Texas wind generation keeps growing, state remains at No. 1

[Elderberry]

Houston Chronicle By Rye Druzin Aug. 23, 2018

Texas continues to dominate the nation’s wind energy production, adding far more generating capacity than any other state last year and having more installed wind power capacity than all but five countries in the world, the U.S. Energy Department reported Thursday.

“The average capacity factor for new wind installations has risen above 40 percent,” said Alex Fitzsimmons, chief of staff of the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. “They’re getting more output. They’re doing a better job of converting the wind into usable energy, so that improves the economics as well.”

Texas added more than 2,300 megawatts of wind power last year, nearly three times the amount added by the next closest state, Oklahoma, which increased its wind generating capacity by about 850 megawatts.

At the end of 2017, Texas had more than 22,000 megawatts of wind power, more than triple Oklahoma’s 7,500 megawatts of wind generating capacity, the second highest in the nation.

More: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-wind-generation-keeps-growing-state-13178629.php

[thackney]

TEXAS
State Profile and Energy Estimates
https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=TX#tabs-4

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Houston Chronicle By Rye Druzin Aug. 23, 2018

Texas continues to dominate the nation’s wind energy production, adding far more generating capacity than any other state last year and having more installed wind power capacity than all but five countries in the world, the U.S. Energy Department reported Thursday.

“The average capacity factor for new wind installations has risen above 40 percent,” said Alex Fitzsimmons, chief of staff of the Energy Department’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. “They’re getting more output. They’re doing a better job of converting the wind into usable energy, so that improves the economics as well.”

Texas added more than 2,300 megawatts of wind power last year, nearly three times the amount added by the next closest state, Oklahoma, which increased its wind generating capacity by about 850 megawatts.

At the end of 2017, Texas had more than 22,000 megawatts of wind power, more than triple Oklahoma’s 7,500 megawatts of wind generating capacity, the second highest in the nation.

More: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/energy/article/Texas-wind-generation-keeps-growing-state-13178629.php

Wow.  40%.

Is there any type of power generation that has such lousy low utilizations?

I thought nuclear, coal and natural gas baseload plants are twice that.

[Joe Wooten]

Wow.  40%.

Is there any type of power generation that has such lousy low utilizations?

I thought nuclear, coal and natural gas baseload plants are twice that.

Nukes average ~93% coal slightly less and gas about 70% due to the fact it is easier to swing a gas fired unit than any other thermal plant.

[endicom]

"Texas wind generation keeps growing, state remains at No. 1"

A boastful lot.

[thackney]

Wow.  40%.

Is there any type of power generation that has such lousy low utilizations?

I thought nuclear, coal and natural gas baseload plants are twice that.

Baseload plants are better.  Nuclear tends to be higher but coal lower than 80%. 

Wind is not baseload.  Natural Gas peaker plants tend to be far lower.





Average utilization for natural gas combined-cycle plants exceeded coal plants in 2015
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25652

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Nukes average ~93% coal slightly less and gas about 70% due to the fact it is easier to swing a gas fired unit than any other thermal plant.

Thanks, i assume they are baseload averages.

The 40% quoted I noted was qualified in article as only new wind installations.  Wonder how bad the current ones are on utilizations?  Likely as bad as solar.

[catfish1957]

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Baseload plants are better.  Nuclear tends to be higher but coal lower than 80%. 

Wind is not baseload.  Natural Gas peaker plants tend to be far lower.





Average utilization for natural gas combined-cycle plants exceeded coal plants in 2015
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25652

Is wind considered a peaker plant too?

Don't know the definition, but peaker sounds like it only runs when peak generation is needed.

I had thought wind had some favored regality - such as when it runs, utilities are forced to take its juice.

Incorrect?

[thackney]

Is wind considered a peaker plant too?

No.

Don't know the definition, but peaker sounds like it only runs when peak generation is needed.

Correct.

I had thought wind had some favored regality - such as when it runs, utilities are forced to take its juice.

Incorrect?

As I understand it, it is more a bid system to supply power.  But each Independent System Operator will operate differently.

https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.feb.a-tale-of-two-isos-energy-mark

...US wholesale energy markets have different approaches to solving this problem. They're generally bifurcated into those that allocate payments for capacity—the physical capability to generate or "steel in the ground"—and those that don't. Some markets like PJM (the mid-Atlantic power pool) hold capacity auctions three years ahead of time to establish annual values. These markets also cap wholesale energy prices at $2,000—a result of the recent FERC Order 831.

On the extreme opposite end stands the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), with its highly competitive, restructured retail and wholesale markets. Instead of capacity payments, ERCOT has lifted its energy price caps to $9,000 per MWh with the notion that higher potential prices will lure new generation. While the concept makes sense, in just the past few years the entire energy landscape has tectonically shifted, owing to low-cost renewables and cheap gas, jeopardizing the concept.

The California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) has a limited competitive retail power market, as well as a competitive wholesale market, which is greatly affected by the activities of its three main utilities. CAISO has opted to broaden its energy market to include parts of the Pacific Northwest, Arizona, and Nevada. While it does not have a formal capacity auction, it does have a specific process to address resource adequacy in the near term. Under this approach, CAISO is authorized to procure capacity in specific instances, with one-year agreements that do not involve publicly visible bidding....

- - - - - - - - - - -

Day-Ahead Market
http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/training_courses/123623/WM201M3_DAM_2017.pdf

[IsailedawayfromFR]

No.

Correct.

As I understand it, it is more a bid system to supply power.  But each Independent System Operator will operate differently.

https://www.ge.com/power/transform/article.transform.articles.2018.feb.a-tale-of-two-isos-energy-mark

...US wholesale energy markets have different approaches to solving this problem. They're generally bifurcated into those that allocate payments for capacity—the physical capability to generate or "steel in the ground"—and those that don't. Some markets like PJM (the mid-Atlantic power pool) hold capacity auctions three years ahead of time to establish annual values. These markets also cap wholesale energy prices at $2,000—a result of the recent FERC Order 831.

On the extreme opposite end stands the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), with its highly competitive, restructured retail and wholesale markets. Instead of capacity payments, ERCOT has lifted its energy price caps to $9,000 per MWh with the notion that higher potential prices will lure new generation. While the concept makes sense, in just the past few years the entire energy landscape has tectonically shifted, owing to low-cost renewables and cheap gas, jeopardizing the concept.

The California Independent Systems Operator (CAISO) has a limited competitive retail power market, as well as a competitive wholesale market, which is greatly affected by the activities of its three main utilities. CAISO has opted to broaden its energy market to include parts of the Pacific Northwest, Arizona, and Nevada. While it does not have a formal capacity auction, it does have a specific process to address resource adequacy in the near term. Under this approach, CAISO is authorized to procure capacity in specific instances, with one-year agreements that do not involve publicly visible bidding....

- - - - - - - - - - -

Day-Ahead Market
http://www.ercot.com/content/wcm/training_courses/123623/WM201M3_DAM_2017.pdf

Kinda complicated.

On power generation then, there appears to be several different labels(all gleaned from comments):

1. baseload plants which operate as the primary power generator for a grid.  These are likely to be running most of the time I would think, so are the nuclear, coal and some of the natural gas plants.  Never are wind or solar as they cannot perform at all times. High utilizations?

2. peakers plants which operate as supply for peak power is required quickly.  These are never nuclear, rarely coal and more likely natural gas.  Guess since they are unreliable to come on when required, are not likely to be solar or wind. Low utilizations?

3. unknown name on the rest.  These are the power plants which may not be reliable enough to serve as either baseload or peakers as they cannot be trusted to be there when needed.  Wind and solar must fall into here.  Mixed utilizations.  Would be higher utilizations for any that are regal enough to be mandated that generated power enter the grid.

A poor summary, but was trying to separate which of these would be expected to have high vs low utilizations.

[thackney]

Kinda complicated.

Absolutely, but then matching the power supply with a constantly changing demand with a rather needed precision for frequency and stability control is complicated.

On power generation then, there appears to be several different labels(all gleaned from comments):

1. baseload plants which operate as the primary power generator for a grid.  These are likely to be running most of the time I would think, so are the nuclear, coal and some of the natural gas plants.  Never are wind or solar as they cannot perform at all times. High utilizations?

Yes.  Hydro can be a baseload operation.  Not that a baseload plant doesn't mean it runs every day of the year.  Some baseloads are only during the times of year with expected higher load forecasts.

2. peakers plants which operate as supply for peak power is required quickly.  These are never nuclear, rarely coal and more likely natural gas.  Guess since they are unreliable to come on when required, are not likely to be solar or wind. Low utilizations?

Never coal, in the past almost only NatGas but the new battery systems are filling a need with far faster response.

3. unknown name on the rest.  These are the power plants which may not be reliable enough to serve as either baseload or peakers as they cannot be trusted to be there when needed.  Wind and solar must fall into here.  Mixed utilizations.  Would be higher utilizations for any that are regal enough to be mandated that generated power enter the grid.

A poor summary, but was trying to separate which of these would be expected to have high vs low utilizations.

Sometimes grouped in as intermediate load.  It used to look like:



But now tends to look like:



https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-three-myths-about-baseload

[Elderberry]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacity_factor

Capacity factors by energy source
United States
According to the US Energy Information Administration (EIA), from 2013-2017 the capacity factors of utility-scale generators were as follows:[20]


                                                                                                                                                              Natural Gas             Petroleum Liquids   
Year Nuclear    Hydro     Wind     SolarPV SolarCSP     Landfill   Biomass Geothermal  Coal          CC       CT         ST           ICE       ST          CT        ICE
2013 89.90%  38.90%  32.40%      NA        NA          68.90%  56.70%  73.60%     59.80%  48.20%  4.90%  10.60%  6.10%  12.10%  0.80%  2.20%
2014 91.70%  37.30%  34.00%  25.90%  19.80%    68.90%  58.90%  74.00%     61.10%  48.30%  5.20%  10.40%  8.50%  12.50%  1.10%  1.40%
2015 92.30%  35.80%  32.20%  25.80%  22.10%    68.70%  55.30%  74.30%     54.70%  55.90%  6.90%  11.50%  8.90%  13.30%  1.10%  2.20%
2016 92.30%  38.20%  34.50%  25.10%  22.20%    69.70%  55.60%  73.90%     53.30%  55.50%  8.30%  12.40%  9.60%  11.50%  1.10%  2.60%
2017 92.20%  45.20%  36.70%  27.00%  21.80%    70.90%  50.70%  76.40%     53.50%  54.80%  9.40%  11.30%    NA      13.00%  2.00%    NA

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Absolutely, but then matching the power supply with a constantly changing demand with a rather needed precision for frequency and stability control is complicated.

Yes.  Hydro can be a baseload operation.  Not that a baseload plant doesn't mean it runs every day of the year.  Some baseloads are only during the times of year with expected higher load forecasts.

Never coal, in the past almost only NatGas but the new battery systems are filling a need with far faster response.

Sometimes grouped in as intermediate load.  It used to look like:



But now tends to look like:



https://www.nrdc.org/experts/kevin-steinberger/debunking-three-myths-about-baseload

Thanks for comments.  explains things better than what I attempted.

on the last graph, to have intermediates done prior to peakers when both are available means either the intermediate power generation is cheaper per kw/h than peakers or that there is a mandated amount that must be taken for intermediates such as contractual obligations or government mandated.

Your graph suggests hydro, wind and natural gas generation is reduced when solar is utilized so solar must be either cheaper than these power generation methods or is mandated.  It certainly appears to have preference.

[Joe Wooten]

Thanks for comments.  explains things better than what I attempted.

on the last graph, to have intermediates done prior to peakers when both are available means either the intermediate power generation is cheaper per kw/h than peakers or that there is a mandated amount that must be taken for intermediates such as contractual obligations or government mandated.

Your graph suggests hydro, wind and natural gas generation is reduced when solar is utilized so solar must be either cheaper than these power generation methods or is mandated.  It certainly appears to have preference.

Solar/wind are NOT cheaper, even with the subsidies which just hide the increased costs. The grids do have a federal mandate to take their power as it is generated.

[IsailedawayfromFR]

Solar/wind are NOT cheaper, even with the subsidies which just hide the increased costs. The grids do have a federal mandate to take their power as it is generated.

That's what I figured.  Only purchased electricity cost and contractual commitments should be used by a utility company in deciding what generated power to purchase.

Like the ethanol mandate for gasoline, government is causing energy to be higher than it should be. as well as causing corruption by those vested in making money from renewable schemes.

And that should be trumpeted by all politicians who actually care. 

And government mandates for using solar or wind causes a distortion on generating capacity factor as higher than it should be.

So anyone saying wind is doing so well as it is 40% generating capacity is full of BS as it means nothing.