Slashdot Mirror
US Wind Capacity Surpasses Hydro, Overall Generation To Follow (arstechnica.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Wind power is now the largest source of renewable energy generating capacity, passing hydroelectric power in 2016. And since the two sources produce electricity at nearly the same rate, we'll soon see wind surpass hydro in terms of electricity produced. Wind power capacity has been growing at an astonishing pace (as shown in the graph above), and 2016 was no exception. As companies rushed to take advantage of tax incentives for renewable power, the U.S. saw 8.7 Gigawatts of new wind capacity installed in 2016. That's the most since 2012, the last time tax incentives were scheduled to expire. This has pushed the U.S.' total wind capacity to over 81 GW, edging it past hydroelectric, which has remained relatively stable at roughly 80 GW. Note that this is only capacity; since generators can't be run non-stop, they only generate a fraction of the electricity that their capacity suggests is possible. That fraction, called a capacity factor, has been in the area of 34 percent for U.S. wind, lower than most traditional sources of electricity. But hydropower's capacity factor isn't that much better, typically sitting at 37-38 percent. As a result, wind won't need to grow much to consistently exceed hydro. Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electricity Data Browser
What will happen though when tax incentives fall away?
That's a little overkill when all we need is 1.21!
You know it going to happen.... we're harvesting the natural flow of energy around the globe and hence harming nature... changing weather patterns... blah blah blah
Why? He's supplying enough pressure to keep 'em running his whole presidency.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Something-something golf course something-something Scotland.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Coal is still king and Natural Gas is still Queen. This won't change any time soon.
Great Scott! 8.7 gigawatts? Enough for nearly 6.7 time traveling DeLoreans.
With a title starting "US Wind Capacity Surpasses Hydro..."
I would think this is a Taco Tuesday story...
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
Fossil fuels are gonna die in our lifetimes.
New tech - is my game and fossil fuel is lame.
The issue with Wind and Solar is that they require large areas to be installed on (and power distribution, but I'll focus on the former).
Considere this:
The Larges Solar Farm (Kamuthi Solar Power Project, India) produces 648 MW but uses 10.1 km^2 [1]
In Comparison:
The Laguna Verde Nuclear Power Station in Mexico produces 1620 MW (2 x 810 MW) and is no larger than a warehouse.[2]
AND, it was commissioned in the 90s...
Conclusion:
Progressives have been brainwashed by the Renewable cartel, just like Conservatives were by the Fossil Fuel Cartel.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaic_power_stations Note:Longyangxia Dam is mainly a hydroelectric power plant.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laguna_Verde_Nuclear_Power_Station
this is misleading because it measures nameplate capacity and not actual output. Wind turbines run about 30% of the time while hydro is normally 24/7. Besides, all this wind generation is a product of wasting the taxpayer's money on subsidies for non economic power generation assets.
Yeah, right, the wind turbines remove ALL THE MOVEMENT FROM THE ATMOSPHERE.
FFS, you're a moron. How do you manage to fit food into the right hole for eating in the first 8 times? I take it you have to extract that food back from the wrong hole many many times otherwise you'll starve to death, right?
Oh, nukes are about 60% capacity (the USA deduct the time it's down for maintenance and when it's unable to run because there's not enough water flow or the water is too hot in the summers which is most of the missing 40%), whereas renewables are around 40%. So 50% increase. But, unlike nukes, renewables peak when demand is highest so you need less overcapacity and you have less negative profit energy, making them much better fitting. It's figured that you only need 60% of capacity for "baseload" when you use SPV and wind. So factoring that in you only need about 1/6th as much nameplate as nukes to come out even.
And both are far FAR cheaper than nukes.
BFD wind just surpassed the measly 6% generated by hydro... Call me when it surpasses natural gas. We are stuck with fossil fuels or nuclear until we can commercialize the technology to store large amounts of electricity (real efficient storage, not compressed air).
If you disagree, please post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like
OK kids - here's the rundown on power generation given to seventh graders visiting power stations on field trips.
Base load is the minimum demand and it's handy having stuff running 24/7/365 to produce it. Thermal power (coal/nukes/gas when gas is cheap) and hydro are good for that.
Peak loads are when demand is higher and you switch in other generators as needed.
If you only need something for a few hours a day it has a low capacity factor no matter whether it's capable of running 24/7/365 or not.
It's that simple.
Think of that when somebody uses "capacity factor" to push an agenda and pretends it's an indication of downtime due to mechanical failure or a lack of wind/sun/gas/water. It appears to be the term of choice for political opposition to various sources of electricity generation and the misuse probably came from some pimply Washington intern who thought he was being deviously clever instead of a manipulative prick.
https://xkcd.com/1378/
Last year I had the chance to work for several months in the Allegheny Mountains of far western Maryland and southwestern Pennsylvannia, and northern West Virginia. There are hundreds of wind turbines throughout the region. But what I noticed is that during the summertime, the air was often still for days at a time and those blades weren't turning. The towers are everywhere, and you just couldn't help but notice the lack of movement.
That is the one way to put the Coal Miners back to work.
That's the most important part, to me.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
This isn't a surprise. My gay roommate worked on getting four of the Iron Gate dams and three other dams in Oregon shutdown, this is certainly not a surprise. They are very against clean power. They don't like wind cause it kills the birds. They don't like hydro cause it kills the fish. They don't like coal cause it kills the chinamen. Do they like nuclear? Who knows.
I know this much: I don't like greens. If I got drunk at a bar I'd kick one in the teeth so hard that he would need dentures.
Not actually delivered on demand capacity.
For the same rough footprint, modern designs are cheaper, easier to maintain, and give several times the power output today that they did back in the 80s.
So quite why your post is of any point whatsoever remains nonexistent bullshit.
I think hydro at least in cases where water is available, can be used for peaking. I think equating the cap factor of wind and water is somewhat misleading. I know locally the generation is targeted to meet demand for the hydro. Its hard to store up a big gust of wind for later use.
Is it any wonder? There have been HUGE tax incentives (read they are giving away your money and mine) to install windmills, and at the same time, have been "busting dams" since the Clinton Administration in the name of "save the fish". http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-orders-study-removing-dams-snake-river-help-fish
Windmills are the worst. Their destruction of our natural environment goes unnoticed by many, but really, do they have to scar up some of the most beautiful landscapes in the world?
Most whirly gigs need their main bearings replaced each year. This is a minimum of $100000. And that is for a 2.75MW unit.
No bird problem here. I have enough cats that they kill the birds before they can drop shit randomly from the sky.
I do some work at one of those spots you seem to think don't exist in 1997, and that pump stockpiling plant was not new at the time. We positively have the innovation however you are taking a gander at things the wrong route around. Since all stockpiling strategies are misfortune the appropriate response that has as of now happened is having a ton of minimal dispersed generators (since gas is presently shoddy that is the place that tremendous rate of gas has originated from) that can be exchanged in as required by request. The issue you are going ahead about has truly as of now been tackled at both closures. What I find in a great deal of posts here is one dimensional considering single windmills (what do you do if there is no wind individuals cry - the glaringly evident answer, officially done, is work in more than one place!) or comparable that disregard the presence of frameworks and interconnections between networks so accept that their single generator from their 1D intuition ought to have it's stuff put away when there is no interest for it. That is an exceptionally constrained method for taking a gander at things and it's quite often going to prompt to extremely implausible conclusions. For a begin, the low hydro number overlooks the unfathomable measure of force coming into the network from Canada. read more visit http://www.webopedia.com/
There's barely enough power there to power more than a handful of flux capacitors.
The US better start catching up on power generation or it's going to be a big problem when everyone starts demanding their own 1.21GW for their time machines.