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
Then we'll be left with a lot of wind plants, I wonder how they'll be able to afford to provide fuel for them...
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Why? He's supplying enough pressure to keep 'em running his whole presidency.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
It's below $100/MWh for O&M costs now. But that curve has flattened. So given that US electric energy prices have generally been less than that except during peak periods, I suspect wind energy will plateau. Especially if tax incentives are reduced.
Also in each ISO there still has to be spinning generation to maintain voltage and VAR support. So that adds to the cost of wind generation - it's not fossil fuel free.
Solar is in the same boat. As long as natural gas prices stay low, combined cycle plants will still be more cost efficient. This is why hydraulic fracturing has been attacked in order to drive the prices back up.
Then the coal and oil industries will be in a whole lot of trouble? Or were you talking about the incentives given to renewables?
Yes, I've given this some thought. We should treat the potential bird mortality like we do carbon release and sequestration. There's a ready solution that actually solves another large problem, unwanted kittens. Cats kill birds. Domestic cats, if allowed to roam the neighborhood kill hundreds of birds throughout their lifetime. If we were to provide bird life credits for euthanizing kittens (has to be kittens, before they start their life of serial killing), we solve two problems at once. We'd have to come up with some kitten/bird life equivalency, but that's a quick study of cat behaviors & voila a new way to be green.
Note to the sarcasm-challenged: The above note is not a serious proposal. I like kittens. I also like birds... and wind power.
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 will happen though when tax incentives fall away?
Wind can be economically viable in the right location. Hopefully without the incentives people will stop putting them up where they will never pay.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
"Birds eat up a lot of food"
-- Monolithic Oil - "We want you to pay"
"I say we take off, nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure."
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.
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.
The above note is not a serious proposal.
But it has much in common with a modest proposal.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
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!
I did some work at one of those places you appear to think don't exist in 1996, and that pump storage plant was not new at the time. We certainly have the technology but you are looking at things the wrong way around. Since all storage methods are lossy the answer that has already happened is having a lot of little distributed generators (since gas is currently cheap that's where that huge percentage of gas has come from) that can be switched in as required by demand. The problem you are going on about has really already been solved at both ends.
What I see in a lot of posts here is one dimensional thinking of single windmills (what do you do if there is no wind people cry - the blatantly obvious answer, already done, is build in more than one place!) or similar that ignore the existence of grids and interconnections between grids so assume that their single generator from their 1D thinking should have it's stuff stored when there is no demand for it. That's a very limited way of looking at things and it's almost always going to lead to very unrealistic conclusions. For a start, the low hydro number ignores the vast amount of power coming into the grid from Canada.
https://xkcd.com/1378/
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.
This is why hydraulic fracturing has been attacked in order to drive the prices back up.
No. Fracking has been attacked because it runs the risk of poisoning the groundwater.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
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.
Somehow I doubt the cost of maintaining a wind farm is a major overhead compared to other forms of power generation especially when the cost of controlling emissions / pollutants and decommissioning is taken into account.
Yeah, yer right. If we could just eliminate greed, then we could eliminate technology's forward progress. What were we thinking?
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.
Wind is already cheaper than fossil fuels when all subsidies are removed and externalized costs considered. In 20 years time the cost of the turbines will have fallen even further.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
What is so hard to understand about this? Wind farms are located in remote areas, have tall structures with high-performing mechanical components in them, and are necessarily exposed to weather. The structures are subject to significant stress and have a limited lifetime.
I think the source of your doubt is limited information or imagination.
With hydro you often have to get permission to drill a long tunnel through a mountain. Some governments are ok with this, but as seen in La Esperanza, Honduras where environmentalist Berta Cáceres was executed, sometimes the locals are not too happy about seeing their rivers and resources taken and other environmental impacts that a hydro can cause. You end up with big companies taking the law into their own hands. Wind, especially offshore is easier because it's a bit more out of the way and doesn't impact people's lives in the same way.
Also in each ISO there still has to be spinning generation to maintain voltage and VAR support.
No, it's just a file when it's an ISO. It doesn't start spinning until you burn it to the CD.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
The fracking issue comes down to conflicting narratives, both of which are true:
Pro fracking: "Fracking is proven safe!" This is true!
Anti fracking: "Fracking is fucking up our water!" This is also true!
The problem is that yes, while fracking can absolutely be done safely, our fracking industry is not doing it safely. The answer is not to ban fracking but to make the fracking companies comply with safety standards and slap them with huge lawsuits should they fuck up.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
And how do you propose to do that when the party in-power is threatening to do away with departments like the EPA whose job is to regulate this stuff?
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Beats me, but they weren't doing it before, either. Odd. It's almost as if the two party system is a sham, where they rile up the public to fight over tranny bathrooms while the industries that fund both parties capture the regulatory agencies...
As a thought, I'd bring attention to the actual, solvable problems. My impression of Trump is not that he wants to eliminate all regulation, just unnecessary and over-burdensome regulation. I'd recommend the environmental lobby switch from screaming about doomsday shit we can't fix but makes them rich trying (like global warming) and focus instead on practical things we can fix (like unsafe fracking practices).
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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.
The majority of 'subsidies' given to the oil and natural gas industry are not actually subsidies in any real sense.
I don't look at it the same way some people do. Let me illustrate.
In Pennsylvania, the Republican Governer made certain that there was no state extraction fee for the Gas companies who were fracking here. Pennsylvania was teh only state in the union that didn't have one.
According to his expressed logic, if Pennsylvania had any extraction fee whatsoever, the companies wouldn't drill here. The logic is compelling, since all other states had fees, it didn't stop the companies from drilling there. That probably had something to do with the Gas was here, and you can't extract the gas form where it is without being where it is. But I digress. So some people would call this not a subsidy. Okay, than what is it. Do the math. Is the company making more money than it otherwise would?
Same with any tax breaks. These "Alternative energy support is fuckin subsidized, but my petrofuel is making it's way all by itself with no help at all ever!" is a lot more about your outlook. If you want petrofuels and coal to be the only source of power until the world falls apart, you'll be pretty pissed about the competition. BTW, the largest "alternative" energy subsidies go to corn ethanol, which few alternative energy people want.
So anyhow, is your solution for other countries who don't share your outlook to move on, giving support until alternatives are on their own, while the USA has a 1970's style collapse when we run low on coal and oil? Then what do we do? Maybe go for some Lebensraum? Which by the way, one does not fight wars with solar or wind power, the lack of portable energy dense petrofuels that they might have conserved, while we thumbed our nose and burned it in our Escalades, might make a problem for say, our fighter planes. Odd how many people who want to fight the world over any reason whatsoever don't take into account that to kill your enemies, you gotta get to them first. I'm not accusing you of that, but many people I know have exactly that outlook. All tactic, no strategic outlook at all. A rather active group in the past century was brought low in no small part because of lack of fuel. Or do you subscribe to the abiotic oil concept which means we won't ever run low because something something will make more forever? I'm not kidding, there are some who believe this.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Why do the tax incentives have to fall away? That has never happened for the oil industry and it is the main reason why the price of energy is so low. If you remove the wind subsidies, remove the fossil fuel subsidies as well and you will find that the price of generation goes up for all sources and wind will remain competitive.
Of course this is not likely to happen since Republicans will cut wind while continuing to give huge tax breaks to their buddies at ExxonMobil, etc.
Getting people to "remote areas" to service the things can be achieved by means of a wonderful invention called a road.
Or if we want to get really crazy, we could hire local people to maintain them. Imagine. Rural jobs for the mechanically inclined...
Fanatically anti-fanatical