U.S. wind energy installations surpass 20,000 megawatts

[bananas]

http://www.awea.org/newsroom/releases/Wind_Installations_Surpass_20K_MW_03Sept08.html

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
September 3, 2008 Contact:
Julie Clendenin [phone]
Kathy Belyeu [phone]


U.S. WIND ENERGY INSTALLATIONS SURPASS 20,000 MEGAWATTS

Delay in extending federal tax credit places 2009 project
pipeline on hold, discourages manufacturing investment

The U.S. wind industry has raced past the 20,000-megawatt (MW) installed capacity milestone, achieving in two years what had previously taken more than two decades, the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) said today (the 10,000-MW mark was reached in 2006). Wind now provides 20,152 MW of electricity generating capacity in the U.S., producing enough electricity to serve 5.3 million American homes or power a fleet of more than 1 million plug-in hybrid vehicles.

“Wind energy installations are well ahead of the curve for contributing 20% of the U.S. electric power supply by 2030 as envisioned by the U.S. Department of Energy,” said AWEA Executive Director Randall Swisher. “However, the looming expiration of the federal renewable energy production tax credit (PTC) less than four months from now threatens this spectacular progress. The PTC has been a critical factor in wind’s very rapid growth as a part of the nation’s power portfolio.” The PTC is currently set to expire at the end of 2008.

<snip>

The U.S. is now the world leader in wind electricity generation. While Germany has more generating capacity installed (about 23,000 MW), the U.S. is producing more electricity from wind because of its much stronger winds. AWEA expects over 7,500 MW of new wind capacity to be added in 2008, expanding America’s wind energy fleet by 45% and bringing total U.S. capacity to some 24,300 MW.

Although 20,000 MW is an important milestone, wind power provides just over 1.5% of the nation’s electricity, far below the potential identified by experts. Still, it is one of the fastest-growing electricity sources today, providing 35% of the total new capacity added in 2007 (second only to natural gas). The U.S. had 1,000 MW of wind power installed by 1985; 2,000 MW installed by 1999; and 5,000 MW by 2003. Its first 10,000 MW was installed by mid-2006.

<snip>

[TheWraith]

1. Nameplate capacity or actual generation?

If it's nameplate, then you're probably talking about an average of 5 GW actual energy output. From the article, it sounds like they're talking nameplate.

[kristopher]

2. Of course they are talking nameplate. That is standard nomenclature.

It's the same way all power generating equipment is rated, do you ask the same stupid question when coal is referenced?

The actual production is probably a little in excess of 5Gw, however. Probably a little above 6GW since the percentage of newer turbines (they are taller (usually 80m towers) is rapidly diminishing the significance of the older turbines as an influence on the overall average. Once offshore starts coming online the average will get another jolt upwards.

[GliderGuider]

3. I usually ask the question when wind installations are mentioned

because the capacity factor is so much lower than for traditional sources like coal. It's always good to make sure things are stated explicitly so the noobs don't get the wrong impression. The question doesn't need to be asked for coal because the CF is much closer to unity.

[kristopher]

5. That's bullshit. You are just trying to go negative on a renewble.

You are just rationalizing. What about a peaking natural gas plant that might only have an annual CF of 5%?

[GliderGuider]

6. And you're just being argumentative.

Noobs are inclined to think of wind as quasi-base-load, so finding out about the CF is an important learning experience for them (I know it was for me). Peak load follows a whole different set of rules that tend to be more familiar even to noobs.

[phantom power]

7. *sob* ... you leave wind power alooooooone!

[kristopher]

8. Every power plant out there has different operational characteristics.

You're glossing over the CF or peaking plants because the premise of your statement is nonsense. Why focus on that one aspect of renewables to the exclusion of all else? There are wind fields that have higher capacity factors than coal plants (two of the generaprs at a local facility only run about 20% of the time). It is nothing but a kneej-erk criticism to "educate the noobs" with that particular "fact"every time wind or solar is mentioned.


For proof we need simply ask why you fail to note the differences between system efficiencies of wind/solar and any source of thermal generation. If your goal were really "educating the noobs" (arrogant phrase, that one) it would seem reasonable that you would include the fact that we actually need only produce about 36% of the energy we currently input into the system if we replace it with more effectively utilized power sources like wind and solar.

Or I suppose it could be that, in fact, you are a noob yourself in need of further "education?"

[TheWraith]

4. If you weren't so busy personally attacking me, you'd know that nameplate capacity only matters

When the actual generating capacity is different. With any kind of 24/7 power--coal, hydro, nuclear, etcetera--nameplate and actual generated energy are so close as to render the distinction meaningless in casual discussion, unless you choose to run the plant at lower power.

[kristopher]

9. Which they almost always do.

The entire system efficiency is the most important consideration. As for nameplate capacity, that is the only way to do it. It is a benchmark from which analysis starts and since we know that coal, for example, has an average CF of 72% or so, there are a hell of a lot of coal plants running at a lot lower capacity than that. NAt Gas is even worse.

[Fledermaus]

10. Personal attacks aside, the nameplate argument is disinformation

Only nuclear approches its name plate capacity at about 90%

Average Capacity Factor by Energy Source, 2006

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/figes3.html

[kristopher]

11. Nameplate capacity isn't an "argument"

It is a piece of data. The *concept* of nameplate capacity and capacity factors are convenient ways to benchmark evaluations of different power production platforms.

[Throckmorton]

12. Stop it, your evil

How dare you try to normalize the data between power sources, you arrogant, pro-Palin, meanie.