by wind resources," says a report from the Energy Information Administration. "Because the output from a turbine varies nonlinearly with wind speed, small decreases in wind speeds can result in much larger changes in output and, in turn, capacity factors." In January of 2015, wind speeds remained 20 to 45 percent below normal on areas of the west coast, but it was especially bad in California, Oregon, and Washington, where those levels dropped to 50 percent below normal during the month of January.
Wind turbine power output is proportional to the third power of wind velocity. It only takes small changes in average wind velocity to effect large changes in turbine power output.
Reliable hydrocarbon?
http://www.wusa9.com/story/news/local/2015/04/07/power-outage/25411283/
An equipment failure at a switching station? That is your example?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/10/how-national-grid-keeps-the-lights-on-when-a-large-power-stations-catches-fire/
So, the grid handles a fire pretty well, thanks for that update...
Reliable nuclear?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29058644
Wow...so they found some issues that impacted safety, shutdown the reactors safely, and are now fixing the issues? Oh the humanity! All those lost lives...that didn't happen..
What was your point again?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
When a hydrocarbon or nuclear plant goes offline, how does the grid handle it? By getting power from other hydrocarbon and nuclear plants.
When wind does not produce power, how does the grid handle it? By getting power from hydrocarbon and nuclear plants.
One of those is not like the other.
"Jimmy Carter put a presidential order with a permanent moratorium on any and all power reactor construction."
Not so. Carter's order was against the US building a recycling plant for nuclear waste. And yes, there is a huge separation between deaths from nuclear and from the next runner up, but it's in favor of nuclear: http://www.the9billion.com/201...
Actually, nuclear can load follow just fine. Its only that the existing fleet was not designed to do so. There is zero reason it cannot be variable, and the re are plenty of designs that allow it, either inherenlt or as an option.
Just compare the deaths per terawatt compared to more stable energy sources, even coal, and you will find that there is a HUGE separation between nuclear and the next runner up, even wind. Just this fact along gives credence to the people who rather live without power than deal with nuclear.
I'm pretty sure that there is as you said a HUGE separation between per terawatt for nuclear vs other power sources -- just not in the direction you think. For coal, death and poisoning are considered standard operation, rather than a catastrophe -- and that's not even counting global warming.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways