Gregory Meyer reports at CNBC that electricity generated by US wind farms fell 6 per cent in the first half of the year even as the nation expanded wind generation capacity by 9 per cent. The reason was some of the softest air currents in 40 years, cutting power sales from wind farms to utilities and the situation is likely to intensify into the first quarter of 2016 as the El Niño weather phenomenon holds back wind speeds around much of the US. "We never anticipated a drop-off in the wind resource as we have witnessed over the past six months," says David Crane.
Wind generated 4.4 per cent of US electricity last year, up from 0.4 per cent a decade earlier. But this year US wind plants' "capacity factor" has averaged just a third of their total generating capacity, down from 38 per cent in 2014. The EIA (U.S. Energy Information Administration) notes that slightly slower wind speeds can reduce output by a disproportionately large amount. "Capacity factors for wind turbines are largely determined by wind resources," according to their report "Because the output from a turbine varies nonlinearly with wind speed, small decreases in wind speeds can result in much larger changes in output and, in turn, capacity factors." In January of 2015, wind speeds remained 20 to 45 percent below normal on areas of the west coast, but it was especially bad in California, Oregon, and Washington, where those levels dropped to 50 percent below normal during the month of January.
Some also speculate the the increase in the number of wind farms may be having an effect. Since wind turbines extract kinetic energy from the air around them, and since less energy makes for weaker winds, turbines make it less windy. Technically speaking, the climate zone right behind a turbine (or behind all the turbines on a wind farm) experiences what's called a "wind speed vacuum," or a "momentum deficit." In other words, the air slows down and upwind turbines in a densely packed farm may weaken the breeze before it reaches the downwind ones. A study in 2013 also found that large wind farms could be expected to influence local and regional atmospheric circulations. "If wind farms were constructed on a truly massive scale," adds Daniel Engbar, "their cumulative momentum deficit could conceivably alter wind speeds on a global scale."
(Score: 2) by Hyperturtle on Friday September 04 2015, @12:05AM
Maybe they should worry about how we will run out of fossil fuels and we're looking to drilling in the arctic to ensure another few decades worth of supply.
I am doubting we'll run out of wind, even when they line the windmills up the same as the soldiers that are securing the oil.
(Score: 1) by Hyperturtle on Friday September 04 2015, @12:08AM
eh wind will become scarce. well. it passed spell check.
(Score: 2) by davester666 on Friday September 04 2015, @12:56AM
Clearly, we need to move the so-called "debates" in Congress and the Senate to the midwest, and hold them outdoors. Maybe also have all the Presidential Candidate debates there as well.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday September 04 2015, @01:04AM
(Score: 2, Insightful) by jmorris on Friday September 04 2015, @12:43AM
Yup, I called this one. Years ago. And got the troll/flamebait mods to prove it... both here and the other place.
Every alternate energy source that is put into widescale production exposes the side effects that were not visible in the test deployments and is then declared "not green" since green energy is defined as something for nothing, energy with no consequences but good feels for the greens mandating them.
So basically this is the current state of play:
Windmills kill birds and now directly cause climate change.
Hydroelectric destroys fisheries, blah blah.
Solar in the solar furnace mode kills birds, photovoltaic is manufactured from toxic chemicals and both cover vast areas in collectors and harm the wildlife in the 'pristine desert ecosystems.'
Biomass causes famine by diverting farmland from feeding the starving billions (without the capitalism needed to feed themselves) and instead makes fuel for SUVs.
And of course we all know it isn't possible to design a safe nuke plant so we will just run the old fifty year old designs until they suffer horrible malfunctions and then use that to confirm our original bias against the technology. Fusion is nuke and therefore evil, if it ever actually appears that is. No, shut up with your physics nonsense this is about emotion, about feelz.
Prove me wrong. Propose a green tech that would stay green in wide deployment and if I don't shred it it is a certainly it will only be because somebody else beat me to it.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 04 2015, @01:08AM
Soylent Green
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @01:55AM
Windmills kill birds
Windows[1] and birds are orders of magnitude more significant.
Chart 1 [wikipedia.org]
Chart 2 [googleusercontent.com] (orig) [thinkprogress.org]
and now directly cause climate change
More cherry-picked Faux News bullshit from jmorris.
(A barely-measurable effect over a 500-foot radius is NOT "climate".)
You deniers just never give up.
[1] Hey, look! He spelled it the normal way. Oh, wait.
-- gewg_
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @02:04AM
s/and birds/and cats
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 04 2015, @01:56AM
I've said similar things, and got the same snorts of derision. (some of it here on SN).
Actually I think Solar has a very high potential for climate change, moving a great deal of heat from point A, via electricity to Point B, plus a lot siphoned off to do work.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @03:06AM
Actually I think Solar has a very high potential for climate change, moving a great deal of heat from point A, via electricity to Point B, plus a lot siphoned off to do work.
<snort>
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 04 2015, @12:12PM
And where was this concern about distribution of heat when Robert Moses and his ilk were busy, busy, busy paving over a large chunk of the Earth's surface and creating heat islands? If we now cover those suburban box stores with solar panels and cover over the acres and acres of parking lot with solar panels (on stilts) then we'd probably do something to reverse the worrisome changes in heat distribution that those earlier policies already caused.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Friday September 04 2015, @06:53PM
And yet we build solar farms in the desert, and the city heat island persists!
I point out your own argument seems to suggest even you believe there is a significant environmental effect to SOLAR.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @10:24PM
A parody of your argument is not an agreement with it.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @03:03AM
> Yup, I called this one.
It revealing that when you read that el nino is holding back wind speeds what you think is that windmills are slowing down wind speeds.
It is always disappointing when someone lives down to a stereotype.
> Windmills kill birds and now directly cause climate change.
Windmills kill 0.27 birds per GWh
Fossil-fuel power plants kill 9.4 birds per GWh
Source: The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power [ssrn.com]
> Prove me wrong. Propose a green tech that would stay green in wide deployment
Windmills are getting safer for birds as deployment increases:
In 2009, there were 12.5 bird kills per MW of installed wind capacity.
In 2012, there were 9.5 bird kills per MW of installed wind capacity.
Sources: American Bird Conservancy [abcbirds.org] and American Wind Energy Association [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @10:23AM
> In 2009, there were 12.5 bird kills per MW of installed wind capacity.
> In 2012, there were 9.5 bird kills per MW of installed wind capacity.
Reduced exposure to wind turbines caused by lower populations caused by death by wind turbines could also account for the reduction.
Not saying that is the case, you just have to consider these other explanations (easy to check if it is though.. local bird population 2009 vs 2012. If it is the same, they are safer.. or the birds have learned not to fly near them!).
(Score: 3, Interesting) by aristarchus on Friday September 04 2015, @07:59AM
Prove me wrong.
Got no need to prove you wrong, jmorris. I just want to go my way. And you seem to be against private entrepreneurship! It would be much better if you could explain how the spinny-turbine things are depleting our global reserves of wind. Just a while ago I did hear about a massive wind-spill from one of these "farms". Thousands of innocent people were subject to blowing air, and the entire area was unsafe for a matter of multiple minutes. Just thank god it was not a nuclear plant, or a coal fired plant, or a Texas fertilizer plant! Or Union-Carbide overseas.
Given all your objections, I can see no plausible course of action other than continuing to subsidize (via tax loopholes and limited liability) the petrochemical corporations that do such a good job of protecting us from the horrors of things like wind-spills. And Hydroelectric emissions. And Photovoltaic efficiencies of scale. Last thing I want is power from the sun, unless it is mediated through millions of years and legacy corporations.
(Don't make me bring out the shill accusation! It gets old! And it is so obviously true! Only thing we are missing is how much they are paying you, and how the rest of us can get in on the action. I too can post that renewable energy will never succeed, given enough monetary incentive! Oh, OH, Lordy: Free Markets at work. Thanks to the Cock Brothers. They do not pay me to spell their name correctly.)
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Friday September 04 2015, @09:22AM
Whoosh! That was the sound of my sarcasm going right over yer head.
I'm calling out you greens over the fact you preen about green, safe, renewable, blah, blah and then as soon as one goes into actual production you are they very same ones who begin to bitch and whine when the side effects become known. The links in the article ain't to big oil they are to warmers and other junk science outfits. PopSci, NBC News and other similar political outfits on the left.
There is literally no energy source possible that will satisfy the greens because the whole point is to force the end of Western Civilization because it is based on a high energy lifestyle. If somebody developed and gave away the patent on a miracle 'zero point energy' source the greens would be suicidal at the thought of the profligate energy use it would engender.
(Score: 3, Touché) by aristarchus on Friday September 04 2015, @09:31AM
Ah ha! jmorris! Double whoosh on you! Of course I realized what you were saying, but I also realized that you were completely wrong and the declining costs of capitalization will result in the squeezing of the amount that capitalists can squeeze both from consumers and workers. We do not need "zero-point", we have a huge fusion reactor in the sky, so maybe we should, like, use that? So, you are NOT going to tell us what BP pays for shills these days? You know, withholding information like that is one reason the free market does not prevail.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 04 2015, @12:28PM
I have never heard that. I have never heard anyone among "the greens" state their goal is to "force the end of Western Civilization." They do talk about choosing some technologies rather than others, but then, isn't that what all humans do? They do talk about considering more factors in decision-making than what's reflected in a balance sheet, but then, isn't that what all humans do (at least, ones that aren't sociopaths)? If you could make a million dollars at the cost of eating your children, wouldn't you at least consider not taking the million dollars?
There are many flavors of capitalism and productive work, but a prominent one among gonzo capitalists is quite rooted in 18th century thinking, "Let's burn as much as we can, consume as much as we can, dig as much as we can, waste as much as we can." Me, I hew to the ethic of my Scottish forebears of parsimony, of "doing as much as you can with as little as you can." It's about finding clever ways of saving time, labor, and material inputs. To me it feels not just more efficient, but a more challenging puzzle and intellectually engaging than guzzling at a trough.
Now that the billions of people who have been utterly exploited to enable the former approach are pushing back, have reached their limit, then we quite need to consider other approaches, among whom is the latter.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 04 2015, @12:06PM
Do you ever pause for a moment when composing your posts and think, "Boy, isn't it terribly ironic that I'm panning alternative energy because of theoretical negative externalities instead of panning current energy sources that have very well documented negative externalities?"
"Double-think" is the only word I can think of that describes what you're demonstrating here.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by fritsd on Friday September 04 2015, @01:32PM
"green energy" is not defined as "something for nothing, energy with no consequences".
AFAIK, it is defined as an energy source where the "fuel" is renewable on a timespan comparable to a human lifetime. E.g. sawdust pellets, made from a 20 year old pine tree, is considered a renewable fuel, but Braunkohle from 55 million years of underground compression and heat treatment is not.
Practical result of this is, that with careful use, a sustainable resource will never run out, and the energy producer just has to make the initial investment, plus long-term maintenance costs (which are usually a lot lower).
Of course there are side effects; you wouldn't want to buy expensive solar panels without theft- and hail-insurance, for example. But about your summary of the current state of play:
- windmills kill birds: yes, but not many, so if you need to solve that problem, neuter all cats in your country first.
- windmills directly cause climate change: how???
- hydroelectric destroys fisheries: at a small extra cost, the company can construct "salmon stairs", doesn't that help a lot?
- solar furnaces kill birds: why would a bird fly over an area that is painfully hot and bright? do they tend to fly into forest fires as well?
- solar photovoltaic is manufactured from toxic chemicals: true, so the cost to neutralize the waste products should be folded back into the production cost with government taxation. I don't know if China does this sufficiently.
- solar (both) cover vast areas in collectors and harm the wildlife in the pristine desert ecosystems: I dunno, maybe that's true. There is a price to everything, do you want electricity or not? To put solar collectors on Antarctica is counterproductive, because the sun only shines half of the year there, the angle is bad, and maintenance costs would be astronomical.
- biomass causes famine by diverting farmland from feeding the starving billions: that's a big problem caused by wrong government subsidies. the biomass should only be either from farm waste products, or from plants grown on areas that wouldn't be productive farmland or protected nature anyway. I thought Indonesia was guilty of this, by burning down rainforest to plant oil palm trees.
- we can't design a safe nuke plant that's economically viable. The insurance mathematicians have shown this, and they're a neutral (therefore reliable) source.
- the Greens in Europe demand a halt to ITER because they would prefer other avenues of energy production to be given higher priority of study than nuclear fusion. It's not that they're *against* nuclear fusion technology, per sé.
jmorris, if you redefine the meaning of "green" then of course nobody can prove you wrong :-) you can always shift the goalposts some more.
But consider what I'm going to say:
- If an energy source is not "sustainable energy", then it's not sustainable. It can not be sustained.
(Score: 2) by Hawkwind on Friday September 04 2015, @10:33PM
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/09/01/national/assumption-safety-behind-fukushima-debacle-final-iaea-report/ [japantimes.co.jp]
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Friday September 04 2015, @12:44AM
The world is veiled in darkness.
The wind stops, the sea is wild, and the earth begins to rot.
The people wait, their only hope, a prophecy...
"When the world is in darkness Four Warriors will come..."
After a long journey, four young warriors arrive, each holding an ORB.
Good thing that guy from the other thread never became a wind farmer!
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 04 2015, @12:46AM
I've always thought that solar and wind were complementary systems. You install the solar for semi-reliability, and the wind is a kind of backup system. That is, when you get the least solar, is when you are probably getting the most wind, and vice-versa. Installing them side by side should ensure that you never need the grid again.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @12:57AM
That's just insane thinking. Obviously, there must be one single best choice that will work at all times in all places and if we spend any resource pursuing other energy sources we're fools.
(Score: 2) by subs on Friday September 04 2015, @01:05AM
you are probably getting the most wind
That's the crucial word. What happens when you get least solar and the wind goes away, sometimes for weeks at a time?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 04 2015, @01:35AM
Sounds like a regional thing to me. In the temperate zones, overcast skies go hand in hand with storms and high winds. Bright sunshiny days are generally calm days. Sure, there are exceptions to every rule, but those exceptions don't seem to last for weeks at a time.
Of course, for redundancy, you can stay attached to the grid, and sell your excess electricity when you have it, then pull in electricity when you need it. There are claims that people actually pocket money doing this. Alternatively, you can keep a traditional generator ready, to fill in when nothing else works.
Bottom line, if you have money to invest in your own infrastructure, you really ought to look at multiple sources of electricity. Remember, TANSTAAFL. Energy costs, no matter what approach you take to exctract energy from the environment.
People who live in regions such as you describe need to balance their options, and go with the alternative that is most likely to meet their needs. If that means staying on the grid, then that's what they need to do. No single source of energy is likely to prove "best" for everyone in the world.
Well - not until we have reliable, cheap cold fusion, anyway.
(Score: 2) by subs on Friday September 04 2015, @07:57AM
Sounds like a regional thing to me. In the temperate zones, overcast skies go hand in hand with storms and high winds. Bright sunshiny days are generally calm days. Sure, there are exceptions to every rule, but those exceptions don't seem to last for weeks at a time.
Unfortunately, they exist and they're not rare either. See for example this study [fraunhofer.de]. On page 40 you can see daily production from the whole of Germany. Between Feb and March you can see a week long period when output drops by nearly 90%. Then it happens again at the end of March. Interspersed are 2-3 day periods of similar low production. At other times, there are days when production is easily 20x that low. There is no storage system on the planet that can deal with this kind of intermittent production and mind you, this is data averaged over all of Germany, not just one locale. Locally, it'd be much, much worse.
Alternatively, you can keep a traditional generator ready, to fill in when nothing else works.
Besides on-demand generation being usually very dirty, you'll also be running it a good portion of the time, largely offsetting the benefit you're getting from the renewable source. Until the intermittency problem is solved, wind & solar can only ever be of benefit on the periphery. You'll still need reliable low-carbon baseload production and ATM that's only nuclear or hydro (where resources are available - unfortunately, in places like Germany, they're pretty much all exploited already).
(Score: 2, Informative) by stingraz on Friday September 04 2015, @01:53PM
Between Feb and March you can see a week long period when output drops by nearly 90%. Then it happens again at the end of March. Interspersed are 2-3 day periods of similar low production. At other times, there are days when production is easily 20x that low. There is no storage system on the planet that can deal with this kind of intermittent production and mind you, this is data averaged over all of Germany, not just one locale. Locally, it'd be much, much worse.
That can happen at the scale of a country like Germany, yes. However, The European power grid is fairly well integrated at a scale much larger than this; the UCTE continental synchronicity zone spans an area from Portugal to Turkey, and from Italy to Denmark. Significant power flows (at multi-gigawatt levels) are possible within that zone, and the EU is pushing for a further buildout of cross-border transmission capacities, which should happen in the next 10-15 years. This should increase transmission capacity into and out of Germany alone by around 100%. Connections to the Nordic zone (Scandinavia) and the British Isles are also available today in multi-gigawatt capacities, and further buildout to connect either to (mostly) Norway better is happening as we speak.
Wind power becomes much more evenly available once your grid spans more than 1500km (~1000mi) in all directions (research shows that wind power aggregates over all of Europe + North Africa would virtually guarantee that power output never drops below ~30% of rated power, and rarely exceeds 50% either). This is directly linked to the size of low-pressure systems, which is to say that solar output will basically correlate in an inverse way to wind power.
Viewing a system the size of Germany is too narrow-minded a perspective; the current scale of most existing continental power grids is already beyond that, and future developments make your point even more moot. The main obstacle seems to be the people that oppose transmission capacity (line) construction in the mistaken belief that this would not be necessary for "decentralized" renewable energy scenarios, when in fact it's quite the opposite.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:06PM
That's why you have things like regional grids...like we already have. Granted decentralized power generation through multiple sources would essentially nullify this especially once we move more to an onsite generation model. But hey why let things like intelligent infrastructure design come into a pedantic discussion about how evil renewable energy is.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Friday September 04 2015, @02:15AM
My thinking is we need to get away from the idea of centrally produced power. Ideally, homes and developments would be built to best take advantage of solar and whatever other local sources are appropriate, with local co-ops using small generating plants to make up for any individual shortages. More efficient, better for the environment, will cost a whole lot less in the long run. Of course, big power will fight this tooth and nail, and I'm sure they will work to put every legislative impediment in the way.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 04 2015, @12:51PM
I share your philosophy. Enough with central control over every central aspects of our daily lives. Want to get to work? Pay Big Oil. Want to switch on the light in your room? Pay Big Power. Their abuse never stops, because they have everyone by the balls.
We have the technology now to put an end to it and them once and for all. So let's get on with it.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:35AM
> That is, when you get the least solar, is when you are probably getting the most wind, and vice-versa.
Not so much. Wind tends to die off at night. Wind is driven by temperature differentials and without the sun to add heat to the ground creating a differential it all dies off. It is pretty dramatic - here is this week's data for a weather-station near me. [newsday.com] Look at the 3rd graph labeled "wind speed/wind gust" you can see how each day the wind starts at around 8:30AM and stops around 9PM - which is about 2 hours offset from sunrise and sunset (currently 6:30AM and 7:15PM at that location).
Of course that phenomenon is not universally true, but it is the norm. Some areas of geography have more consistent wind, especially near bodies of water because water holds heat much better than earth so when the sun goes away, the earth cools but the water stays warm and thus you get a breeze. Other factors include height (not necessarily altitude) the higher off the ground, the more wind.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday September 04 2015, @02:09PM
KCALOSAN That would be coastal California? Uh-huh - I guess I should have known better. Coastal regions have their own weather patterns, and I didn't think about that at all. I don't know where to look for a similar chart, but each day, I look at the local weather from NOAA in DeQueen, Ar. We generally get a little breeze in the evenings, and it lasts most of the night.
OH NOES! Weatherunderground says I'm full of shit, and don't know what I'm talking about!
Well, not exactly, but my local chart resembles the chart you link to. Hmmmm - now I need to look at things and figure out where I've gone wrong.
Thanks for posting, man!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:33PM
> KCALOSAN That would be coastal California
That is right in the middle of the san fernando valley. Coastal, being near a body of water, would tend to have sustained winds even at night.
(Score: 2) by RedBear on Friday September 04 2015, @07:32AM
Hey man... Hey. Are you... Are you feeling alright?
¯\_ʕ◔.◔ʔ_/¯ LOL. I dunno. I'm just a bear.
... Peace out. Got bear stuff to do. 彡ʕ⌐■.■ʔ
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Friday September 04 2015, @12:47PM
Micro-hydro is another option for those whose property affords them access to water courses. With enough head and step-down pipes you can drive a nice little turbine to supplement what you get with wind and solar. Of course, hydro is vulnerable to drought or flood, as solar is vulnerable to clouds and wind is to wind bursts. But layered together they can work well.
Sufficient battery capacity is key to store enough surplus to get you through troughs. You can still produce more than you need or can store, which is why net-metering on a grid tie is a good thing. Utilities are starting to push back hard on net metering and even residential solar and wind as demand destruction accelerates, though. They have more political clout than all of us yokels, so they will get their way. A fallback is therefore micro-grids you set up with your neighbors. It gives you greater supply smoothing.
If you don't get on with your neighbors you can cover gaps in your supply-demand by reducing your demand. Water heaters and fridges and cable boxes consume the most electricity in most peoples' homes. Swapping the first two out for efficient models will drop your kwh's a lot. The third you can't do much about short of cutting the cable, alas. If you're up for a bolder bid for energy independence, you can switch your HVAC to a ground-source heat pump (GSHP) that also ties into your water heater, such that waste heat from the house is pumped into it. It's common for people who switch to GSHP's to report their energy bills dropping from thousands per year to about a hundred bucks.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by frojack on Friday September 04 2015, @01:24AM
In January of 2015, wind speeds remained 20 to 45 percent below normal on areas of the west coast, but it was especially bad in California, Oregon, and Washington, where those levels dropped to 50 percent below normal during the month of January.
Well, since California, Oregon, and Washington constitute the west coast, which is it, 50% or 20-45%?
(All 6 turbines in Alaska don't count).
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @06:12AM
Oh jee you sure showed us. Alaska must be some backwater hick state because its were Sarah Palin is from.
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22752 [eia.gov]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @03:10AM
You've done good editing submissions.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Soybean on Sunday September 06 2015, @09:55PM
Since this story is long off the front page, few people will see this post. But it only takes me a few minutes to make it so I will do it anyway in case anyone does come looking...
Turns out the only reason the numbers look like they are down is because 2014 had abnormally high numbers.
Compare 2015's number to the long-term average and they are unremarkable. [aweablog.org]