More Wind Means Less Baseload Generation

[kristopher]

More Wind Means Less Baseload Generation
In a big chunk of the country, the rise of wind power is reducing the need for baseload generation from coal and nuclear.

EARTHTECHLING, PETE DANKO: SEPTEMBER 18, 2013

...The government’s official energy analysts said the rise of wind power in what’s known as the Southwest Power Pool (SPP) -- all of Kansas and Oklahoma, plus parts of New Mexico, Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri and Nebraska -- has led to a steady reduction in the use of baseload capacity in the past three years.



Baseload resources -- things like coal and nuclear plants that usually operate around the clock -- tend to have the highest capital costs among grid power sources, while peaking resources generally cheaper. So while wind can increase the need for peaking resources that operate more expensively, more wind could in the long run reduce the need for new baseload plants.

(T)he use of baseload capacity, which includes units that run near full capacity at all times, is…the minimum of the hourly difference between total demand and wind output. This value has come down in each of the last three years in SPP, as wind generation has supplanted baseload generation, typically from nuclear and coal units.

What’s especially remarkable about what’s happening in the Southwest Power Pool is that baseload has been falling even as demand for energy has been rising in the region. That’s right: even as more power has been needed, the amount of required baseload has dropped...

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/more-wind-means-less-baseload-generation?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=Headline&utm_campaign=GTMDaily

[madokie]

1. I see that as good

I remember looking at wind maps years ago and it didn't seem that OK was in a good place but we're getting better than 10% or our electricity from wind now. I think I seen it is 11 almost 12%.
We're constantly seeing parts, towers, nacelles, blades, for wind turbines coming though here headed to parts unknown to me.

[OnlinePoker]

2. As a percentage of the total generation in the U.S., it's still less than 5%

That being said, it is growing. Here are the percentages of total generation for the last 4 years 2010 - 2.3%, 2011 - 2.93%, 2012 - 3.46%, and 2013 (to May) - 4.84%. As offshore wind projects eventually come on line, this should increase quite a bit. On the end of the carbon spectrum, coal generation is plummeting, down from a high of over 2 trillion kilowatt hours in 2007 to 1.5 trillion kwh last year (of course nat gas is taking up a lot of that capacity).

http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec7_5.pdf

[joshcryer]

4. Natural gas makes up 30% of electrical generation.

* Coal 37%
* Natural Gas 30%
* Nuclear 19%
* Hydropower 7%
* Other Renewable 5%
** Biomass 1.42%
** Geothermal 0.41%
** Solar 0.11%
** Wind 3.46%
* Petroleum 1%
* Other Gases < 1%

[NickB79]

5. The change in coal generation is interesting

On the one hand, it's good news the US is burning 500 billion kwh less of coal annually.

On the other hand, the US is now exporting a record amount of coal to be burned in other countries: http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=11751

It appears, based on that article and graph, that the US has gone from exporting approximately 50 million tons of coal annually in 2007, to 125 million tons annually today, for a net increase of 75 million tons per year.

At 2450 kwh/ton of coal (see http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/question481.htm), that means we've increased coal exports enough to generate an additional 610 billion kwh of electricity (see http://www.convertunits.com/from/kWh/to/tonne+of+coal+equivalent), more than offsetting what we're saving here in the US.

That is not such good news. We seem determined to burn that coal, no matter what.

[quadrature]

3. does not lower the need for BL capacity...nt

[kristopher]

6. Nukelover's diversions aside - More Wind Means Less Baseload Generation

And that is a good thing (unless you are a nukelover, of course).