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.
Specifically, the amount of power present in wind is proportional to the third power of the wind speed, so small changes in speed can have a large effect on the amount of power that can be generated.
to replace reliable hydrocarbons or nuclear power
Who could have foreseen that wind power would be variable, even unpredictable?
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.
If only we had some way to warm the planet, so that there would be more wind. Perhaps by putting more CO2 in the air and letting the sun warm us up.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
Maybe we can store up some of that big wind. Some kind of special stretchy flexible container perhaps. We can call them windbags...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
And not a gust to reap.
I find it ironic that with 3 Category 4 Hurricanes Developing In Pacific we have a lack of wind. It seems a shame we can’t mine wind in some semi-relocatable way and store the energy in some form like maybe cracking hydrogen from seawater. Similarly for lightning. Seems we let these large energy events pass by without getting some real use out of them.
Letter To Iran
There's a reason they're called "wind farms": like a farms they have good years and bad years.
El Niños come every five to seven years, and then go away. It's called the "El Niño/Southern Oscillation", or ENSO, and we're bound to get the *opposite* end of ENSO some time in the next couple years (the so-called La Niña). So if this news has people dumping their wind stocks, this'd be a great year to buy. Then dump them in three years when the news sounds insanely good.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Who knew we would run out of wind before we ran out of oil?
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
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?
I found activated carbon dog treats. I'm surprised the % down isn't more.
In my defense it was necessary...
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
But on average, far more cost effective.
... which makes it less stupid. Wind may occasionally drop in intensity, but sunlight drops in intensity every night.
>> ...some of the softest air currents in 40 years... "We never anticipated a drop-off in the wind resource as we have witnessed over the past six months," says David Crane.
You mean you thought Al Gore was right around ever-more energetic winds, while ignoring historical wind trends?
In case anyone took this comment seriously, because I know some on here wish that were so:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ba...
That's a typical storm system. Notice 3/4 of the country is covered with clouds. It typically takes about a week for a storm system to pass across the country. The next week, it may be sunny or there may be another storm system.
All we really need are some good batteries and portable wind turbines. Put them in the path of the latest hurricane and we are all set.
But that is the problem. There are few Atlantic hurricanes during El Nino years.
All those windmills are slowing down the air.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
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.........
AKA: Senators.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
All he capitol buildings has a more than adequate supply
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
We need LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) to be built and we won't have to worry about the damned wind.
Nerds like LFTRs. In theory, they solve a lot of problems. Yet, nobody actually builds them. Why? They seem like such an obvious solution. Cheap, safe, endless fuel supply, etc. So why isn't it happening?
You would think that if your kid was actually finding some entertainment in sweeping the living room that you would cut some slack to playing with the power switch to make a "cool" sound.
But I digress but only a little bit. The hydrocarbon and nuclear plants are backed up by brother hydrocarbon and nuclear plants. If one goes down and another takes its place, no one notices the difference. If wind cuts out, however, this miasma of partially burnt hydrocarbon fumes and radon gas permeates the land. The whole point of wind is to not burn hydrocarbons or split uranium atoms into dangerously radioactive elements, but it is too expensive to back up wind with excess wind capacity to prevent using those foul backup sources.
Quick!
Tax something!
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
....the fact that the wind varies is news to someone? Seriously?
-Styopa
I don't think universe is that old, YMMV.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
The solution is obvious. There's never a lack of hot wind coming out of Washington, DC.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
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.
I can tell you where the wind went, it's all here in Canada due to the upcoming federal election. Just wait until Oct 20th, you'll be good to go, as everyone sighs in relief that it's finally over.
Buncha blowhards...gawd I hate how these things get more and more like a circus every cycle...
"I love animals! Some are cute, others are tasty, what's not to like?" - Betsy Schroeder, Jeopardy contestant
Ok, God wants us to continue using petroleum. You can't argue with God.
Comparing a specific percentage (38%) with the slightly informal "a third" smacks of indirection. And then mixing in a statistic (difference in percentage of US electricity generated by wind over a decade) that has more to do with the installation of actual turbines just confuses the issue.
Lots of number. Little facts. It reads like there has been a small change in wind turbine output, not the dramatic decline the article suggests. El Niño effects aside, is this just something to actually worry about? Or just noise?
Or maybe I'm just grumpy for lack of coffee. Caffeine levels 0% (that's about nothing in layman's terms).
Just need a big portable turbine to stick in front of Donald Trump's mouth - there's enough wind there to power an entire city.
Shouldn't that be A Mighty Wind?
If youÂre going to make a fart joke...
I prefer my power be produced locally. Our state capital has plenty of hot wind for our needs.
There's another one called an HVDC supergrid. Its cheaper than nukes. It's cheaper than replacing all the coal fired power stations. If you want to be fully informed on the energy debate, you need to check this out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
You mean those things that drop to 60% efficiency when over 80% charged?
HVDC supergrids generate no power whatsoever. Now plug some nuclear reactors into that and then you'd really have something that could drive civilization and prosperity for mankind forward.
No matter what your stand is on climate change we are running out of affordable oil and coal. We have to set up a renewable infrastructure while we still have the fossil fuel energy and wealth to do it. We can't power our current civilization with renewables so we have to change our civilization. A pastoral agricultural based civilization can get by with intermittent power. Facilities that need uninterrupted power can invest in battery storage and bio fueled peaking plants.
After over forty years of farm work I am in a position to grow my own food and my front yard happens to be a fifty acre field. I look forward to working alongside some anti GMO people and watch as they cheerfully pull weeds.
Still, people use less energy at night, so PVs aren't as silly as they look.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"It just goes to show the urgent need to install wind turbines surrounding DC in oder to capture the plethora of hot air emanating from within.
Yes! Let's tax those evil rich coal producers so we can give the money to those evil rich windmill makers!
This is what I don't get about those tax-n-subsidize proponents that want to subsidize things like wind, solar, and what not. The argument goes something like, "Those evil fossil fuel people are making money off the poor! They take our money and poison the planet! We need to make them pay!" Okay, so we tax them. What do we do with that tax income then?
I'll tell you where that money goes. We subsidize electric cars because they are so expensive. Yep, very expensive. So expensive that only a rich person can afford them even after the subsidies and car makers sell them at a loss. Who's getting those subsidies then? Yep, rich people that are looking for a four door penis enhancement and car makers that use that money to make more SUVs.
Solar subsidies? Same thing. Expensive solar panels are bought by rich people that want to feel good about themselves and then file for a tax rebate for doing so.
Windmills? We tax the evil corporations that make coal so that another evil corporation can afford to make windmills. With the complex structure of corporate ownership in this economy it's quite likely that those that own the coal company also own the windmill company.
This is not a problem that can be solved with taxes, as the parent post pointed out. This is a technology problem, and a policy problem. We'd have many more safe, reliable, and cheap nuclear power plants if only the government would get out of the way. One possible solution I see is taking nuclear regulation from the federal government and give it to the states. Let the states regulate their own nuclear power plants. The US Department of Energy is so fearful of dong anything wrong that they don't do anything at all.
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
Great idea! Except that it would double the cost of an energy source that is already three times the cost of coal.
So, not such a great idea. How about we try something else, like nuclear power?
I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
The fuel of the future
Environmental lunacy in Europe
The Economist
Apr 6th 2013
WHICH source of renewable energy is most important to the European Union? Solar power, perhaps? (Europe has three-quarters of the world’s total installed capacity of solar photovoltaic energy.) Or wind? (Germany trebled its wind-power capacity in the past decade.) The answer is neither. By far the largest so-called renewable fuel used in Europe is wood.
In its various forms, from sticks to pellets to sawdust, wood (or to use its fashionable name, biomass) accounts for about half of Europe’s renewable-energy consumption. In some countries, such as Poland and Finland, wood meets more than 80% of renewable-energy demand. Even in Germany, home of the Energiewende (energy transformation) which has poured huge subsidies into wind and solar power, 38% of non-fossil fuel consumption comes from the stuff. After years in which European governments have boasted about their high-tech, low-carbon energy revolution, the main beneficiary seems to be the favoured fuel of pre-industrial societies.
The Economist
See also:
Should American Wood Fuel European Power?
Growth of wood-fueled power generation in Europe spurs protests from Southern environmentalists in the U.S.
Scientific American
By Elizabeth Harball and ClimateWire | November 14, 2014
Europe's renewable energy targets drive demand for wood pellets. Other voices in the forestry sector, including Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack, said that wood-based energy is renewable because the wood burned is replaced by other trees that take in carbon dioxide, making the process carbon-neutral.
Today, however, it is not U.S. policy that is driving the growth of the wood-fuel sector. Europe depends heavily on wood-based fuels to meet its goal of sourcing 20 percent of its power from renewable sources by 2020.
-- Scientific American
Bigger is better by what ratio?
And are you taking into consideration the increased efficiency of local consumption, lower transmission costs, better utilization of realestate as roofs are used for generation versus some random place in the wilderness? Etc?
What does better mean here?
I have no doubt you can get more megawatts per dollar invested. I just question how many of those megawatts actually get to the home, what additional costs are involved in the transmission network, the often not disclosed cost of the backup natural gas/coal plant which backstops the wind/solar... etc.
As to me being a martyr... Morally judge me for my opinion on energy policy and I'm going to wax dramatic. The issue is charged by demagogues that like to label anyone that goes against them enemies of humanity if not the planet itself. I merely was making it clear that such idiocy washes over me like water off a duck. You get that or you don't. I was quite clear.
As to personal generation being a fake oil well... Nonsense. I'm not even going to touch that it was so silly.
so yeah... I'd say "your move" here but apparently that's childish... so I'm a bit nonplused.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
That's not what I said... and even if I did... and I didn't... there are quite a few wind advocates that have said that it doesn't matter that the wind is variable. Which is really their way of saying that they simply don't care if it is... and if the concept creates problems that are not being appropriately calculated on the cost sheets.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
I can see why you are AC. You do not have a fucking clue of what you are saying. You think that America's taxes on oil and coal is creating artificially low prices? Oil prices are low because of fracking combined with every nation now dumping on the market so that they keep their % of the market regardless of prices.
And coal prices dropped because nat gas prices, along with WInd prices, are much lower than electricity from coal . In fact, the ONLY thing keeping it up to this price is that fact that we continue to increase coal to CHina.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually, it really does NOT matter. The fact is, that the NEW wind Generators will be built higher and will be in a wind stream that should give them over 50-60% of the time with wind. IOW, right now, these generators are around 30%. The new ones that are going in RIGHT NOW, will be running about double the time.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
and thar she blows!
Off yarn port bow is the spout of the very beastie I was telling tales o'.
*harpoons creature*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
It's international news FFS that California is having a drier year than normal so has a serious fire problem this year. So if the weather is different this year to other years, what does that tell everyone apart from total idiots (or people pretending to be total idiots for political reasons) about it being likely that the amount of wind energy is going to be different as well?
The summary is an insult to the intelligence of the readers and is only there to start a political fight between those that think some forms of energy are evil (so only the Chinese should make money out of US developed technology of those types) and those who don't.
The wind is a finite resource and all these wind farms are slowing the wind down! /sarcasm (just in case someone's filter is broken)
We need giant solar-powered fans right next to the wind farms to give them a good power boost.
Ironically there are compressed air energy storage systems for wind already - at least one uses an old salt mine instead of building storage tanks and there's the offshore idea of having underwater bags of air instead of building storage tanks. You want higher pressure air - change the depth of the bags in the design.
Grids are the size of continents. Take a look at the weather map tonight and see if there is no wind at all on your continent.
It sort of is only with a far more practical descendant of the idea in India.
It's very amusing to see "cheap, safe" mentioned in association with liquid fluoride
Umm ... they don't have any "liquid fluoride". They use a liquid SALT that contains fluoride.
Chlorine gas will kill you. Chlorine based salt makes your food taste better. Big difference.
safe if extreme care is taken with very reactive liquid metals
There are no "liquid metals" either, unless you consider salt to be "metal". Salt is not "reactive".
I'm disappointed the article didn't blame it on climate change. At least they did link to an article on climate change from the middle of the text!
i don't see any reference to subsidies/tax breaks etc given to the fossil fuel industry to keep their prices low. there is a reason why the fossil fuel industry donates to government coffers in a large way.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
no they won't. once they all get going we'll be able to travel the universe and go where no man has gone before
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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.
Hate to break it to you, but all energy is heavily subsidised one way or another. At least with wind subsidies we aren't just paying people to pollute the environment we live in.
All comments of this nature were treated like a naughty boy throwing spiders at the girls.
The argument was never that we wouldn't need other sources of energy, that was always a straw man. Now who is being childish?
The simple fact is that when you have a lot of wind energy you need less from dirty sources. It also creates financial incentives to build coal, gas and nuclear plants are can more efficiently scale their output, as is happening in Germany. They are closing the old plants and replacing them with fewer, cleaner and more scalable new ones. No-one expects this to happen overnight.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Might I suggest bio incinerators.
Time to offend someone
Batteries are just horribly inefficient boxes of future environmental contamination. The better ones also include hefty portions of strip-mined rare earth metals. I do hope that someday batteries are better but a lot of very smart people have been working on the problem for over a century. There is still a long way to go before it's solved and given the law of diminishing returns I'm not convinced it even can be.
I wonder if there is a proportional reduction in Congressional Discussion?
Wind is a non renewable resource ! We have been use it all up on these new fangled windmills !
This evidence supports my (funded) belief so it must be correct.
As to subsidies,
1 dollar of subsidies =/= 1000 dollars of subsidies.
The proof in the pudding is china and india.
If the subsidies for coal were not irrelevant to the point that coal is cheaper it would not be the default energy source in the third world.
You'd have indians and chinese people shifting to wind because THAT's cheaper? But they don't because it isn't. You're wrong.
As to statements about how we wouldn't need coal and natural gas back ups... it is actually denied often by renewable advocates. I was just talking to a bunch of germans that were saying they didn't need coal to back up their wind program. Never mind that the coal is all in eastern europe and the eastern europeans are building coal plants like crazy to service the energy needs of western europe.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Except Poland is building coal plants like crazy to sell power to the Germans and are currently working on a big nuclear reactor to do more of the same.
So no.
I'll let you have the last word here. You have no information I'm not already aware of and I've formed my opinion based on this information. Unless you can provide new relevant information that I am not already aware of... I am not going to change my opinion on this matter. I have seen how this works and I understand the technology well enough to understand there is no getting around certain problems without other technologies being in place.
So you can either solve the power storage problem or whenever I hear "wind/solar" in reference to the grid, I will know that you're going to need to add a coal/natural gas back up and that that has to be added to the cost equations.
I am perfectly happy with wind and solar. I just think they should be installed on roofs and not in the desert or in the ocean or whatever. The point of renewables should be to lower the amount of power that any user takes from the grid. Not to provide power to the grid itself.
I do not include geothermal, hydro, or another other power source that can reliably work day in and day out with a consistent load. If your power source can do that, then fine. If it can't then you either need to bake storage into the system or it shouldn't be on the grid at all.
That is my position.
You will have the last word.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Look up HF to get some ideas about reactive things that contain fluoride.
There was an experimental reactor along those lines.
Oh yes, those magic Moorlocks will fix everything for the useless Eloi will they?
Yes - your above comment IS stupid enough to warrant that - reality is a bitch and often gets in the way when you want magic instead.
Please let me know when you've found the magic fix for thermal expansion.
I think i've gotten it a bit mixed up with clementine (mercury cooled) and some of the russian lead cooled reactors.
Your statements are very poorly informed. If you are going to spend the billions to scalle nukes to give you the best value of $/GW then you provide the base load as long as possible and make everything else pick up the scraps.
I suggest you learn at least the first two minute of nukes 101 if you are are going to advocate them for those situations where they do make sense. If you have a nuke plant you want the grid to buy as much power as you can provide instead of having to ramp production down and have all that fuel running down in hours without electricity production to show for it. It's not like coal which will burn just as well if it sits on a heap for a decade.
I suggest looking up what load following actually means before posting stuff about taking full units offline at a time and having spinning reserve.
It doesn't back up your point at all because you've decided to use a technical term you do not understand, just to try to look cool, and you are using something completely different to "back it up".
In terms you may understand - you are calling the monitor "a computer" and calling the beige box plugged into it "the hard drive" and getting annoyed when being told it is not so.
That is why you are being laughed at.
Why are you trying to tell me things that I have known for decades but you do not understand yourself?
You nearly got load following right - try harder and you'll see it applies to running a unit below capacity - almost never done these days now that we have sources of power of only a few megawatts that can be brought on and off line easily.
Your blatant mistakes make it obvious that you are neither an engineer with any sort of experience or that you have spent any time in the electricity generation or transmission industries - so try a different lie that insults the intelligence of the readers less.
I left the electricity industry in 1996 for coal and oil and a bit of part time academic work, but remember enough to spot a deliberate liar who is basing their lies on a less than high school understanding of the subject matter.
You've really hit rock bottom here. What will you claim to be next?
Lairs use sources that do not back up their words as a shell game. People with slightly better than a high school understanding of the topic in this simple case don't need a source, because they can spot the fucking obvious. Hot steel expands - is that grade 7 stuff or grade 9? Just design it so it doesn't? The world isn't fucking Star Trek!
We both know you are not correct so why should I go running around looking for links when nobody else is going to read down this far?