Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

This Year in Wind Power

By Carl Levesque, AWEA
December 29, 2009   |   10 Comments
The economic stimulus story threaded its way through the calendar year in 2009.

Do you like this opinion & commentary?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 

The information and views expressed in this article are those of the author and not necessarily those of RenewableEnergyWorld.com or the companies that advertise on its Web site and other publications.

10 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 10
December 30, 2009
Wind power is the cleanest source of electricity generation
Together USA and CANADA have enough wind power potential to cover all North America (including Mexico) electricity needs ,even if we develop electric cars commercially
WIND POWER generation will be the downning of a new CLEAN ELECTRICITY ERA,breaking the economic joke of BIG OIL and OPEC forever,spurring also ,new jobs and income for ourneeded country sides
I am sure that goverment investment into WIND POWER GENERATION will pay off everyday more cutting our oil imports to 0 therefore balancing our budget.It is in the interest of every tax payer to do it!
Comment
2 of 10
December 30, 2009
A Touch of Reality, Please

The article by Mr. Levesque, of AWEA includes the usual claims of wind farms supplying electrical needs of more than XXX homes. A comment notes that the USA and Canada have more than enough wind resource to supply all the electrical needs of North America. Both are missing the reality of real wind developments. Consider the example of 1085 MW of wind turbines in service in Ontario – located in many of the best wind resource locations in the province with access to transmission lines, near the shorelines of the Great Lakes. They supplied at less or equal 15% of their output for over 40% of the last year. There were over 40 blocks of time when the turbines were not supplying as much as 15% of their output at any time in periods from 24 to 163 hours long.

Instead of supplying the electrical needs of over 350,000 homes in Ontario, as stated yesterday in a Canadian newspaper, it means that over 40% of the time, the wind turbines were supplying the actual energy needs of fewer than 40,000 homes on a winter day (based on a typical R2000 high efficiency home which supplies all of it's energy needs electrically and not by natural gas or other supply). In fact, during 14% of the last year, the wind turbine output was less or equal 5%, meaning that the electrical needs of fewer than 15,000 homes were supplied. That is a far cry from 350,00 homes!

That is an unenviable record for a generating system, and the storage system / or / batteries needed to level the supply variability to the load if wind were actually supplying the entire system would be huge.

In the mean time, at most Ontario wind farms, provincial regulations that allow siting turbines within 50 metres of lot lines and roadways, and within 550 metres from homes have citizens in duress. Wind is not necessarily evil, but please, let us keep a little reality in with the hype.
Comment
3 of 10
December 30, 2009
The utility monopolies must love it: 7000 megawatts of unreliable wind displaces virtually no need for new fossil and nuclear capacity. How about if the corrupt US government allowed independents to build reliable renewables like hydro, geothermal and biomass cogen that can actually replace fossil and nuclear capacity?
Comment
4 of 10
December 31, 2009
@Bill Palmer: Thank you for your touch of virtual reality

It would suit your interests to look up the definition of capacity factor.

Modern wind turbine technology and siting techniques have pushed wind power capacity factors for new projects into the 35% - 40% range.

This exceeds the capacity factor of Oil & Gas generators which for the last decade have failed to acieve a capacity factor greater than 30% on average. Nuclear Energy tops the capacity factor rankings with numbers around 85% - 90% and Coal comes in somewhere around 65% to 70%.

The truth is that homes aren't consuming at peak demand all throughout the day 100% of the time. However, a grid must have the capacity to provide power at those peak times which explains the popularity of Gas Turbines even though they are used infrequently. (Hence the low capacity factor)

The "Load factor" of a home is lower than that of most modern wind farms' "Capacity Factor" so in essence when an article says that a wind farm could power XXX homes... it actually could power that many homes.

There is not a power plant in the world today of any technology that operates at 100% capacity factor year 'round so to claim that wind advocates are in some way being decietful is naive.
No image available
Comment
5 of 10
Anonymous
January 2, 2010
Bill's complaints about the intermittency of wind in comment #2 seem excessive given that Canada has an enormous amount of dispatchable hydropower that can easily fill in the gaps during windless periods. With that much hydro power in the generation mix wind should very easily be able to displace fossil fuel generation.
Steven
Comment
6 of 10
January 2, 2010
Harvest, you are being deceitful by citing capacity factors that include generators used for peaking and intermediate loads, especially oil, gas and even coal. The simple truth is these fossil generators are dispatchable, while windpower is not.
Comment
7 of 10
January 4, 2010
Mike,

Not at all. I mentioned the reason for Gas Turbines having a low capacity factor. Either way, the comparison is still a fair one because both generators are rated (and described by marketers) based on their peak power output.

Gas Turbines only run at peak power when economic conditions allow them to operate. (fuel costs, electricity demand... etc.)

Wind Turbines only run at peak power when wind conditions allow them to operate.

As uncertain as wind may be, fuel costs are a much more volatile and uncertain factor.
Comment
8 of 10
January 4, 2010
@ Harvest. Nonsense, your comparison is simplistic and masks to the public the problems created by the intermittency of windpower. This country should not be mandating windpower without full cost-benefit studies. For example, a study in the July 2009 issue of Power Engineering indicates windpower increases generation costs by more than twice, while reducing greenhouse gases by a mere 11 percent, mostly because it must be inefficiently backed up by natural gas.
No image available
Comment
9 of 10
Anonymous
January 4, 2010
Intermittency is an important consideration that can limit the utility of wind power; however, the study that Mike likes to quote (as he does in comment #8) from the 7/2009 Power Engineering article is deeply flawed and grossly overestimates the problems with wind power. Mike, of course, is already aware of these major deficiencies, but he is less interested in accurate assessments of legitimate limitations than he is in bashing wind energy.

The study he refers to assumes that all intermittency is due to wind power and that the spinning reserve needed to match supply and demand is met by open cycle natural gas generation rather than the more efficient combined cycle generation(which has a slower response time). This completely neglects the variability from the demand side, which already requires some spinning reserves and which partially cancels the variability of wind. It also neglects the fact that hydro power is often used to rapidly adjust supply--this need not be done entirely with open cycle methane-fueled turbines. Finally, it neglects the smoothing of variability that is available from wind turbines being widely distributed geographically.
Steven
Comment
10 of 10
January 5, 2010
@ Steven. The study may be flawed, but as I said, it is the responsibility of the US government to do a better cost-benefit study before just dismissing it and mandating windpower. Most models, including climate models, are flawed, but that doesn't keep researchers from reporting them and trying to make them better. Except when it comes to windpower. When our government refuses to analyze policy, we all end up having to deal with political propaganda. I primarily blame Energy Chief Steven Chu for failing to serve the best interests of the American people by analyzing the cost-benefit of government windpower mandates. Disgraceful!
Add Your Comment

Registered users, please make sure to Sign-In. We and others want to know your ideas and opinions. If you are not yet Registered -- it's quick and easy. Just click below.
Thanks!

Register Now   Sign-In

Carl Levesque

View Carl Levesque's Profile
About: Carl is Editor & Publications Manager at the American Wind Energy Association, where has worked since 2006. At AWEA he oversees AWEA's online and print publicat... more »

Advertise With Us

SkyFuel Leybold Optics Asia Solar Expo Canadian Clean Energy Conferences Valentin Software, Inc - providing Solar Design Software Black & Veatch Corporation Solar Energy International (SEI)
World's #1 Renewable Energy Network
PennWell
Renewable Energy World Magazine North America Renewable Energy World Magazine International Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo North America Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Europe Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Asia Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo India Renewable Energy World Conference & Expo Africa
RenewableEnergyWorld.com Photovoltaics World Magazine Solar Power Gen Conference & Expo Hydro Review Magazine Hydro Review World Magazine
HydroVision International HydroVision Brazil HydroVision India HydroVision Russia
Twitter Facebook Linked In RSS Feeds e-Newsletters