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 was always stupidly indirect
to replace reliable hydrocarbons or nuclear power
No - we just hit peak wind faster than anyone expected.
It's hard to believe that's how Micronians are made. Why don't we see it right now by having you both kiss one another?
Build up and put in the safer nuclear reactors we have nowadays...and supplement them with wind and solar.
There is no need to just have a monoculture when it comes to power.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
It's almost like our ancestors gave up on wind power and build power stations for a reason....
It was said when these things went in that their claims of being able to be self supporting would not pan out. That they would need extensive subsidies forever and that they would need COAL or NATURAL GAS back ups to cover their load whenever they didn't provide the power.
All comments of this nature were treated like a naughty boy throwing spiders at the girls.
A sign of immaturity, anti social behavior, and really a good reason to have their fathers give them a stern talking to...
Because... when someone points out logical flaws in a power grid design, the best response is to address them like you're a kindergarten teacher and their attempts at rational dialogue are merely an expression of immaturity. Because after all... real adults... real mature and well adjusted people... they just immediately buy into whatever whomever the politician is that tells them what to believe. And anyone that doesn't some flavor of village idiot or deviant... probably a pedophile. Nothing screams pedophilia like questioning dodgy power and financial estimates of a wind farm.
So where is this going? Same place it went last time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
Am I against wind? Not at all. I think its great. I am against large amounts of public money going to build big wind farms in clusters. I'd prefer that the projects either be privately funded so it isn't just a scam to get grant money and then run when they project dries up. Or I'd like the money to instead be pushed to encourage home owners and building owners to install renewable power on their roofs and in their property thus negating the possibility that given companies are colluding or bribing the government to get contracts because the home owners will be under no obligation to buy from a given company.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
The service life of wind turbines is finite. If a location proves to become less windy (which won't happen overnight) and moving the turbine isn't an option, you just take the whole thing down once it breaks for good.
Climate change will make most places more windy, though, due to more energy being stored in the atmosphere.
I told you so.
We need more nuclear power.
To those that say choosing nuclear power is just choosing death from radiation than climate change I say you need to look at molten salt reactors. MSRs will "eat" radioactive waste from current nuclear reactors and make it inert, while producing electricity and valuable radioisotopes for medicine and industry.
Another response to the nuclear opponents, I thought climate change was a worldwide problem that was going to kill us all so anything must be better than that. Seems like we can choose the status quo which gives us inevitable death from rising sea levels and destruction of the food chain, or freezing to death when winter comes and the windmills don't spin, or the slightest chance of increased cancers from radioactive waste in the environment. Which is a false choice of course because with a truly modern nuclear reactor we'd actually see less radiation in the environment.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Seriously, so many far left wingers run around screaming that we should depend on 100% wind and solar. Yet, both require the sun to work. Now, what happens if say Yellowstone blows? Well, there goes 75% of our energy RIGHT WHEN WE NEEDED IT. Likewise, just by starting massive forest fires in the west, a nation can drop our electricity by 10% if we depend on nothing by solar and wind.
We absolutely need to have Solar and WInd. BUT, it should not be more than 33% of our capacity. We NEED Nukes to replace first coal, and then nat gas. In addiiton, with gem IV MST reactors, we can burn up the majority of nuke waste, while replacing old reactors.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.