Wind Power Capacity in U.S. Increased 27% in 2006

American Wind Energy Association ^ | January 23, 2007 | AWEA

[alnitak]

You're welcome.

[thackney]

On a rolling 12 months (Oct to Oct) you are getting two summer peaking seasons

?????

Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, Jun, Jul, Aug, Sep

Still looks like one summer per 12 continuous month period regardless of when you start it.

[sionnsar]

Maybe when they're being charged?

The AC charger for my MP3 player (not an iPod) is rated for 10 Watts output (5 VDC, 2A max). Let's assume it has only 50% efficiency at peak output, so it's consuming 20 watts. Next let's assume it consumes those 20 watts continuously, charging or not (lots of folks leave their chargers plugged in all the time). Next let's assume each household has 5 iPods (or equivalent), each of which has a charger plugged in somewhere. All these semi-extreme assumptions add up to the equivalent of one (1) 100-watt bulb burning all the time.

Peanuts compared to most households' television watching, probably dishwasher/clothes washer/electric water heater usage and maybe even living-room lighting.

The streetlight on my cul-de-sac consumes far more electricity than the combined sum of the worst-case assumptions for each household above.

IMHO, the statement is ignorant rhetorical garbage.

Unless it's advice to not buy Apple?? I don't like Apple's "closed" approach to their devices in general, though I fully understand their reasoning.

For my part, I've recently installed a *developmental* version of Rockbox on my MP3 player and already it way exceeds the original software in "user friendliness," not to mention the addition of games (which I'm not playing... yet). Right now, with battery life issues last on the R&D list, it's just about doubling my electricity consumption (9 hours battery life as compared to about 18 with the original software) for the device.

Worth it, for what I get.

[DungeonMaster]

Windpower cannot be built without tax incentives paid for by people in areas to subsidize the greenies in other areas.

Oil and nuclear and coal get a lot more subsidies than wind. This is really getting to be an old and not very well informed complaint.

[DungeonMaster]

Totally unrelated to crude prices.

[bert]

My wife's grandfather made his living selling, installing, and maintaining wind mills in Iowa.

In '96 I spent some time backpacking in the wilds of Philmont Scout Ranch in New Mexico. There were windmills in the back country camp sites to pump the water. Iwanted to see them up close to see how they worked.

Alas they no longer worked. They had been replaced by solar arrays, batteries and electric pumps. The batteries chargduring the day and the pumps ran at night.

[traditional1]

"This is really getting to be an old and not very well informed complaint"

What's the efficiency of a wind turbine (and it's useable capacity factor), compared to a nuclear unit?

What's the available capacity record for PEAK load periods?

Bring it on...

Yes, the utility industry as a whole is HEAVILY subsidized, but the alternatives (wind, solar, geo, etc.) are FAR MORE expensive per kWH, when all costs are considered.

The ONLY place windpower is "cost effective" is in Congress and amongst wind-power lobbyists/employees.

[DungeonMaster]

Yes, the utility industry as a whole is HEAVILY subsidized, but the alternatives (wind, solar, geo, etc.) are FAR MORE expensive per kWH, when all costs are considered.

Can you quantify "FAR MORE"? I really doubt it otherwise you wouldn't have said it. It turns out that it's a completely false statement.

[traditional1]

"The cost of new wind projects has risen substantially in real terms over the past two years. Bids for shaped and delivered energy from projects entering service in 2006 or 2007 range from about $45 to over $100/MWh. The principal element leading to the increase in delivered energy cost is an average real increase in project construction cost of about 40 to 50% over the assumption of the 5th Plan. Offsetting this cost increase has been an improvement in energy capture and conversion efficiency of about 7%."

If you wanna talk subsidy comparison, the only REAL comparison is to take the TOTAL amount of subsidies to each industry, vs. the OUTPUT in MWH per type of generator, and it's a no-brainer.

The beautiful wind alternative shown above.

The SITING of these wind monsters requires MASSIVE expenditures for land to build $1 million/mile high voltage transmission lines to load centers, which is never included in the true cost of wind generation installed capacity.

Proponents can cite various numbers from any number of pro-green interests, but the subsidies, coupled with ALL-IN costs of the supply from wind, AND forcing consumers to pay a surcharge for "green power" AND forcing customers to thus further-subsidize wind power by fiat (no fossil citing/construction or nuclear new capacity installed in certain states) clearly demonstrates the non-commercially-viable status of wind power.

Let's do the math.... let's say there are approximately 10,000 power plants in the USA and just for the fun of it let's say they are all of typical size... if wind farms were to replace them, they would cover 3,000,000 square miles. The USA itself is 3,537,441 square miles. Boggles the mind doesn't it? (In order for wind to generate enough power to replace a typical power plant it would take up to 300 square miles of wind turbines. That is the size (and view) of New York City for one replacement wind farm!

On the cost/kWH, Wind Power is in the Red.

"While the price of wind power has indeed fallen, it still costs more than spot market electric power (3.5 to 4 cents kwh).

Furthermore, the price gap between wind and conventional power production is actually greater, since the federal government subsidizes wind power through a production tax credit of 1.8 cents per kwh. Wind power plants also receive accelerated depreciation, allowing owners to write off their costs in five years rather than the usual 20.

These subsidies, along with several states' legal requirements that utilities provide some energy from cleaner power sources, account for most and perhaps all of the recent growth in wind power. "

Sorry, but unless you live in the plains, where hundreds of thousands of acres are un-populated, you probably won't be close enough to a wind generator to cost-effectively get the benefits of a 30% or less capacity factor windmill. Likewise, if you want to totally depend on the wind, you can plan on having your lights on 30% of the time if totally wind-power dependent, AND, you STILL will have to rely on fossil and/or nuclear fuel for supplemental power.

If you live in a populated area, the chances of wind power electrons ever reaching your doorstep are slim and none, unless you enjoy a view like the one near Tehachapi Pass (pictured above)

[DungeonMaster]

I'll just respond to the most obvious error.

Let's do the math.... let's say there are approximately 10,000 power plants in the USA and just for the fun of it let's say they are all of typical size... if wind farms were to replace them, they would cover 3,000,000 square miles. The USA itself is 3,537,441 square miles. Boggles the mind doesn't it? (In order for wind to generate enough power to replace a typical power plant it would take up to 300 square miles of wind turbines. That is the size (and view) of New York City for one replacement wind farm!

The 420 mw offshore plant proposed on the East cost requires will cover 24 square miles. Therefore, 300 square miles would equal 5250 mw worth of wind power which is equal to a nuke of about 1.5 gw. 300 such plants would power the entire country sharing 90,000 square miles with a lot of very happy and wealthy farmers. Iowa is 56,000 square miles and they'd love to have a piece of this action.

[traditional1]

I'm sure the people between the offshore windmills and Iowa would enjoy the 500kV or HIGHER voltage transmission towers/lines/rights-of-way necessary for Iowan's would love to have the wind energy from Nantucket. The infrastructure necessary to deliver windpower to load centers is ALWAYS ignored by the greenies, and the PRACTICALITY of electrical power delivery is neglected.

Second, the acres necessary ON LAND to produce the power from wind propellers is shown in the math, again, as follows:

Let's do the math.... let's say there are approximately 10,000 power plants in the USA and just for the fun of it let's say they are all of typical size... if wind farms were to replace them, they would cover 3,000,000 square miles. The USA itself is 3,537,441 square miles. Boggles the mind doesn't it? (In order for wind to generate enough power to replace a typical power plant it would take up to 300 square miles of wind turbines. That is the size (and view) of New York City for one replacement wind farm!

Which part of the REMAINING 537,441 square miles will the 300 million population get to occupy in your propeller-utopia?

[DungeonMaster]

You post gross errors combined with arrogance. Have a nice day.

[traditional1]

Thanks.

There are NO errors in the math; but, the avoidance of the required landmass for an all-propeller-driven electric supply system is being totally ignored by all the wind-proponents.

Consistent with the claims of 150 miles-per-gallon carbureators (if only the taxpayers would supply the R&D funds to develop it), wind proponents can't compete without subsidies, no matter how they claim they have the answers to energy-independence.

[thackney]

Oil and nuclear and coal get a lot more subsidies than wind.

With Royalties and Taxes, oil is a money-maker for the government.

[DungeonMaster]

There are NO errors in the math; but, the avoidance of the required landmass for an all-propeller-driven electric supply system is being totally ignored by all the wind-proponents.

Your 300 mile figure is totally wrong, as I showed.

[Mikey_1962]

I just got back from Chandler MN where GE is installing 137 turbines each producing 1.5MW

23000 Acres is the entire site. Cool