Nine gigawatts of wind turbines were added last year in the US

[Karlston]

Nine gigawatts of wind turbines were added last year in the US

The 2019 numbers show projects are up, costs are down.

Enlarge

TLPOSCHARSKY

98 with 47 posters participating

Earlier this year in the US, energy generation from wind, solar, and hydroelectric dams combined to top coal generation for over two months straight. This was the product of spring peaks in renewable generation and reduced electrical demand during lockdowns, but those events were layered on top of coal’s continuing decline and the long-term growth of renewables. A new report from the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory looks back at 2019—what is now known as the Before Times—to tally up year-end totals for the wind industry.

 

The topline number is that a little over nine gigawatts of wind capacity was added last year—slightly more than in each of the four previous years. Wind accounts for about one-third of all new generation added in 2019, and it ticked up to seven percent of all electricity generated in the US.

 

But as for the grid carrying that electricity, a little under 1,000 miles of transmission lines were built last year—the second lowest amount in the last 10 years.

 

The trend toward bigger wind turbines continued, with the average capacity of a turbine built last year reaching 2.55 megawatts. The height of the tower on which the turbine sits has risen over time—now averaging 90 meters—but the bigger factor is longer blades. Average rotor diameter was 120 meters, up from closer to 80 meters a decade ago.

 

First image of article image gallery. Please visit the source link to see all images.

 

Over 1,800 older turbines were retrofitted last year, mostly with longer blades. That slightly increases their maximum capacity, but more importantly it leads to more consistent generation. These changes have boosted “capacity factors”—the average fraction of a turbine’s maximum capacity that it is generating as the winds vary over the days and seasons. The report notes that the average capacity factor of turbines built 2014-2018 was 41 percent, beating out turbines built 2004-2012 that come in at 31 percent. Newer turbines are also aging more gracefully, maintaining their output better than wind farms built before 2008.

 

Costs, meanwhile, continue to tick down from a 2010 peak, reaching about $850 per kilowatt for turbines and $1,400 per kilowatt on the project scale. That brings the average cost of electricity produced from wind to $36 per megawatt-hour. Wind has maintained its cost lead over natural gas electricity, although solar electricity has caught up in the last few years.

 

First image of article image gallery. Please visit the source link to see all images.

 

While the report projects wind to gradually get cheaper in the future, it also notes that wind is losing a bit of its edge as its slice of the generation pie increases. With transmission capacity still limited, electricity from wind-rich areas in the middle of the country can’t easily be sent to meet demand elsewhere. Without storage, the variability of the wind energy becomes more important as it becomes a bigger player on the grid.

 

The report still projects a significant increase in wind projects through 2020 (caveat: COVID-19) and 2021. But between the factors mentioned above and (more importantly) the planned phase-out of federal tax incentives for renewable energy, the outlook sees a sharp drop after 2021. Annual wind project activity is pretty sensitive to policy—just look at the swing between 2012 and 2013, when projects were rushed in ahead of the deadline the last time tax credits expired—so actions on the state and national level could yet shift that outlook.

 

 

Nine gigawatts of wind turbines were added last year in the US

 

[tennis]

To put nine gigawatts of power into perspective, a typical nuclear fuel electric generating station provides about 1000 megawatts, or 1 billion watts, or 1 gigawatt.  So, the 9 gigawatts of newly added US wind power adds the equivalent of 9 full scale nuclear power plants.  This avoids a significant use of either fossil and/or nuclear power resources and or the byproducts associated with these technologies.  

[dMog]

Well, don't be telling your president. he order them taken down and coal plants built to replace them. 

 

[Mutton]

9 hours ago, tennis said:

...This avoids a significant use of either fossil and/or nuclear power resources and or the byproducts associated with these technologies.  

 

Unfortunately it's not quite the case. The use of wind power doesn't reduce by much (if any) the requirement to have alternative 'backup' production methods capable of full grid requirements, because of the lack of grid storage, inability to increase output in high demand peaks, and uncertainty of wind production (available supply does not generally coincide with demand). If anything, it places great demands on the grid to balance the variability of wind power and reduces its overall efficiency.

 

Hydroelectric generators can be quickly throttled, stopped and restarted as required, but other generating methods are much slower to respond. All others take a relatively long time to alter, and fossil fuel stations are required to burn significant fuel even when not generating, or run far less efficiently at lower capacity. Otherwise they have an even longer shutdown/startup delay.

 

I'm not saying wind power is bad, it isn't, but it's not as simple as we are usually led to believe. What it does is create vast amounts of money for those getting government grants, while giving the governments a way to appease the green movement.

 

[dMog]

agreed wind power has lot of issues as you stated, but damn you also know if we had relied on coal  for the last 50 years the implications  that would have had had... just look at England in the 1950s and 60s for what took place there with air pollution.  And then  what are your thoughts on leaded gasoline and ho lucky we are it was MANDATED by law to change to unleaded. Mexico only began phasing out leaded gasoline in 1990...people were  dying on lead poisoning in Mexico city up to that point and beyond...so yea butting a brake on unfettered proffit at all costs is a good thing

[Mutton]

dMog, I think you might misunderstand me. I'm not saying we should not curtail the use of fossil fuels, etc. I completely agree with what you said. My father is dying a slow and uncomfortable death due to working in a coal power station for half of his life.

 

I'm saying that the increase in wind turbine capacity does not equate to a reduction in other generation methods, even if we wish it did. It's often implied that it does, especially by those selling the turbines and operators asking for government handouts, and by governments trying to appease those who want to see the planet being treated better. But it's simply not the case.

 

I'm sorry I can't remember the references now, but I happened to read a few reports on this a month or so ago. Studies done in several EU countries, including the UK and Ireland. All of the studies showed the above. If I recall correctly, the reduction in requirements for conventional generating methods when significant wind power was available was at best 20%. At least one report concluded that the reduction tended towards zero as the amount of wind turbine production increased.

 

In other words, the more wind turbines, the more the need for conventional power stations to be able to back it up when not available. And most of those conventional generators would still be burning fuel even when the wind power was at a maximum, because they must be quickly available.

 

The only way to truly reduce conventional generation and move to wind power is to accept that we will lose capacity when the wind drops, and won't be able to read Nsane or keep our beer cold (or warm).

 

The real solution is something more... localised bulk energy storage, full use of all alternative 'clean' generation methods, and accepting that we will still sometimes have a shortfall. Most important of all, each and every one of us reducing our power use to a considerable and inconvenient degree, That includes the rich, the military and big businesses. Reduce manufacturing energy needs by making stuff that lasts twice as long, stop insisting on having the latest and greatest innovation, just because we can. I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

 

The world's energy consumption is truly incredible... somewhere in the region of 170,000 TWh iirc. Every joule of that ends up as heat. Global warming? It's not just giving off gases that causes it.

 

[dMog]

 I agree with you we will be using fossil fuel for a very long time to come...as yet there is no viable option to replace it..i am just saying that most people have no idea how dirty it used to be just a few years ago or still is AND how much cleaner it is now despite still having issues. If governments had mandated clean air and water and land laws starting 50 years ago WE ALL  would be in huge trouble right now.