I had the luxury of working on software in support of wind turbines a few years back. I loved it. I was very proud of the work we were doing and the value we added to the space. I would love to continue working in the wind energy space if the opportunity arose again.
Best news is that cost of these installations is now quite low: less than $1.5 per watt peak.
What about capacity utilisation factor of newly installed turbines? Does it trend downwards? Which means, are we close to exhausting potential of wind?
PS: It's not, it's actually trending a bit up. Which is explainable because average capacity of a turbine trends up -> the turbine is bigger and taller -> wind blows faster and more consistently on higher altitude.
First, it only refers to the US, while the headline makes no such qualification.
Second, this refers only to electricity generation, which is roughly 25% of US energy use, or 20% if you include energy embedded in imports, mostly fueled by fossil fuels in China.
Third, this refers only to gros capacity. For those who have been asleep, the effective energy capacity is far lower for renewables than for stable power sources due to intermittency.
inb4 By referring to facts you have shown you are clearly on the wrong team.
> First, it only refers to the US, while the headline makes no such qualification.
Yes the title should be "Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition Released" but it still won't say US cause it's not in the title.
> Second, this refers only to electricity generation, which is roughly 25% of US energy use, or 20% if you include energy embedded in imports, mostly fueled by fossil fuels in China.
Of course it's only about electricity generation?
> Third, this refers only to gros capacity. For those who have been asleep, the effective energy capacity is far lower for renewables than for stable power sources due to intermittency.
That's what you usually mention when you build something that generates energy. Nothing unusual here either.
> inb4 By referring to facts you have shown you are clearly on the wrong team.
What's with this unhealthy polarization? What teams are you talking about?
It's great......when the wind blows. In the UK we have about 15GW of installed wind generating capacity, but it's very rarely fully utilized. The variability means it's balanced out by other sources mostly gas powered Combined cycle turbines. During summer there have been weeks where wind and solar were negligible and gas was providing nearly 60% of the electricity generated. Nuclear is reliable, but we only have about 5GW of capacity, we can import another 6GW from Europe and other sources such as biomass and hydro are about 3GW. There's higher wind capacity utilisation in Winter but there are still days when it's very still and we have to rely on fossil fuels. French nuclear and British gas turbines help to balance out demand across Europe when the winds are still, but it's variability is a real issue. Would more installed capacity help?
This is good news. As wind increases on the grid we really need to move towards shiftable-load specific submetering so that an EV, water heater, etc can exploit their ability to shift demand to take advantage of times of excess renewable supply and lower prices. In CA there was a pilot of this for EVs but it seems to have fizzled out.
With today's rate structures in CA you have to choose between a plan that is optimal either for your EV or for your house but the load profile of these are very different from each other. Without 2 separate utility meters, you can't have separate rate plans.
If Form Energy (or Ambri or other sub 50$/khw battery system) succeeds, gas and coal are done. Even combined cycle LNG can’t compete with wind/solar + multi day storage on cost. If it looks like one of the major grid scale battery projects will work, gas plant financiers will not risk new projects as their assets will get stranded before they pay off.
I think that natural gas plants will be a significant part of power grids for a long time. Maybe they will not be primary generators, but they certainly will stay as backup. At the very least until the grid-scale storage problem will be properly solved (i.e. you need to store at least several days of consumption, ideally several weeks). I don't think that any kind of chemical batteries is the solution to this problem. Personally, I hope that hydro pumped storage in artificial underground cavities will become mainstream one day.
I think you guys need gas as peak power long time but coal is now in borrowed time. At least Germany is started moving towards power to hydrogen but it takes like 10+ years to build truly big industrial scale production for P2H. Same for grid scale batteries eg which are moving right direction but not there yet.
I am surprised. I thought the solar capacity being installed was far greater. At least that is certainly true of India. With extensive 'open' coastlines in the US, this might prove to be better.
Am I correct to assume that wind is a more indirect source of power than solar?
In my mind, solar energy creates wind by heating up the surface of the earth, which then heats up the air above it, which then moves around to even out the temperature differences.
Therefore I suspect that in the long run (10 years? 100 years?) solar energy will be more common than wind energy. Similar to how solid state drives are overtaking spinning drives.
Solar is indeed long term cheaper to install but subject to periodic down-time. Wind blows at night and when it is cloudy. Also the nature of our atmosphere is that there is always some wind somewhere. So, they are complementary.
Right now everybody is focused on getting to 100% carbon neutral. However, the question must be asked: why stop there and not go to something like 500 or even 1000% energy generation.
There will be plenty of things we can do with the excess energy. I think this will play out over the next few decades. Mass produced solar will go on any available surface just because we can. There are already some lower efficiency but potentially very cheap to produce solar systems based on e.g. organic materials that can be printed on flexible surfaces (i.e. not glass). Having that stuff put all over the place is going to make an impact.
Solar is already regularly creating surpluses regularly. It's a huge problem for energy providers because they have to shut down more expensive to manage production when that happens. Any time you see a wind mill not spinning, don't assume it is because it is broken and instead consider that there might be too much wind power temporarily.
A structural surplus will create supply of very cheap (often negatively priced even) energy. There are all sorts of valuable things we can do with that.
Most of our energy sources (except nuclear and geothermal) are forms of solar. Wind, hydro, and fossil fuels are all just stored solar energy!
The fact that they’re stored energy is what makes them particularly useful, though. If we were exclusively using solar directly then we’d need to store it ourselves, or build a global distribution grid to move energy from where it’s sunny to where it’s needed.
They are complementary. You tend to have more wind when there's no sun, like during storms and some places are very windy at night.
The problem with wind is dealing with the huge uptick in energy coming down the pipeline during a major wind event. Last I checked, this was still not a solved problem but I haven't been keeping current like I used to.
So in practice they shut down some windmills during major wind events to protect the system. The other issue both wind and solar have is storage. Though we've seen substantial gains in battery storage in recent years, so there is good news but I don't know if we are really "there" yet.
I think solar energy will ultimately be cheaper than wind energy and that will make it the leader in total installed capacity. But both resources are freely available so the fact that sun produces wind isn’t relevant to this question.
For wind you're harvesting the solar energy baked over a vast area while on solar panels you're only harvesting the solar energy directly reaching the small surface area of the panel.
You're technically right that wind is an indirect form of solar energy. You're not right that this would imply that solar is any "better".
The wind will blow whether you use its energy or not. You're not "more efficient" if you use solar instead of wind. You're just making use of energy at another place in the system where it would otherwise go unused.
More generally on the Wind/Solar question: They complement each other quite well. Most of the time when there's a lot of sun there isn't a lot of wind and vice versa. Therefore building up both reduces your needs for flexibility and storage compared to only using one. Also of course there's a bit of location dependance, there are places where wind works better and places where solar works better (sunny). But still in almost all places you can use both, but you probably want a different mixture depending on the location.
Wind acts like a battery (or capacitor) that smooths out fluctuations in solar energy. Radiant solar being more "direct" really has nothing to do with which is the better option.
> Therefore I suspect that in the long run (10 years? 100 years?) solar energy will be more common than wind energy.
This doesn't follow at all.
Even if solar was 100% efficient there would still be many cases where wind power would be preferred. Overcast days, night, and very high latitudes where seasonal effects means there are months where solar isn't very useful are just a few cases.
That's a great thing. A singular advantage of wind over solar is that solar has a strong time dependence over the day and seasons. And the time for high solar presence is not that correlated with the consumption time. While seasonality is present over wind as well, wind can blow all through the day reducing dependence on energy storage.
What I’m more worry about those Renewables stuff is their ressource footprint , when you look at how much « rare earth » « composite » material is needed to build just one its seems like a nonsense to use wind their are many documentaries on this topic. Today the vast majority of those turbines are not recycled.
On top of that wind being intermittent you need gas power plant to provide.
France power provider RTE estimated that if the country moved to 100% renewable it would need 12 times its gas capacity or 10% of ALL lithium available on earth for battery.
Wind turbines take less than a year to become CO2 neutral - generating enough electricity to offset the embodied CO2 used to produce, transport and construct the turbine.
This will likely go down over time though, as steel and concrete (which are both very much recyclable today) are big parts of wind turbines so as those become "greener" so will the wind turbines.
Yes the blades are not currently recycled, but like most things, this is because it's cheaper to produce new than to recycle. If it became economically viable or government's mandated it, then it would happen. There are already some processes to recycle glass fibre composites:
> Today the vast majority of those turbines are not recycled.
I really doubt this is true in any meaningful sense. First of all, I'd expect the majority of all turbines ever produced to still be in their useful service life. Second, many of the materials are valuable as scrap. It would be blatantly idiotic to just destroy and bury these materials, even if your goal is to spite environmentalists. Third, even the unsubsidized cost of wind turbines is not that high. These materials don't just appear out of thin air, they're accounted for in the costs.
[+] [-] void_mint|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] typon|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anovikov|4 years ago|reply
What about capacity utilisation factor of newly installed turbines? Does it trend downwards? Which means, are we close to exhausting potential of wind?
PS: It's not, it's actually trending a bit up. Which is explainable because average capacity of a turbine trends up -> the turbine is bigger and taller -> wind blows faster and more consistently on higher altitude.
[+] [-] wavegeek|4 years ago|reply
First, it only refers to the US, while the headline makes no such qualification.
Second, this refers only to electricity generation, which is roughly 25% of US energy use, or 20% if you include energy embedded in imports, mostly fueled by fossil fuels in China.
Third, this refers only to gros capacity. For those who have been asleep, the effective energy capacity is far lower for renewables than for stable power sources due to intermittency.
inb4 By referring to facts you have shown you are clearly on the wrong team.
[+] [-] Loic|4 years ago|reply
> The Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition provides an overview of developments and trends in the U.S. wind power market.
> A record 16,836 megawatts (MW) of U.S. wind capacity was installed in 2020, bringing the cumulative total to 121,955 MW.
Asking a US government to put in the headline that the report is about US stuff is a bit surprising.
[+] [-] cinntaile|4 years ago|reply
Yes the title should be "Land-Based Wind Market Report: 2021 Edition Released" but it still won't say US cause it's not in the title.
> Second, this refers only to electricity generation, which is roughly 25% of US energy use, or 20% if you include energy embedded in imports, mostly fueled by fossil fuels in China.
Of course it's only about electricity generation?
> Third, this refers only to gros capacity. For those who have been asleep, the effective energy capacity is far lower for renewables than for stable power sources due to intermittency.
That's what you usually mention when you build something that generates energy. Nothing unusual here either.
> inb4 By referring to facts you have shown you are clearly on the wrong team.
What's with this unhealthy polarization? What teams are you talking about?
[+] [-] parineum|4 years ago|reply
The url gives you a good hint.
[+] [-] Maakuth|4 years ago|reply
So wind is number one and solar is the next one? That's great news!
[+] [-] Bellamy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] drumhead|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cr1895|4 years ago|reply
Yes, as well as country interconnects so that excess wind generation in one region can be distributed elsewhere.
[+] [-] Katzmann1983|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aero-glide2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blamazon|4 years ago|reply
(Kind of a bummer that only U.S. agencies of government can use .gov)
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] danans|4 years ago|reply
With today's rate structures in CA you have to choose between a plan that is optimal either for your EV or for your house but the load profile of these are very different from each other. Without 2 separate utility meters, you can't have separate rate plans.
[+] [-] yesbut|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yesbut|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fulafel|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] anonuser123456|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fuoqi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Gibbon1|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antupis|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vivferrari|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ArtTimeInvestor|4 years ago|reply
In my mind, solar energy creates wind by heating up the surface of the earth, which then heats up the air above it, which then moves around to even out the temperature differences.
Therefore I suspect that in the long run (10 years? 100 years?) solar energy will be more common than wind energy. Similar to how solid state drives are overtaking spinning drives.
What do you guys think?
[+] [-] jillesvangurp|4 years ago|reply
Right now everybody is focused on getting to 100% carbon neutral. However, the question must be asked: why stop there and not go to something like 500 or even 1000% energy generation.
There will be plenty of things we can do with the excess energy. I think this will play out over the next few decades. Mass produced solar will go on any available surface just because we can. There are already some lower efficiency but potentially very cheap to produce solar systems based on e.g. organic materials that can be printed on flexible surfaces (i.e. not glass). Having that stuff put all over the place is going to make an impact.
Solar is already regularly creating surpluses regularly. It's a huge problem for energy providers because they have to shut down more expensive to manage production when that happens. Any time you see a wind mill not spinning, don't assume it is because it is broken and instead consider that there might be too much wind power temporarily.
A structural surplus will create supply of very cheap (often negatively priced even) energy. There are all sorts of valuable things we can do with that.
[+] [-] Reason077|4 years ago|reply
The fact that they’re stored energy is what makes them particularly useful, though. If we were exclusively using solar directly then we’d need to store it ourselves, or build a global distribution grid to move energy from where it’s sunny to where it’s needed.
[+] [-] pxeboot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] caf|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DoreenMichele|4 years ago|reply
The problem with wind is dealing with the huge uptick in energy coming down the pipeline during a major wind event. Last I checked, this was still not a solved problem but I haven't been keeping current like I used to.
So in practice they shut down some windmills during major wind events to protect the system. The other issue both wind and solar have is storage. Though we've seen substantial gains in battery storage in recent years, so there is good news but I don't know if we are really "there" yet.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] ishtanbul|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ww520|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hannob|4 years ago|reply
The wind will blow whether you use its energy or not. You're not "more efficient" if you use solar instead of wind. You're just making use of energy at another place in the system where it would otherwise go unused.
More generally on the Wind/Solar question: They complement each other quite well. Most of the time when there's a lot of sun there isn't a lot of wind and vice versa. Therefore building up both reduces your needs for flexibility and storage compared to only using one. Also of course there's a bit of location dependance, there are places where wind works better and places where solar works better (sunny). But still in almost all places you can use both, but you probably want a different mixture depending on the location.
[+] [-] LeegleechN|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dataflow|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nl|4 years ago|reply
This doesn't follow at all.
Even if solar was 100% efficient there would still be many cases where wind power would be preferred. Overcast days, night, and very high latitudes where seasonal effects means there are months where solar isn't very useful are just a few cases.
[+] [-] bongoman37|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] iammisc|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] puskavi|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] asien|4 years ago|reply
On top of that wind being intermittent you need gas power plant to provide.
France power provider RTE estimated that if the country moved to 100% renewable it would need 12 times its gas capacity or 10% of ALL lithium available on earth for battery.
1st gen renewable are far from a panacea.
[+] [-] fy20|4 years ago|reply
https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/mg24332461-400-what-is...
This will likely go down over time though, as steel and concrete (which are both very much recyclable today) are big parts of wind turbines so as those become "greener" so will the wind turbines.
Yes the blades are not currently recycled, but like most things, this is because it's cheaper to produce new than to recycle. If it became economically viable or government's mandated it, then it would happen. There are already some processes to recycle glass fibre composites:
https://www.materialstoday.com/carbon-fiber/features/recycli...
[+] [-] einpoklum|4 years ago|reply
Also, what about wind turbines that use less/almost no rare-earth materials? Could these be produced at sub-optimal efficiency but still be viable?
[+] [-] creato|4 years ago|reply
I really doubt this is true in any meaningful sense. First of all, I'd expect the majority of all turbines ever produced to still be in their useful service life. Second, many of the materials are valuable as scrap. It would be blatantly idiotic to just destroy and bury these materials, even if your goal is to spite environmentalists. Third, even the unsubsidized cost of wind turbines is not that high. These materials don't just appear out of thin air, they're accounted for in the costs.
[+] [-] kumarvvr|4 years ago|reply
Some industrial processess, such as smelting, crushing, etc can be incentivized to do that.
At domestic levels, its more difficult
[+] [-] imtringued|4 years ago|reply
Inert wind turbines in the ground? bad
[+] [-] jopsen|4 years ago|reply
[citation needed], careful you're not falling for a disinformation campaign.
The counter argument is clearly made here: https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/06/whats-the-carbon-...
[+] [-] adrianN|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] avmich|4 years ago|reply
/s
[+] [-] jokoon|4 years ago|reply
Nuclear is much greener that renewables, nuclear emits less CO2 per watt.
Building a wind turbine on a large floor of concrete, building batteries and solar panels all the material that comes with it...
Fossil fuel benefits from renewables.