US wind capacity surpasses hydro, overall generation to follow

[EC]

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.

In fact, that happened for part of 2016. As hydro began its normal late-summer decline, increased wind generation in the early fall made it the largest source of renewable energy in the US for several months. During that time, wind set some rather dramatic records. During one February night, wind accounted for more than half the power produced in a region that serves several states in the central plains. The Texas grid (called ERCOT) is also regularly setting new records, and wind penetration has hit 47 and 48 percent in the previous year.

Read more: https://arstechnica.co.uk/science/2017/03/us-wind-capacity-surpasses-hydro-overall-generation-to-follow/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

'Capacity' is a loose term.  What is the real deal is the actual generation of power made.

Do you have a chart on that?

The wind don't always blow and there are many, many idled windmills that have capacity but generate nothing.

As an example, wind power typically during the course of a year generates only about 25% of its capacity, whereas nuclear generates about 90% of its capacity.

[thackney]

'Capacity' is a loose term.  What is the real deal is the actual generation of power made.

Do you have a chart on that?

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.cfm

[Cripplecreek]

As far as I know, the enviroweenies aren't running around hacking down windmills. Instead they're "Removing the shackles from Americas wild and free rivers" by removing dams.

Teen pregnancy drops off dramatically after the age of 19!!!!

It was only a few years ago that the DOE produced a list of some 800 dams east of the Mississippi that could be retrofitted or repowered to be effective electricity producers.

[thackney]

Do you have a chart on that?

Current and predicted electrical generation chart, breaking out wind specifically rather than lumping it with other renewables.

Table 7d. U.S. Regional Electricity Generation, All Sectors (Thousand megawatthours per day) https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/tables/pdf/7dtab.pdf

2016:
Wind Averaged 610 Thousand megawatthours per day
Conventional Hydropower 721 Averaged 610 Thousand megawatthours per day

So it really is capacity, not actual generation.  But the actual generation is getting close to hydro, ~85%.  Predicted to be ~98% in 2018, of course both values are weather dependent.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

What I am really after is a comparison of the esoteric capacity assertion to the actual generation of power.


This is like saying " I am going to do it" to " It is done".

[Idaho_Cowboy]

'Capacity' is a loose term.  What is the real deal is the actual generation of power made.

Do you have a chart on that?

The wind don't always blow and there are many, many idled windmills that have capacity but generate nothing.

As an example, wind power typically during the course of a year generates only about 25% of its capacity, whereas nuclear generates about 90% of its capacity.

As I understand it the big problem is Wind Power doesn't really take capacity offline, at least long term. As you have to be ready to switch in power the minute the breeze lets up. Unless there is some major storage improvement. These eyesores remain nothing but loud ugly wind powered birdie blenders.

And how come liberals never care about "pristine" environments and skylines in the desert? They sure care about their beaches and Alaska postcard country. What's up with that?

[IsailedawayfromFR]

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/electricity.cfm

That is nice, but what is really revealing is the chart of actual generated power in kw vs the installed generating capacity for a wind installation which most importantly does not include the secondary power generation.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

As I understand it the big problem is Wind Power doesn't really take capacity offline, at least long term. As you have to be ready to switch in power the minute the breeze lets up. Unless there is some major storage improvement. These eyesores remain nothing but loud ugly wind powered birdie blenders.

And how come liberals never care about "pristine" environments and skylines in the desert? They sure care about their beaches and Alaska postcard country. What's up with that?

That is EXACTLY the problem.  The wind don't always blow and the sun don't always shine.  The generating capacity of a wind farm or a solar farm is a farce when describing how beneficial it actually is. It averages very low, well below 50%, whereas for a coal or gas power plant is it high, maybe 80 to 90%.  Nuclear is 90%.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

That is EXACTLY the problem.  The wind don't always blow and the sun don't always shine.  The generating capacity of a wind farm or a solar farm is a farce when describing how beneficial it actually is. It averages very low, well below 50%, whereas for a coal or gas power plant is it high, maybe 80 to 90%.  Nuclear is 90%.

For most areas the wind tends to be calm around dusk; when people get home turn on the lights and crank up the AC or heat. Hydro electric power at least tends to be consistent around the clock, droughts not withstanding. With the Fracking boom and gas prices down it just doesn't make sense to keep investing in wind power.

[Cripplecreek]

For most areas the wind tends to be calm around dusk; when people get home turn on the lights and crank up the AC or heat. Hydro electric power at least tends to be consistent around the clock, droughts not withstanding. With the Fracking boom and gas prices down it just doesn't make sense to keep investing in wind power.

One of my favorite bits of stupidity is using windmills to fill reservoirs for hydroelectric generation. It doesn't appear to be efficient but it does pay better because the hydro half of the equations is used during hours of peak demand (and peak cost for the customer.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

A few years back we had a scandal here in Michigan where emails were passed around among Consumers Energy bigwigs. Basically they said that wind power is inefficient but could be used to create an artificial increase in demand. They even suggested pulling other traditional coal, gas and hydro plants offline and replacing them with inefficient wind as a means of driving their own prices up. They even suggested more pump storage facilities as a means of pushing their profit higher. (stupid in a state like Michigan that already has hundreds of dams)

I'm all for a company making money hand over fist by honest means but that sort of crap is manipulative and they have a captive consumer base as well. They'll claim it isn't a monopoly because DTE also operates in the state but Consumers and DTE operate on their own turf and they work together to make sure no one else manages to get in.

Going back to wind surpassing hydro, again we're tearing dams out all across the country so of course their production opposed to wind is falling. If we start knocking windmills down, their production will fall as well. Hydro is considerably more efficient due to the energy density alone. You can knock someone off their feet with a 5 gallon bucket of water but if you try the same with air they get a small breeze for a second. The primary export to America of either Quebec or Nova Scotia is hydroelectric power.

The only real drawback with hydro is that its tied to the availability of water. Its part of why the big dams are in the arid west where they collect all the water which then falls a long way to drive turbines with maximum force. They also distribute electricity over a wider area. East of the Mississippi we have small dams everywhere.

[Idaho_Cowboy]

One of my favorite bits of stupidity is using windmills to fill reservoirs for hydroelectric generation. It doesn't appear to be efficient but it does pay better because the hydro half of the equations is used during hours of peak demand (and peak cost for the customer.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricity

A few years back we had a scandal here in Michigan where emails were passed around among Consumers Energy bigwigs. Basically they said that wind power is inefficient but could be used to create an artificial increase in demand. They even suggested pulling other traditional coal, gas and hydro plants offline and replacing them with inefficient wind as a means of driving their own prices up. They even suggested more pump storage facilities as a means of pushing their profit higher. (stupid in a state like Michigan that already has hundreds of dams)

I'm all for a company making money hand over fist by honest means but that sort of crap is manipulative and they have a captive consumer base as well. They'll claim it isn't a monopoly because DTE also operates in the state but Consumers and DTE operate on their own turf and they work together to make sure no one else manages to get in.

Going back to wind surpassing hydro, again we're tearing dams out all across the country so of course their production opposed to wind is falling. If we start knocking windmills down, their production will fall as well. Hydro is considerably more efficient due to the energy density alone. You can knock someone off their feet with a 5 gallon bucket of water but if you try the same with air they get a small breeze for a second. The primary export to America of either Quebec or Nova Scotia is hydroelectric power.

The only real drawback with hydro is that its tied to the availability of water. Its part of why the big dams are in the arid west where they collect all the water which then falls a long way to drive turbines with maximum force. They also distribute electricity over a wider area. East of the Mississippi we have small dams everywhere.

That's an interesting story to be sure.

[thackney]

What I am really after is a comparison of the esoteric capacity assertion to the actual generation of power.


This is like saying " I am going to do it" to " It is done".

My numbers are actual power generated.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

My numbers are actual power generated.

Yes, I know, but what we are after is the % of installed capacity that is utilized.

The source article we are referencing is about installed capacity.

You presented a graph of generated capacity.

What I am (poorly it seems) articulating is the % or installed capacity that is actually generating power.

Your chart does not do that.

[thackney]

Yes, I know, but what we are after is the % of installed capacity that is utilized.

The source article we are referencing is about installed capacity.

You presented a graph of generated capacity.

What I am (poorly it seems) articulating is the % or installed capacity that is actually generating power.

Your chart does not do that.

I don't understand the purpose of that number.  Solar and wind are obviously not running full time.  Dollars per kWH is what is meaningful.

It would be equivalent of wanting to compare only the cost of fuel for producing electricity. That would be just as biased and meaningless comparison.  Nobody is trying to claim the sun never sets.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I don't understand the purpose of that number.  Solar and wind are obviously not running full time.  Dollars per kWH is what is meaningful.

It would be equivalent of wanting to compare only the cost of fuel for producing electricity. That would be just as biased and meaningless comparison.  Nobody is trying to claim the sun never sets.

Here is why it is meaningful:

This BS article thumps wind energy capacity installation to be breathtakingly impressive compared to hydro.

If hydro has almost 100% utilization rate of its capacity and wind is in the 20s, the thumping is hollow.

Someone somewhere needs to plant the seeds that capacity utilization is what is important, not just capacity.

What good is a stupid windmill anyway when the wind doesn't blow?

[thackney]

Here is why it is meaningful:

This BS article thumps wind energy capacity installation to be breathtakingly impressive compared to hydro.

If hydro has almost 100% utilization rate of its capacity and wind is in the 20s, the thumping is hollow.

Someone somewhere needs to plant the seeds that capacity utilization is what is important, not just capacity.

What good is a stupid windmill anyway when the wind doesn't blow?

I agree comparing capacity is a stupid comparison.

I also think utilization % is a meaningless comparison as well.

Actual MWH generated and the cost to do them is most all we should care about.  But then comparing peaker units to base load units is silly as well.  They serve different but both needed purposes.

[Joe Wooten]

As far as I know, the enviroweenies aren't running around hacking down windmills. Instead they're "Removing the shackles from Americas wild and free rivers" by removing dams.

Teen pregnancy drops off dramatically after the age of 19!!!!

It was only a few years ago that the DOE produced a list of some 800 dams east of the Mississippi that could be retrofitted or repowered to be effective electricity producers.

Maybe effective, but not economic. Most of those are low head dams that would need extensive modification to be able to take a hydro turbine along with all the auxiliary gear it needs. The power produced would be minimal and had payback times in decades.

[endicom]

The wind don't always blow and the sun don't always shine.

They can stick it where the wind don't shine!

[endicom]

As companies rushed to take advantage of tax incentives for renewable power...

Here's a 'power factor' to be considered.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

I agree comparing capacity is a stupid comparison.

I also think utilization % is a meaningless comparison as well.

Actual MWH generated and the cost to do them is most all we should care about.  But then comparing peaker units to base load units is silly as well.  They serve different but both needed purposes.

I think we have agreement then.  I just find it disgusting people put such lipstick on the renewables pig that basic sense is tossed aside.

Am also suspicious when it comes to renewables that people have an apples to apples comparison without subsidies and with required backup generation costs which renewables need to include in costs.  Conveniently, these are typically passed over.