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?
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
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
8.7 divided by 1.21 = 7.1900826446281
#DeleteFacebook
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
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).
That is an issue. Fortunately there are large areas available to install them on, both on land and at sea.
Progressives have been brainwashed by the Renewable cartel, just like Conservatives were by the Fossil Fuel Cartel.
Or, they realize that we'll continue to want to use energy long after fossil fuels are no longer practical to use, and are making sure we'll have the ability to do so.
Would nuclear plants help solve that problem? They absolutely would, but only if they get built -- and post-Fukushima/Chernobyl, not many people want them built; fewer still want to pay the huge amounts of money it takes to secure them forever against all conceivable failure modes. Is that "brainwashing"? I guess you could call it that; another way to look at it is that people have seen what nuclear power is capable of, and decided they don't want it.
I'd say that nuclear-fission power is in a similar position to fuel cells -- advanced technology with lots of promise, but trailing so badly behind the competition at this point that (barring some miraculous technological leap forward) it probably won't ever catch up and be competitive against other approaches.
I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
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.
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.
Considering solar is used in summer at the Dome A camp a long way south in Antarctica it's not such a silly idea to use solar cut down on fuel usage for power generation in Alaska which gets far more sunlight. Apparently the panels were incredibly easy to install at Dome A - mounted vertically on poles!
https://xkcd.com/1378/
In the case of solar, you can install it locally, it scales up & down quite well.
For wind turbines, bigger is better but that tends to upset of lot of people
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
Read it again. The claim is that capacity factor for both is not that different. Hydro tends to be seasonal, especially if you're doing run-of-river but even reservoirs have low periods so you can't get close to 100% for very long
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
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.
It will. You won't know it, though, because your head is stuck in a hole in the ground.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
That reply is so Slashdot
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Oh, nukes are about 60% capacity
You have nuclear's capacity factor way wrong. According to this report, these are the average capacity factors in the US:
Nuclear–90.3%
Coal–63.8%
Natural Gas Plant–42.5%
Hydroelectric–39.8%
Renewables (Wind/Solar/Biomass)–33.9%
Oil–7.8%
If you have different data that shows otherwise, please provide it.
But, unlike nukes, renewables peak when demand is highest
Nope, hydro is the only major renewable that peaks when demand is highest, and that's just because it's dispatchable. Solar peaks earlier in the day than the peak demand and wind has random peaks.
Enigma
You can not put Wind, Solar and Biomass into one kettle regarding CFs.
Solar e.g. is usually just above 10%, Wind is around 35%, and biomass is dispatch able, that means you can have what ever CF you want.
Solar peaks earlier in the day than the peak demand and wind has random peaks. Solar peaks for every plant individually depending into wich direction the panels are pointing. Big plants usually follow the sun, especially molten slat thermal ones. In general solar energy peaks around noon, obviously.
When your demand is peaking depends on country and consumer behaviour. E.g. in Germany the load curve of the combined solar plants more or less follows the consumers.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
That's the most important part, to me.
Sent as ripples into the electromagnetic field. No single photon has been harmed in the process.
That is an issue. Fortunately there are large areas available to install them on, both on land and at sea.
So there are, in the US. We are also blessed with natural resources; should we squander those too? It is baffling how willing greens are to turn a blind eye to resource use, even as it directly relates to environmental impact. Using large geographical areas to farm energy also engages NIMBYs on a large scale, both for the generators and transmission network.
Nuclear has the smallest environmental impact of any energy source, requiring the least land and resources. A wind turbine or solar panel may not look like much, but when you multiply the resources required to produce an equivalent amount of energy, even a conventional nuclear plant is downright tiny by comparison. Advanced nuclear can shrink it further yet.
Or, they realize that we'll continue to want to use energy long after fossil fuels are no longer practical to use, and are making sure we'll have the ability to do so.
Would nuclear plants help solve that problem? They absolutely would, but only if they get built -- and post-Fukushima/Chernobyl, not many people want them built; fewer still want to pay the huge amounts of money it takes to secure them forever against all conceivable failure modes. Is that "brainwashing"? I guess you could call it that; another way to look at it is that people have seen what nuclear power is capable of, and decided they don't want it.
What people want is largely irrelevant, if it is incompatible with reality. If not nuclear, then the bulk of energy will continue to come from fossil fuels. Within renewable “success” stories like those of Germany and California, this truth is evident in the results. A little education would help people see through the blatant lies and elaborate deception that anti-nuclear and green propaganda are built upon.
People don’t appreciate being lied to, and they will eventually learn the truth. Hopefully before too much more damage is done.
More probably the new machines the coal operators have planned for when the Trump Gravy Train leaves the station. The coal workers will get nothing, and then get screwed out of ACA benefits by the new Republican ACA Light Plan for not working yet obstinately continue to suffer for the conditions they received from digging said coal before gas stole their lunch. They can always petition the Baby Christian in Chief but it won't do them any good.
People would have no problem with nuclear if you can prevent a chernobyl/fukishima ever happening and you could decommission it safely with no fall out and do it cheaply. At the moment its expensive to build and expensive to take down. get rid of those issues and it would be fine.
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
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.
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).
That is an issue. Fortunately there are large areas available to install them on, both on land and at sea.
Progressives have been brainwashed by the Renewable cartel, just like Conservatives were by the Fossil Fuel Cartel.
Or, they realize that we'll continue to want to use energy long after fossil fuels are no longer practical to use, and are making sure we'll have the ability to do so.
Would nuclear plants help solve that problem? They absolutely would, but only if they get built -- and post-Fukushima/Chernobyl, not many people want them built; fewer still want to pay the huge amounts of money it takes to secure them forever against all conceivable failure modes. Is that "brainwashing"? I guess you could call it that; another way to look at it is that people have seen what nuclear power is capable of, and decided they don't want it.
I'd say that nuclear-fission power is in a similar position to fuel cells -- advanced technology with lots of promise, but trailing so badly behind the competition at this point that (barring some miraculous technological leap forward) it probably won't ever catch up and be competitive against other approaches.
I'm going to laugh when "eco people" blame the changes in the localized weather patterns on global warming and other shit before accepting that their disruption of the boundary layer (surface-> ~= 0-100-1000ft) winds is absorbing energy that fuels weather. (Planetary Boundary Layer)
I'm "crazy" because I can see the future, but I already see lawsuits being filed against companies and neighbors for disruption of outdoor comfort at home (in the future, less than 20 years away).
I'm all for nuclear as a source of clean energy, but having multiple sources of clean/renewable energy is a Good Thing.
I've never understood why we don't use spacecraft to transport depleted uranium into space, given how much "space" matter enters our atmosphere and increases the volume of our planet on a daily basis. I guess that's technically interfering with the normal processes of natural design because at the moment, our planet keeps gaining mass (the loss of atmospheric molecules to solar wind is much less than the amount of accretion via meteors/meteorites every day). If we "make it lose mass", we're interfering. Then again, altering the low-level surface winds and IR radiation effects with 'wind and solar' does, too, but proponents don't seem to mind that. Why don't those proponents shift their focus toward "not minding" the release of depleted uranium into space? Unless, of course, we can find a way to 100% reuse that depleted matter in the future... I digress.
The outrageous costs to "clean up" after Fukushima are largely due to the insane radiation standards in place, which do cause real damage both in terms of lives lost and economics. Read Petition EPA to Establish Scientific Bases for Risk-Based Radiation Regulations for details about the nature of the problem.
Interestingly, Ukraine to increase nuclear share to 60%. It would seem that they have a different perspective on Chernobyl, probably because they witnessed firsthand just how exaggerated the threat of radiation is.
Have a bit of perspective with Fukushima; no one was killed by radiation. Do you even remember what the actual disaster was? Many people probably don't, given that the media wholeheartedly seized the opportunity to terrorize people over harmless levels of radiation. The area is almost entirely habitable today, and no one is expected to die.
Nuclear doesn't have to be expensive; a lot of people worked very hard to make it so. In fact, it isn't expensive everywhere. The predominant reactor technology doesn't help, but better designs already exist. If the political problems can be solved, serially produced molten salt reactors will make nuclear the lowest cost option of any energy source. This is a much better path than trying to drive up prices for carbon emitting sources so that expensive renewables can compete.
with the new requirements to keep "spinning capacity" at a higher level than used to be required. Hydro is a *really* nice way to do that. just run enough water through the turbines to keep them in sync with the grid with basically zero load on them and you can drop a full load on them pretty damned quick if you lose a transmission line or see a spike in demand.
"with the new requirements to keep "spinning capacity" at a higher level than used to be required"
What's the reason & what's the diff between old requirements & new?
Pain is merely failure leaving the body