Blow Hard: Wind to Supply 20% of U.S. Power?
The U.S. can follow Denmark’s lead and get 20% of its electricity from wind by 2030, the Department of Energy said today. The only obstacles, according to the DOE report, are building the wind turbines, improving them, getting them in place, and getting their electricity to where it’s used. Piece of cake.
Oh—and to meet that goal, every year between 2018 and 2030 the U.S needs to install as much wind power as it has cumulatively installed so far in its history. At least subsidies for wind power aren’t a prerequisite, the report says.
The DOE report, fruit of a National Renewable Energy Laboratory study, lays out the breezy future for wind power in the U.S., which admittedly has loads more “wind resources” (i.e., windy spots) than other places like Europe or Asia. The report comes just after news that the U.S. had another record-breaking quarter for wind power at the beginning of the year, despite lingering uncertainty over federal tax credits for clean energy like wind and solar power.
The best-case scenario would be using wind turbines to produce 20% of electricity output by 2030. Since wind power punches below its weight, due to wind’s intermittent nature, that means the installed generation mix of the U.S. electricity sector would have to be at least 40% wind power by then, according to the report. Today, it’s just about 1%, even though the U.S. has led the world for two years running in new wind-power installations.
According to DOE Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Andy Karsner and industry types like Tony Kavanaugh, American Electric Power’s VP for Governmental Affairs, the big hurdle is electricity transmission–more than technology or any other stumbling block. Wind and other clean energy sources are usually located in remote spots, but building new transmission lines is a huge headache.
“We cannot expect business as usual [on transmission] to be sufficient,” Mr. Kavanaugh said at the press conference, ticking off all the acronyms that make renewable energy a no-go, from NIMBY to NOPE [Not On Planet Earth].
Asst. Secretary Karsner was more optimistic, citing “Bugsy Malone’s” experience with powering remote locations like Las Vegas through American can-do. “This is how we built the West,” he said.
Interestingly, at a time when the battle to extend renewable-energy tax credits has become a Capitol Hill saga, it seems subsidies aren’t the key. The report’s “20% by 2030” conclusion was predicated with the expiration of tax credits this year, Mr. Karsner said.
I’ve never seen a wind farm with a greater than .30 capacity factor and capacity is less than .10 during peak periods (closer to .00). This means for the other .90+ capacity factor for peak periods that fossil generation is needed to load follow. Wind doesn’t make economic sense and that’s even before you start looking at almost $2MM/mile for transmission from remote terrain.
After 25 years of installing wind and solar worldwide, according to the IPCC combined they account for only 1/2 of 1% of the world’s energy. Wind and solar are toys.
It’s time to start building hundreds of low cost hybrid nuclear power plants to provide the electricity needed to make clean diesel from coal.
Hey Jim.
-
You keep arguing that “OMG THERE’S 17x AS MUCH NUCLEAR AS SOLAR&WIND”, as you central argument.
-
You conveniently leave out that Nuclear power has gotten over 20x as much direct federal subsidy as Solar&Wind during the past half century.
http://www.citizen.org/documents/FatalFlawsSummary.pdf
-
In terms of “Power per Federal Dollar:”
There’s more Solar&Wind than Nuclear.
Heh, first off make the 17x into a 20x. Thats the global, not the US percentage of Nuclear power.
-
Second, have you read this study?
-
http://www.greyfalcon.net/windstudy2
Hi David,
I’m talking ALL the world’s energy sources - installed when ever.
Nuclear is just what we should build from now on to keep the CO2 down and the country from becoming energy emaciated.
I’ll check out the study you cited.
Thanks.
Jim Holm, you might want to check out the work of Archer and Jacobson:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/winds/aj07_jamc.pdf
By the way, the Keystone study found the likely cost of new nuclear power to be between 8 and 11 cents per kWh. That’s pretty expensive.
http://www.keystone.org/spp/documents/FinalReport_NJFF6_12_2007(1).pdf
Denmark does not “get” 20% of its electricity from wind! 20% of their electric generation may be from wind, but over 80% is exported to other countries where hydro & nuclear serve as base-load generation. This would be a waste of steel, concrete, power lines, and money.
I don’t think 20% by 2030 is an unreasonable goal. With focused, sustained investment on the part of big companies like BP, JPMorgan, and Credit Suisse, we’re already on our way.
If you’d like to learn more about wind energy finance and development, you should attend the Renewable Energy Finance Forum-Wall Street (www.REFFWallStreet.com), held June 18-19 in New York City. One of the official event sessions will feature representatives from GE, JPMorgan, and NordBank in a discussion of the wind energ industry and the economic and policy factors fueling development.
Wind isn’t reliable and when its not generating power at full capacity, fossil-fuel or DSM is required to back it up. Due to its unreliability, long-term purchase contracts are not as profitable and hence the “true” price of wind is much higher than it is announced today.
The one energy resource which is better than all others, nuclear, renewable or fossil, has the cheapest expense, is the most reliable, has no physical footprint on the land or air, is the most readily available, the holds just as much capacity or more.
Energy Efficiency and Conservation.
EEC can also be used to maximize the unreliable capacity of renewables thru DSM and thru smart grid technology. 50% of all power generated for electricity is lost. From modifying power plants to installing smart switches and smart meters with the end users, the existing grid can increase its ability to provide customers with electricity by 30%, nationwide.
David Ahlport,
Have you seen this study? http://www.issues.org/22.3/realnumbers.html
According to one of the charts, photovoltaics have received the most dollars between 1976-2003 of any technology. Nuclear light water reactors come in at sixth place. Here’s a paragraph for you:
“The perception that the renewable industry has been historically shortchanged is open to debate. Since 1950, renewable energy (solar, hydropower, and geothermal) has received the second largest subsidy—$111 billion (17%), compared to $63 billion for nuclear power, $81 billion for coal, and $87 billion for natural gas.”
Coal is not the answer for economy. More jobs and more revenue would be produced by moves away from coal. The coal plants never would have been built if the same arguments were used against coal. Too much black hearted phobics. One thing about coal is a deep hearted concern the measurements by plants is NOT monitored as to how much is actually burned to generate, puffing into the air unused electricity has been the MONOPOLIES trademark. Who is pulling whos leg now coal?
The problem I’ve seen in TX with wind is political. We have a large energy grid (ERCOT) that covers the majority of the populated area of TX but ERCOT’s northern coverage area stops at about Abilene/Sweetwater (if you are looking on a map). Guess where all the wind in TX is? It’s actually north and west of Abilene/Sweetwater (the Panhandle of TX has been likened by T. Boone Pickens as the Saudi Arabia of wind energy). So, where do you think all the turbines being set up - at the upper most area of the ERCOT energy grid, barely on the fringe of the area noted as having extreme levels of wind.
Well, one would think that it would be not only in TX’s interest but the entire country’s interest to connect the area that has the highest levels of wind activity to the rest of the country through ERCOT. But, good ol’ TX governer Perry chose to approve the construction of another coal plant in East TX instead of connecting Texas southern power grid (ERCOT) to the grid that is isolated in the northern part of the state. One should note that the energy that is generated by wind in the northern part of the state usually goes unsold and unused because the utility boards have their quota of renewable energy and they easily exceed their required amount and as such, go to a cheaper resource like coal.
The infrastructure has been laid in older technologies long before we came along (i.e. coal, fossil fuels, etc.). Yes, it may be cheaper in the short term to burn some coal verses building and erecting a turbine. But, as we can see now, that policy has hamstrung our great country to be nothing more than poweraholics making business with the likes that absolute detest us. I’d like to see what decisions our leaders would make if we were truly energy independent. Would be interesting I think.
North and South Dakota, listed first and fourth, respectively, in wind energy potential, do not currently mandate any renewable standards for wind energy. Whereas, in California, 20 percent of the state’s electric sales must be procured from renewable sources by 2010.
Care to guess which state is number 2 in wind power generation?
My Best,
David J Phillips
Contributing Energy Analyst
CNET/BNET
Nice Site!
http://google.com
Couple things the elec can be packaged and beam the same as any High frequency wave.
as for the consistency build it in the right place and do some creative gardening to get wind utilize maglev tech and give a bit of an assist ( applying for patent myself now)
lastly and most important we need the truth. Unfettered truth and access to tech.
That will only happen if people jump all over the elected swine and threaten them with unemployment and having to work for a living.
The US has boocoos of domestic oil, enough for us to be energy independent for quiet awhile, including the known sources of the barren frozen tundra of ANWR, where the oil is ozzing to the surface with the smell of oil in the air..how appealingly pristine.. Meanwhile, We’d have plenty of time to come up with the best alternatives, which will take much longer to develope than it would take to drill our own oil/shale, etc. Like it of not, the most reliable, cost effective alternative seems to be nuclear power. Wind power and solar panels have been around for decades with very limited benefits. Meanwhile, if we could harness the hotair from the “no drill” Blowhards, the pagan Eco-freaks and the “green” Corp Opportunists like Boone-doggle Pickens.. we’d have enough “energy” to fill in for a few years till our own US oil production could kick in. If the current Congressional Roadblocks are allowed to continue their mindless, eco-subserviant “No drill” routine.. Get ready to do Without.. The ruling Elitists would love for us to be forced to sit at home in the dark, in the heat or cold, etc, right under their dem totalitarian thumbs.. And, we’d get to pay a big fat global carbon tax based on an unscientific Hoax, too.
![[AgendaLogo]](http://s.wsj.net/media/shape_agenda_SM.gif)
Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the business of the environment. It tracks how growing green concern, particularly over climate change, is roiling established industries and spurring new ones – and how that shift is affecting investors, consumers and the planet. The Journal's Keith Johnson, who spent the past decade reporting from Europe, increasingly on energy issues, is the lead writer. The Journal’s Jeffrey Ball, who has covered the auto and oil industries and now covers the business of the environment, is the blog’s editor and a contributor. Environmental Capital also includes contributions from others at the Journal, WSJ.com, and Dow Jones Newswires. Write us at 
