Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:09AM   Printer-friendly
from the getting-windy dept.

In the US, a number of major milestones occurred on the electric grid in 2016, almost all of them involving wind power. Now the Energy Information Administration is confirming that's because of a big overall trend: 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 US 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 US' 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 US 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.

The graphic in the article aptly illustrates the dramatically different growth curves.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by qzm on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:33AM (12 children)

    by qzm (3260) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:33AM (#476367)

    I really REALLY wish they would stop with the 'capacity' BS when it comes to such sources.
    At least the summary here mentions this, and at least its a LITTLE less stupid with wind that solar (where they often use a figure assuming direct overhead cloudless sun 24 hours a day).
    But then it tries to play word games in compare hydro.. ffs.

    As to hydros power factor, WTF are they talking about? perhaps in California, in a drought, it would be terrible, however there are MANY hydro locations in the world that run at 100%, and even THEN have to
    keep using their spillways. Hydro usually runs below capacity due to lack of demand, not lack of generation capacity - which does NOT mean the same thing, at all...

    Its going to be interesting to see what happens when the subsidies vanish, since this smells an AWFUL like the shale-oil rush which was also just a cash in on subsidies.

    Lets hope at least a little work is being done on siting and design that will give some long term return, rather than just milking the taxpayers.

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by VLM on Wednesday March 08 2017, @01:19PM

    by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 08 2017, @01:19PM (#476416)

    Its going to be interesting to see what happens when the subsidies vanish, since this smells an AWFUL like the shale-oil rush which was also just a cash in on subsidies.

    From the engineering and economic side I've been following and investing in energy for a couple decades with some success and some failure but shale is a purely financial scheme, there's nothing really technologically or engineering interesting, no scaling barriers have been smashed, at least nothing like wind.

    Wind is a different story in that when I was a kid there were no tubular towers, no composite blades, alternator/VFD technology was fairly archaic, really advanced blade CFD work, there's a couple technological scaling barriers that have been smashed in the last couple decades.

    In some sort of WWII gone wrong scenario the USA could be doing shale in like the 50s without any problem, the reason its being done now is all enviro-political-economic-financialization and has nothing to do with a Nobel prize awarded in the 80s that first makes it possible or whatever. There have been refining catalyst improvements and process improvements that obviously increase yield and profit, so shale oil eventually makes more delicious gasoline and less asphalt today than it would have in 1950, but there's nothing "huge". Whereas we literally didn't have the materials and engineering and manufacturing and computers to make a 1980 wind turbine in 1970, and this continues. A modern 2010s turbine literally couldn't have been made in 1990, just didn't know how.

    The interesting part of the scaling problems for wind is the financial numbers for wind have some crazy ridiculous polynomial with turbine size, something to do with winds aloft being more stable or something. Something like 25 feet tall will never make enough energy to refine the steel used in its construction, whereas a 100 meter 8 MW monster is insanely profitable assuming you can find space to install the darn thing. Depending a lot on $/KWH and local reliability of wind, a good rule of thumb is you won't make much more than $1M/yr per MW of installed capacity and wind turbines cost about $1M to $2M per MW and it drops dramatically with size so you can figure anything smaller than 100 meters takes more than a decade to pay off or frankly never makes money and is just greenwashing, but one of those Vesta beasts is making pure profit in maybe as little as 5 years.

    so yeah there's technological breakthru reasons why wind has explosive growth. I'm sure the financialization vultures will sweep in and F it all up in addition, because a vulture gotta do what a vulture gotta do. But fundamentally wind is a healthy growth industry for technological reasons. Shale, well, not so much.

  • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @02:23PM (6 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 08 2017, @02:23PM (#476438) Journal

    Its going to be interesting to see what happens when the subsidies vanish, since this smells an AWFUL like the shale-oil rush which was also just a cash in on subsidies.

    Which while not pocket change, aren't that much [sourcewatch.org] either.

    Congress passed a large tax break in 1980 specifically to encourage unconventional natural gas drilling, with the the federal tax credit for drillers amounting to $10 billion between 1980 and 2002, according to the AP. The US Department of Energy also invested about $137 million in gas research over three decades.

    That's roughly $14 billion in subsidies over multiple decades. In addition, the industry gets standard subsidies and tax write-offs common to anyone in a mining industry which I might add are in large part to compensate for the unusual vagaries of that sort of industry. In return, North Dakota by itself appears to have generated many tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue from fracking in the past ten years.

    • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:13PM (5 children)

      by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:13PM (#476540) Journal

      > That's roughly $14 billion [...]

      That was a typo and you meant $10 billion or $10.1 billion, right?

      In addition, the industry gets standard subsidies and tax write-offs common to anyone in a mining industry which I might add are in large part to compensate for the unusual vagaries of that sort of industry.

      Your source's source calls them "energy subsidies":

      More recently, the natural gas and petroleum industries altogether accounted for about $2.8 billion in federal energy subsidies in the 2010 fiscal year and about $14.7 billion went to renewable energies, the Department of Energy found.

      -- http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/09/24/decades-of-federal-dollars-helped-fuel-gas-boom/ [fuelfix.com]

      In return, North Dakota by itself appears to have generated many tens of billions of dollars in oil revenue from fracking in the past ten years.

      The extraction and consumption of fossil fuels causes pollution, which has costs:

      [...] two major types of air pollution were associated with 4.2 million deaths in 2015, which was a staggering 7.6 percent of all deaths.

      -- https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/air-pollution-around-the-world-takes-a-staggering-toll/2017/03/05/be4b50d8-f300-11e6-a9b0-ecee7ce475fc_story.html [washingtonpost.com]

      Investing in the removal of environmental risks to health, such as improving water quality or using cleaner fuels, will result in massive health benefits.

      -- http://www.who.int/mediacentre/news/releases/2017/pollution-child-death/en/ [who.int]

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:33PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 08 2017, @05:33PM (#476558) Journal

        That was a typo and you meant $10 billion or $10.1 billion, right?

        $10 billion over 20 years and $4 billion over 30 years.

        More recently, the natural gas and petroleum industries altogether accounted for about $2.8 billion in federal energy subsidies in the 2010 fiscal year and about $14.7 billion went to renewable energies, the Department of Energy found.

        I can't help but notice that $2.8 billion is a lot smaller than $14.7 billion despite the former industry being substantially larger than the latter.

        The extraction and consumption of fossil fuels causes pollution, which has costs:

        [...] two major types of air pollution were associated with 4.2 million deaths in 2015, which was a staggering 7.6 percent of all deaths.

        Virtually all of those deaths are in the parts of the world which have weak or non-existent pollution controls. Extracting oil has nothing to do with that.

        Investing in the removal of environmental risks to health, such as improving water quality or using cleaner fuels, will result in massive health benefits.

        And you solve that by turning the developing world in more of the developed world with the pollution controls universal to the developed world.

        • (Score: 2) by butthurt on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:11PM (3 children)

          by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:11PM (#476593) Journal

          >[...] and $4 billion over 30 years.

          This?

          The US Department of Energy also invested about $137 million in gas research over three decades.

          I don't read it as $137 million per year for 30 years, which would be $4.1 billion.

          I can't help but notice that $2.8 billion is a lot smaller than $14.7 billion despite the former industry being substantially larger than the latter.

          Not just larger, but better established and profitable. It needs subsidies because there are uncertainties? Any business faces uncertainties.

          Virtually all of those deaths are in the parts of the world which have weak or non-existent pollution controls. Extracting oil has nothing to do with that.

          [...]

          And you solve that by turning the developing world in more of the developed world with the pollution controls universal to the developed world.

          Another way to solve it would be to develop sources of energy that are inherently less polluting. With wind power, I'd expect most pollution to be made during manufacture, construction and decommissioning, with very little in day-to-day operation. There's no fuel as such.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:41PM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:41PM (#476622) Journal

            Not just larger, but better established and profitable. It needs subsidies because there are uncertainties? Any business faces uncertainties.

            Well, that is the justification. But what is the point of your argument? We've already established here that this particular measure of subsidies is showing a huge bias towards renewable power. qzm implied that there were large subsidies for shale-oil (fracking), but we just don't see that.

            Another way to solve it would be to develop sources of energy that are inherently less polluting. With wind power, I'd expect most pollution to be made during manufacture, construction and decommissioning, with very little in day-to-day operation. There's no fuel as such.

            We already did that. What happened to pollution in the developing world again? Killed 4 million people in 2015. There is here a huge ignorance of the needs of the developing world. It doesn't just need to be less polluting. It needs a long term solution to crippling poverty and overpopulation. Expensive energy sources subsidized for use in the developed world don't deliver that.

            • (Score: 1) by butthurt on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:04PM (1 child)

              by butthurt (6141) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:04PM (#476683) Journal

              > We already did that. [...] Expensive energy sources subsidized for use in the developed world don't deliver [...]

              Perhaps they wouldn't be so expensive, if the industry were larger so it enjoyed greater economies of scale/network effects. Perhaps they won't be so expensive, with further technological development. Subsidies could help to bring those two things about. Fossil fuels might not appear so much less expensive, if the externalities such as ill health from pollution were taken into account.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:42PM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 08 2017, @08:42PM (#476699) Journal

                Perhaps they wouldn't be so expensive, if the industry were larger so it enjoyed greater economies of scale/network effects. Perhaps they won't be so expensive, with further technological development. Subsidies could help to bring those two things about.

                That's a lot of "perhaps". Here's my view. There is some reduction in cost from a doubling of production, either by making things at a higher rate or over a longer time. But there aren't that many doublings left to wind power before it outstrips global demand. Second, wind power currently requires both transmission lines to connect it to grid and backup power sources both to cover for wind deficits and to smooth out supply. Those don't scale so well with production of wind turbines and they are typical costs which aren't normally added to the cost of wind power generation.

                Then if we look at the scale of current subsidies, they are already rather massive for what they do. I think we're well into the realm of negative marginal return on wind power subsidies. My view is let others do the heavy lifting and move into the industry when it makes sense to do so unsubsidized.

  • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:39PM (3 children)

    by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:39PM (#476619)

    If the wind subsidies/markets crash, you still have thousands of windmills providing millions of kWh for a few decades for the cost of maintenance alone. Broken ones can be dismantled for parts and metal.

    If the shale oil subsidies/markets crash, you have wells which might produce for at best three years if maintained, and some of that income needs to be saved to deal with the aftermath: water/soil pollution cleanup and scraps of metal.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:44PM (2 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday March 08 2017, @06:44PM (#476625) Journal

      for the cost of maintenance alone

      Which let us note is a significant cost.

      If the shale oil subsidies/markets crash, you have wells which might produce for at best three years if maintained, and some of that income needs to be saved to deal with the aftermath: water/soil pollution cleanup and scraps of metal.

      And how is that different than your outcome for windmills? Both need cleanup when they're done.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:01PM (1 child)

        by bob_super (1357) on Wednesday March 08 2017, @07:01PM (#476649)

        > > cost of maintenance alone
        > Which let us note is a significant cost.

        Indeed, but wind is getting cost-competitive when including amortization of initial cost, so future maintenance alone will not make the price go up significantly, and the fuel is free.

        > And how is that different than your outcome for windmills? Both need cleanup when they're done.

        If you don't maintain a broken windmill, it's only a danger for those downwind. Finding people willing to cut it down and pay themselves on the parts and metal is pretty easy.
        Meanwhile, there are lots and lots of old shutdown rusting oil well in the US, often with some liquid storage nearby for the spills or fracking fluids. Cleaning that up is an unprofitable mess, as illustrated by how nobody seems to be in a rush to be the king of that business.

        The point was also that the shale oil/gas boom gave us a renewal of SUV and other bad cheap-oil habits, which have a longer life than the wells themselves (fracking well have a short life). Windmills produce clean electricity for a few decades after you decide to stop building new ones.

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:41PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday March 09 2017, @05:41PM (#477027) Journal
          My previous reply was pretty sloppy. It comes down to cost/benefits. The cost of running and shutting down a wind turbine is relatively low, but so is the electricity generated by the turbine. Oil wells do have a more significant cost at all stages of the process. But they also can have a more significant payoff too, particularly when oil prices are high. Currently, oil prices are low, but they won't stay low. I believe there will be future such booms, each driven by oil prices, technology development, and other factors.

          The point was also that the shale oil/gas boom gave us a renewal of SUV and other bad cheap-oil habits, which have a longer life than the wells themselves (fracking well have a short life). Windmills produce clean electricity for a few decades after you decide to stop building new ones.

          It's only because you perceive it as a bad habit. The people buying SUVs and otherwise employing cheap oil (which let us note is cheap!) habits perceive things differently. The only real problem are the externalities of oil use as pollution and a greenhouse gas contributor. We can address the former by better pollution controls on vehicles (and yes, perhaps a higher tax on gasoline) and the latter is unfortunately considerably exaggerated. There isn't any real need to change human behavior.

          On that last point, I should note that I really dislike laws aimed merely at changing behavior. Sure, we want laws to discourage people from murder, theft, assault, rape, etc. But discouraging people from buying SUVs is a different quality of meddling. The problems that are supposed to be solved are often quite petty.

          And unintended consequences are common. For example, SUVs exist in the first place because US automobile companies switched from building station wagons, which were bringing down the gas mileage average of their car fleets to a similar vehicle on a light truck chassis which wasn't subject to clueless gas mileage regulations. Bulking it out as an SUV, was a natural next step.

          This often leads to multiple iterations of behavior modification as the unintended consequences and failures of the previous iteration lead to the next round of attempts. Attempts to root out discrimination and sexual crimes on college campuses have over the decades led to some creepy Orwellian stuff on campuses today. Similar things for student loans which not only has resulted in a ridiculous inflation of college expenses and the dubious distinction of student loans being the only sort of non-dischargeable debt that one can possess today.