Renewable Energy Solar Energy Wind Energy Geothermal Energy Bioenergy Hydropower
 

US Continues Breaking Records, Installs 9922 MW of Wind in 2009

By Graham Jesmer, Staff Writer
January 26, 2010   |   7 Comments

Do you like this news?

Email   Bookmark Bookmark   Print   Feed   Share
 
The quick action on releasing ARRA cash grants for wind projects in the middle of last summer in particular helped to reverse what AWEA said was a tough situation for the industry. Wind developers took advantage of much of the $2 billion in grants that were released in order to build out 44 wind projects in 22 states, representing 3,200 MW of installed capacity.
7 Reader Comments
Comment
1 of 7
January 27, 2010
Remove the subsidies for non-renewable energy and we'll all be energy-independent and free from pollution, war and other symptoms of the petro-banking warfare racket:

JPChance.wordpress.com
Comment
2 of 7
January 28, 2010
The US should not be mandating the building of $10 billion worth of windpower towers per year without any cost-benefit analyses. There is reason for concern since 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. Sure the study is likely flawed but it is the job of Energy Chief Steven Chu to do a better study, or at least some study, for heavens sakes.
Comment
3 of 7
January 29, 2010
if anything USA should accelerate WIND POWER installation to match countries like Spain where more than half of its electricity was generated by wind power last november
we should also make it part of our foreign aid poyects spreding it throughout the Third World countries,really making an impact on oil consumption
This will pay off in budget and trade deficit balancing ,stimulating our economy solidly
Comment
4 of 7
January 29, 2010
Of course there should be a cost-benefit analysis, but there are benefits beyond money. Clean air, coal runoff, (you've all heard the list) are benefits that would not be captured in a cost-benefit analysis. I installed 32 solar panels at my house and did my own cost-benefit analysis and found that it would pay for itself after 24.5 years, assuming no repairs during that time (which is unlikely). However, that was when I was buying energy at 8.5 cents/Kwh. It is now over 13. But even if the payoff was 40 years (way past the life of the solar panels) I'd still have done it.
Comment
5 of 7
January 30, 2010
Hi,
Denmark leads European offshore wind power in 2009 with offshore wind turbines have a combined capacity of 577 MW were installed in Europe in 2009 and Denmark accounted for 230 MW of the expansion !
http://www.durableo.fr/article-le-danemark-leader-de-l-eolien-europeen-en-2009-43495227.html

:p

Paul
Comment
6 of 7
January 30, 2010
I wish AWEA would use energy, Kwh, instead of power, Kw.
Power is misleading without stating "availability factor" .

Fossil fuel get about $10Billion/year in subsidies. That doesn't include the subsidies that go to nuclear.
No image available
Comment
7 of 7
Anonymous
January 30, 2010
In comment #2, Mike Holly refers to a "July 2009 issue of Power Engineering indicates windpower increases generation costs by more than twice, while reducing greenhouse gases by a mere 11 percent." As Mike well knows, this is a deeply flawed study lacking any predictive value. It assumes all variability is due to wind power (neglecting completely demand variability and the need for some standing reserves for all situations) and assumes that all variability must be addressed with relatively inefficient open cycle natural gas generation (combined cycle natural gas plants are much more efficient but have slower response times). This latter assumption completely neglects the importance of hydro power for peaking needs, the ability of some plants for load following for intermediate time scales, etc. There is now quite a lot of actual market experience with wind power and real world performance data in many different types of markets is available. Wind power has far better than an 11% efficiency in displacing CO2 emissions. Mike's company would like to sell biomass to the utilities and wind power is a direct competitor so this should be taken into consideration when considering his remarks.
Steven
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

Graham Jesmer

View Graham Jesmer's Profile
About: I am currently a second year Law Student at Vermont Law School where I work as a Research Associate at the Institute for Energy and the Environment writing and ... more »

Advertise With Us

DHL Global Forwarding - Renewable Energy Sector Nextek Power Systems, Inc. HUBER+SUHNER AG 2GreenEnergy.com Dow Solar Solmetric Corporation Mannvit
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