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.
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.
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.
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.
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.