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?
Check with the Oil and Natgas industry and ethanol industry. Cancel that, they're still getting subsidies.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Except the US has a *lot* of land, a hefty chunk of which gets a lot of sun and has little development, yet is still relatively close to major metropolitan areas (namely Los Angeles, but add in Las Vegas, Phoenix, etc. for good measure). Additionally, solar (and to an extent wind) can be deployed on very small scales, making decentralized power generation feasible in certain areas (currently not legal with nuclear, though an RTG might do well in Alaska...).
I'm all for nuclear as a source of clean energy, but having multiple sources of clean/renewable energy is a Good Thing.
The issue with Wind and Solar is that they require large areas to be installed on
Why is that an "issue"? Do you actually believe that we are running out of land?
Windfarms can have co-use as grazing or cropland
Solar panels can go on rooftops, over parking lots, or in deserts.
Wind generators have a finite lifespan usually in the 20 year range upon which time they need to either be replaced or refurbished in addition to ongoing maintenance, things with moving parts breakdown!
What you said is very true but that also applies to all power generating and distribution infrastructure. When considering power generation and distribution you have to consider the overall cost/benefits. In some places wind, hydro, coal, gas, nuclear, solar arrays etc are more viable long term or even short term solutions.
All energy generating plants require distribution infrastructure be it above ground or underground and there are pros and cons with each, likewise with the energy generation plant themselves. One size does not suit all so it is always best to pick the one that is best suited for the geographics area although you also have to consider politics as well.
There ain't no such thing as proprietary standards only proprietary formats. Standards are by definition open.