Wind energy within the United states updates

[ScienceRocks]

This thread will be for all updates on the expansion of wind power within the United states. I'm going to work to combine some of the threads this way to not clutter the forum.
-Updates on percentage of electric is done by wind power
-Updates on the construction of new wind power sites
-Reports on the super big wind farms...


US Reaches 50 GW of Wind Energy Capacity in Q2 of 2012

US Reaches 50GW of Wind Energy Capacity in Q2 of 2012 - CleanTechnica
Wind energy in the United States hit a new benchmark, reaching 50 gigawatts (GW) of electric capacity in the second quarter of 2012.

The announcement was made by Denise Bode, CEO of the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA) at the National Clean Energy Summit in Los Vegas, Nevada.



So far this year, according to the AWEA, 2,800 megawatts (MW) of wind, along with 1,400 wind turbines have been installed across the US, helping the wind industry reach this fantastic achievement. Many of the new installations have come from new projects in Nevada, Idaho, Iowa, Hawaii Oklahoma, and California. Some of the key projects that are going in across six of these states, according to the AWEA include:

■Pattern Energy’s Spring Valley wind farm, 30 miles east of Ely, Nevada (151.8 MW)
■Enel Green Power North America’s Rocky Ridge wind farm in Oklahoma (148.8 MW)
■enXco’s Pacific Wind project in Kern County, California (140 MW)
■Utah Associated Municipal Power’s Horse Butte project in Idaho (57.6 MW)
■First Wind’s Kaheawa Wind II wind farm in Hawaii (21 MW)

What has occurred in the wind industry with the US reaching that plateau is quite remarkable. Consider the following:
■Between 1981 and 2003, 5 GW of wind power was generated. That number doubled to 10 GW by 2006, then 25 GW by 2008, and now 50 GW in 2012.
■Nuclear energy was the last new energy technology to reach 50 GW, done in the late 1970’s and 1980’s.

The next question you are going to wonder is how much 50 GW of wind energy gets you. This beautiful infographic below, supplied by the AWEA, shows just how much impact 50 GW of wind power can do:

The most interesting fact I found out from this infographic was that wind potential is enough to take out coal power plants in the US. 50 GW of wind provides the same amount of energy as 44 coal fire power plants, or 11 nuclear power plants. The future potential to move at a lighting-fast pace and replace these sunset energy sources is very realistic, especially when you consider that 39 states now have utility-sized wind farms, according to the AWEA.

Politicians were pleased with the US wind energy’s latest milestone. “This milestone for wind-energy production marks continued success for this clean, renewable and domestically produced energy source,” said Republican Senator Chuck Grassley in a statement. “Wind energy has exceeded expectations since I first authored the tax incentive, in 1992, and offers an ideal for expanded production and use of alternative energy sources in the future.”

“It is amazing that 50,000 megawatts of our nation’s power is generated from clean and affordable wind energy,” Oklahoma Republican Frank Lucas Said.

“This is a very big milestone for the wind industry, and I am proud the Rocky Ridge Wind Project has contributed to this great success. As a leader of Congress, representing Oklahoma’s Third Congressional District, I have supported the wind energy in the past, and I will continue to support it in the future,” he said.

The impact of the wind industry isn’t just on the environment but also economically, on the domestic level. Most of the capacity growth has come from turbines made in the USA, around 60%, according to the statement.

Mike Garland, CEO of Pattern Energy in the statement also agreed with the positive economic impact the wind industry has had.

“We’re very proud that Spring Valley Wind is not only Nevada’s first wind power facility but also helps America reach 50 gigawatts of clean wind generation.”

“Spring Valley Wind brought over 250 jobs to Nevada and will now power up to 45,000 local homes with zero emissions. This project will also generate significant tax revenue and community benefits for decades to come, demonstrating that wind energy is a meaningful long-term investment in the economic health of local communities.”

However, uncertainty about the Production Tax Credit (PTC), credited for spurring the development of the domestic wind industry, has plagued wind developers and threatens jobs, according to Denise Bode:


“These truly are the best of times and could be the worst of times for American wind power,”

“This month we shattered the 50-gigawatt mark, and we’re on pace for one of our best years ever in terms of megawatts installed. But because of the uncertainty surrounding the extension of the Production Tax Credit, incoming orders are grinding to a halt,”

“Layoffs have begun up and down our American manufacturing supply chain, which the industry has so proudly has built up in support of the U.S. economy and made-in-the USA manufacturing. And when incoming orders stop, so do factories. Congress must act now to give wind energy a stable business environment to keep producing all this homegrown power, and save 37,000 American jobs by the first quarter of next year.”

However, hope is on the horizon, as the Senate Finance Committee on August 7th passed the “Family and Business Tax Cut Act.” The act would help extend the PTC, vital for further industrial growth.

Overall, 50GW of wind electricity capacity is something to be celebrated by everyone.

Pic of how many homes it can power at different MW level
http://c1cleantechnicacom.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/files/2012/08/INFOGRAPHIC_AWEA.jpg

 

[ScienceRocks]

Politicians were pleased with the US wind energy’s latest milestone. “This milestone for wind-energy production marks continued success for this clean, renewable and domestically produced energy source,” said Republican Senator Chuck Grassley in a statement. “Wind energy has exceeded expectations since I first authored the tax incentive, in 1992, and offers an ideal for expanded production and use of alternative energy sources in the future.”

“It is amazing that 50,000 megawatts of our nation’s power is generated from clean and affordable wind energy,” Oklahoma Republican Frank Lucas Said.

Clean Technica (US Reaches 50GW of Wind Energy Capacity in Q2 of 2012 - CleanTechnica)

Look who's becoming supportive of it...In the future this isn't going to be a democrat and republican issue. I've come to the conclusion that wind deserves the same tax credit as coal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Capacity is not the same as output now is it?

Wind power will never reach its nominal output for the simple reason that the wind doesn't blow all the time.

Not to mention the fact that windmills uglify the landscape.

 

[flacaltenn]

SkullPilot is ENTIRELY correct. If you're impressed by INSTALLED capacity, you're not living in reality. The best sited wind farms in America produce 30% of their INSTALLED capacity. So your 50 GW is really more like 15GW. Take the fact that 50% of that is generated in only about 100 days a year and you get an 8 month period of under 7.5GW.

Then if you're still not depressed, you need to add in the dumped or redundant power generated by the Nat Gas or Coal Plant that is the PRIMARY source of power. Always sitting there idling in the background while wind gets it's 40 minutes of fame on the grid..

Too much hype -- not enough reality... Sorry man --- I'm NOT a fan..

Get it ?? A fan???

 

[whitehall]

US energy consumption approaches 450,000 megawatts. The incredible investment of windmills that boasts of a disputed figure of 50,000 megawatts is like pissing on the 3rd rail.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really bugs you fellows, doesn't it. You are standing out in left field doing the neener-neener act, and wind and solar just keep growing at double digit compound rates.

 

[there4eyeM]

As if the present use of energy in the US could serve as a standard!

Use has nothing to do with need.

Wind is one element that can be used in the total mix.

Alternative energies are the future. Maintaining present energy policies and consumption is suicide.

Like pissing on the third rail.

 

[editec]

The argument that wind and solar aren't as efficient as hydrocarbons is certainly valid.

They aren't.

But efficiency isn't the only variable that one ought to take into account.

Consider the fact that wind and solar pollute much less and that they are not diminishing assets.

Failure to consider all the factors involving the true cost of energy, and the availability of that energy source in the future is rather stupid, don't you think?

Well, of course, I am realy only asking those of us who DO think, of course.

Naturally none of us really expect the boards sophists for the oil companies to actually do any real thinking.

 

[there4eyeM]

"The argument that wind and solar aren't as efficient as hydrocarbons is certainly valid.

They aren't."

I only take exception to the word 'efficient'. They are, however, certainly less efficient at furnishing astronomical profits to a few self-centered, bloated corporations.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Really bugs you fellows, doesn't it. You are standing out in left field doing the neener-neener act, and wind and solar just keep growing at double digit compound rates.

Wind isn't worth the investment.

Solar is more viable because we don't have to clutter up our wild empty spaces to do it.

But really nuclear is the best option for reliable emission free power.

 

[there4eyeM]

"But really nuclear is the best option for reliable emission free power."

If it were 'emission' free. What could you possibly mean? Of course there are 'emissions'! That's why nukes have to be replaced after a certain time; there is no such thing as containment, just slowing down the nuclear rot!

Nukes are bogus and merely a part of the real plot to keep power, in all its forms, centralized!

If we keep up with that technology, all we can look forward to is a landscape of bleached bones and skulls.

 

[Skull Pilot]

"But really nuclear is the best option for reliable emission free power."

If it were 'emission' free. What could you possibly mean? Of course there are 'emissions'! That's why nukes have to be replaced after a certain time; there is no such thing as containment, just slowing down the nuclear rot!

Nukes are bogus and merely a part of the real plot to keep power, in all its forms, centralized!

If we keep up with that technology, all we can look forward to is a landscape of bleached bones and skulls.

Yeah France is just littered with bones and skulls.

More doomsday hyperbole from the idiots.

 

[there4eyeM]

When those who love the control mega-business exerts want to criticize 'socialism', France is the target. When they want to promote that dictatorship, they use - France?

 

[whitehall]

What do you expect to see from an association of windbags meeting in Vegas to promote wind energy? The truth? They will cobble figures, eliminate pertinent data and exaggerate production. That's what they have to do to keep getting the grant money. Even if you accept the skewed figures it is still a drop in the bucket and the the cost of building and maintenance does not equal the output for decades.

 

[there4eyeM]

Windbags promoting wind energy! Good one!

What I expect is an intelligent mix, not a monolithic method.

 

[Skull Pilot]

When those who love the control mega-business exerts want to criticize 'socialism', France is the target. When they want to promote that dictatorship, they use - France?

I don't give a flying fuck about France's government because I will never live there

But when it comes to nuclear power they know their shit

 

[there4eyeM]

And we know nukes are shit, too.

Be sure to hold onto those aeronautical sexual encounters!

 

[flacaltenn]

The argument that wind and solar aren't as efficient as hydrocarbons is certainly valid.

They aren't.

But efficiency isn't the only variable that one ought to take into account.

Consider the fact that wind and solar pollute much less and that they are not diminishing assets.

Failure to consider all the factors involving the true cost of energy, and the availability of that energy source in the future is rather stupid, don't you think?

Well, of course, I am realy only asking those of us who DO think, of course.

Naturally none of us really expect the boards sophists for the oil companies to actually do any real thinking.

What EFFICIENCY is there to wind if you need a fully capable PRIMARY energy plant sitting there idling in the background just so that you can take 40 minutes of wind energy onto the grid?? Do YOU want to invest in a Nat Gas plant that's guaranteed 24/7/365 power to the people, when Federal law says you have to dump your load into the ground whenever the wind blows??? Of course not.. Folks are paying for TWO power sources everytime you plant a windmill... WHOOPEE let''s celebrate and leave the problems of how you INTEGRATE this sketchy power onto a GRID that keeps people ALIVE and WELL because it never goes out.

There ARE NO ALTERNATIVES that provide reliable power in general when you consider their enviromental impacts -- their siting requirements, their integration onto the grid and their daily and HOURLY production variations.. 20% is about ALL these supplements will supply.. Why?

Because Solar can reduce PEAK afternoon loads (south of Mason Dixon) and the load at night (10PM) in the summer is about 80% of daytime peak.. So you could defer 20% of your primary generation capability with solar IN THOSE REGIONS.. IF everything works -- which it won't -- so the number is somewhat less than that. And WIND probably SAPS energy from the grid when you consider the grid integration problems and the stress on idling primary generators.

If you want EVs and economic growth -- we're looking for A LOT more electricity. NOT unreliable, trickling Rube Goldberg fixes...

 

[flacaltenn]

And we know nukes are shit, too.

Be sure to hold onto those aeronautical sexual encounters!

Are you more afraid of nuclear power plants than Global Warming? Because 240 nuclear plants is the ANSWER to CO2 (if that indeed is the question)..

 

[flacaltenn]

As if the present use of energy in the US could serve as a standard!

Use has nothing to do with need.

Wind is one element that can be used in the total mix.

Alternative energies are the future. Maintaining present energy policies and consumption is suicide.

Like pissing on the third rail.

We need to move this conversion from pissing and hand-waving to REALITY and life and death.. So I'm gonna let YOU make the decisions. I'm putting you in the Managers seat at the Regional Utility Operating Center and you will make the calls..

Here's the real world.. You have a 200MW wind operation at your call that produces an annual average output at 50MW. You are juggling 1.5GW of power at your command and that's the current grid load.

You haven't seen SHIT in terms of production from the wind farm for 36 hours, but right now they're building to 12 MW because the wind is picking up..

You've got 18 hospitals, one 24 hr semiconductor fab plant, and nighttime Nascar race with 130,000 fans packed in out in the darkened sticks. Your friend is scheduled for surgery tonight.
You've got 280,000 customers depending on your decision..

1) When do make the call to the Nat Gas plant and tell the dude to idle his plant so that you take that wind energy onto the grid? (((Remember he's under contract for RELIABLE POWER so he gets paid whether or not you take it)))

It will take 10 minutes to idle and 30 minutes to come back up. ((You didn't think these things happened INSTANTANEOUSLY like way wind appears and dissappears didya?))

2) The FED govt tells you that have to TAKE that wind energy even if youre dumping perfectly good Primary power into the ground. You know that this wind spike will probably pass in 20 to 40 minutes because a front is moving thru.. Do you DUMP the nat gas plant energy into the ground because you're (the rate payers) paying for it either way, or WAIT 40 minutes and see if the wind is still there?

3) Do you wonder why anyone would RESENT being put into a position to make those life and death choices?? You should -- You're INSISTING on it....

EDIT -- Look I don't want to ruin this thread for Matthew.. He LIKES tallying up these things... He should have his fun...

But don't try and tell me that the MASSIVE investment in large scale wind BELONGS on a grid that has to operate 24/7/365.25.

I'd favor ANY USES off-grid for wind and solar. And there are MANY places where this would be perfect. Like desalinization or hydrogen, biofuel or chem production. I'd be a BIG fan of that...