New Report: record-breaking year for wind energy in the United States

[kgrandia]

In 2009 the US wind energy industry installed a record-breaking 10,000 megawatts of new capacity, according to a new report released today by the American Wind Energy Association (AWEA). That's enough electricity to power 2.4 million homes.

In the 4th quarter of 2009 alone, the wind energy industry brought 4,000 MW of new capacity online.

“The U.S. wind energy industry shattered all installation records in 2009, chalking up the Recovery Act as a historic success in creating jobs, avoiding carbon, and protecting consumers,” says AWEA CEO Denise Bode.

The American Recovery and Investment Act, introduced last year by the Obama administration to battle the recession has invested more than $80 billion in clean energy, with much of that going invested in the wind power sector. On the White House blog today, Heather Zichal, Deputy Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, wrote in reaction to the positive wind energy numbers that:

"Across the country, communities are beginning to establish the clean energy industries that will power the 21st century global economy. Just last week, President Obama got to see firsthand how clean energy investments are putting people to work during his visit to the Wind Turbine Manufacturing and Fab Lab facilities at Lorain County Community College (LCCC) in Elyria, Ohio. LCCC is offering the first associate's degree credit program in Ohio in the burgeoning field of wind turbine power generation."

http://www.energyboom.com/wind/new-report-record-breaking-year-wind-energy-united-states

[RainDog]

1. kick for the good news n/t

[OnlinePoker]

2. How much electricity is actually being produced?

It's great for AWEA (and its Canadian equivalent CanWEA) to laud the installation of new turbines, but the capacity given is always a theoretical amount based on perfect wind conditions. A better stat would be to indicate how much electricity is actually being generated by the turbines. Ontario, for instance, currently has an installed capacity of 1168 MW, but rarely generates more than 400 MWH. Sometimes it's more, sometimes less, but overall they are only producing 1/3 of the nameplate capacity on average. If this ratio holds true for U.S. turbines, the production would be about 11,500 MWH from the 35,000 MW of installed capacity AWEA cites.

[kristopher]

3. You are clueless.

"It's great for AWEA (and its Canadian equivalent CanWEA) to laud the installation of new turbines, but the capacity given is always a theoretical amount based on perfect wind conditions. A better stat would be to indicate how much electricity is actually being generated by the turbines. Ontario, for instance, currently has an installed capacity of 1168 MW, but rarely generates more than 400 MWH. Sometimes it's more, sometimes less, but overall they are only producing 1/3 of the nameplate capacity on average. If this ratio holds true for U.S. turbines, the production would be about 11,500 MWH from the 35,000 MW of installed capacity AWEA cites."

First, let me state clearly that this attempt at criticism is *loosely* based on a standard REPUBLICAN line of attack on renewable energy.

Second, your use of MWH is not in line with how it is used correctly; and since you don't understand the criticism, it is
hard to imagine you actually care about the content of the Republican line of attack. You only know that it is a way to attack renewables and you try to use it because you have some OTHER REASON for attacking them.

What is that reason?

[NNadir]

4. I suppose this would be in lieu of discussing the question of how much energy is produced.

When you can't answer the question, dance like hell.

[kristopher]

5. I don't have a problem discussing the question of how much energy is produced by wind.

I do have a problem with Republicans trying to attack renewables in their zeal to push the REPUBLICAN alternatives of nuclear energy and fossil fuels.

Discussing energy with you is like talking science with climate change deniers you aren't interested in the facts, only in trying to score points against something that is better than nuclear energy.

[OnlinePoker]

10. You, Sir, are a moron

First of all, I'm not even an American so how the hell could I be a Republican. Second of all, I don't feel that an honest questioning of the nameplate values companies assign compared to the actual production of electricity from the resource is out of line. Renewables have their place, but it is becoming increasingly obvious when the Nimby environmentalists won't support wind farms or other renewable resources in locations where they make sense (Mohave solar projects is one example)that these projects will never produce more than a small fraction of the energy required to power your nation. If you think it will, you're dreaming in technicolour.

[kristopher]

11. An HONEST quetioning is fine - yours isn't "honest", it is of malicious intent.

You are an anonymous name on an internet forum, so your protests are rather hollow.

You say your questioning is "honest" when you obviously didn't understand the terms you were using at all, so tell me how could that be "honest"?

Instead of following up with a legitimate discussion intended to determine what you clearly don't know, you now launch into another attack on the ability of renewable energy to meet our needs. Implicit in that statement by you is the belief that there is something else that can - which brings us to the original question: what was the REAL point of your post attackiing wind? What is it that you want people to believe is a better alternative?

Come on, spit it out.

[OnlinePoker]

18. I understand it perfectly...you just don't want to listen

Nameplate capacity is the normal maximum output expected from the generating source. In Ontario's case with wind, this is 1168 MW. 400 MWH (Ontario's approximate average) is the number of megawatts actually being produced by all of Ontario's turbines per hour. This is only 1/3 of the nameplate capacity. This is my complaint with saying x MW have been installed that can supply the needs of x houses. It doesn't reflect the reality of the electricity being produced. The industry should be giving both figures in their press releases, not gloating over the fact that they are claiming to provide 3 times the power they actually are.

As for new generating capacities, I'm a firm believer that Thorium nuclear technology is the way of the future for energy generation and should have a greater share of funding in research and development. The waste produced would be minor compared to conventional nuclear systems and, due to the majority of the fuel being used up in the reaction process. As a result, it would be nearly impossible for the residue to be used for nuclear weapons proliferation and the requirement for long term storage, while still there, is small in comparison to normal reactor waste.

[kristopher]

22. So there it is - another nuke supporter trying to disparage renewables with irrelevant "criticisms"

No power plant operates at 100% capacity and since the actual performance of ALL generating sources is VARIABLE it is impossible to conduct a simple discussion such as a news release in the OP in the terms you are claim are needed. Take for example, the 400 MW (No one familiar with the subject uses MWH in the way you did) that you assert. What about the places where the capacity factor is 20%? Or the ones where it is 44%? The capacity factor is a number used on a case by case basis not to discuss INSTALLED CAPACITY.

Another example, many many natural gas plants are built to provide peaking power and will only be used perhaps 2 hours per day for about 10 days per year, say a total of 20 hours. Since that is 20/8760 for a 0.002% capacity factor. Do you also accuse the operators or builders of those plants of deception when they say they've built a 100MW natural gas plant?

Of course you fucking don't.

What is much more relevant to YOUR position is that YOU WANT NUCLEAR POWER and you can't support it.

You have no legitimate basis for objecting to wind so you attempt to manufacture some sort of controversy out of capacity factor. That IS a REPUBLICAN TALKING POINT oriented around the desire to discredit renewables and continue to provide power from the current centralized thermal generating infrastructure built around fossil fuels and nuclear power.

[NNadir]

13. Like I said, when you can't answer the question - and you can't - throw around insults and red

herrings.

You can't answer the question, apparently.

If you could understand the question - as in "Could the wind power in North Dakota alone provide all the energy in the Andromeda Galaxy?" - and how to answer it, you would simply appeal to numbers, like these numbers:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/renew_energy_consump/table1.html

From the numbers it appears that wind and solar could both disappear - something they do regularly since there is something called "night" and something called "doldrums" - and no one would notice.

In spite of this situation, that wind and solar can and do regularly disappear with no noticing, we have here people who wish to wager the lung tissue of every air breathing animal on the face of the earth on the proposition that "wind and solar will save us."

Actually, Democrats are not supposed to be faith based, although some Democrats here clearly are so.

[kristopher]

14. 'nnads pulls out his favorite irrelevancy.

Boiled down it goes like this:

We do not currently have X;
Therefore we can never have X.

I do not have a house, therefore I cannot build a house.

1900: Most transportation is by horse, therefore cars cannot be effective.

1910: Man wasn't meant to fly.

Etc etc etc...

Building wind is a substantially less expensive per unit of DELIVERED ELECTRICITY than building nuclear to deliver the same amount of electricity. That is why they built so much wind last year instead of building nuclear - no one wants to invest in nuclear power because it is a BAD CHOICE.

[amborin]

16. you have a problem with nuance; you advocate "either/or" approaches;

of course, wind power is fine, with good siting studies done beforehand; the Audubon Society argues for these studies, as one example

you attack anyone who advocates siting studies, for being 'anti-alternative energy', which is nonsense

[kristopher]

23. No, I'm tagging you as being on a specific mission to badmouth renewables.

Worrying about siting issues is legitimate. They way you and entities like "The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound" do it however, is as a proxy for the fossil fuel/nuclear industry in an effort to cause as much trouble for the wind industry as possible. You don't give a fig about the wildlife, you just want to harm wind - that is your GOAL and your posting history proves it.

[amborin]

31. i'm tagging you as an anti-environmentalist; i post Audubon & Defenders of Wildlife articles

then get harrassed by you

i'm tagging you as a business developer with money at stake in wind farms

how else explain your over the top allegations and rage?

i post articles from environmental organizations cautioning about the need for siting studies and you go beserk

[kristopher]

34. Nice try, no cigar.

Objectivity is the word you are looking for. That is what shapes the conclusions , the willingness to be open to new data and the willingness to change your conclusions when they are shown to be wrong.

It doesn't require someone to sit idly by while paid operatives manipulate the public with false arguments and scare tactics.

Climate change is the most pressing problem facing not only humanity, but the entire biiosphere. My research includes interviews and discussions with high level members of many of the major environmental organizations in the country and I can say with complete confidence that they get it - they understand the threat that climate change poses and they fully support he deployment of renewable energy sources. To a person, they find the use of the environmental banner by dark interests with agendas related to things like fossil fuels and nuclear energy to be abhorrent.

You aren't interested in wildlife - if you were you would be a hell of lot more concerned with getting coal and petroleum out of our lives than badmouthing renewable energy projects. That line of argumentation is precisely the profile of the 'dark interests' I spoke of.

[amborin]

35. same to you

you remain in attack mode

i doubt your "research"

you're unable to even consider the importance of siting studies

you think solely in either/or terms, false dichotomies

[joshcryer]

20. You have to wait for the IEA report in June to find out.

[malakai2]

6. And assuming a capacity factor of 30 percent...

how much electricity is the "10,000 megawatts of new capacity" adding to the grid at any given time?

[kgrandia]

7. Jobs

The even better news is that this increased wind power is creating jobs and with all the issues around fossil fuels, this trend will no doubt continue.

[malakai2]

15. Where?

Mining the materials, refining, fabrication, that supports marginally more. Emplacement, I'll give you that, emplacement does require truck drivers, crane operators, and a small field crew. Then what? If lasting jobs is what we're after, it seems a larger and more permanent effect could be had with some creative drafting of the next farm bill. And at that point, we'd still have made about as much progress in actually reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

[kristopher]

24. Wind provides more long term jobs per kwh generated than any other energy source

And they are domestic good paying jobs.

What is your alternative to renewables?

[kristopher]

8. Another renewable basher speaks

You also are here with the MISSION of attempting to discredit renewable energy (I again invite everyone to do a search).

As to your "question", it is self evident, isn't it. If you have 10 GW of capacity delivering at 30% of capacity, they you have 3 GW of delivered capacity.

The question I have for you is, why do you think it is relevant?

"Installed capacity" is measured by "nameplate capacity" for ALL generating sources - it always has been and it always will be.

So what is the point you are trying to make?

[Vinnie From Indy]

9. Exxon an dthe rest have very deep pockets

I would not be surprised at all that there are people being paid to prowl discussion boards and post negative "opinions" of renewable energy. Not surpirsed at all!

[kristopher]

12. They are like a plague of locusts on DU.

It isn't all Exxon either - the Nuclear Energy Institute is the main culprit I see.

[OnlinePoker]

19. Can you tell me how to contact them

I've yet to see a dime from these guys. How much are you getting paid by the wind lobby?

[malakai2]

17. I'm sure Exxon does

I'm sure a few of the other majors, both foreign and domestic, especially a couple coal burning utility companies, also participate.

The effect, as you can see here, is that real debate between people with similar goals is stifled in favor of paranoid infighting. Chomsky's written about it as a means of massive social engineering by those with control of media outlets. The FBI has used the idea too. Ever heard of COINTELPRO?

In this case, if someone asks about the capacity factor, a certain someone calls him out as an oil shill. Also in this case, if someone mentions that renewables are nowhere near filling just one Socolow wedge, a certain someone calls him out as an oil shill. Again in this case, if someone points out that reducing use rates would be more productive in reducing emissions, a certain someone calls him out as an oil shill. Then, if someone mentions that buildout on the scale that would be required to fill a Socolow wedge or two might drive up the cost of land and materials to the point that utilities might instead seek to increase the capacity factor of existing fossil fuel and nuke plants to make money, a certain someone calls him out as an oil shill. When someone points out that the NIMBYs in this case aren't the poorly represented urban poor who've been stuck with coal plants in their neighborhoods, but are instead somewhat more affluent individuals with disproportionately more/better representation, and maybe that has something to do with the effectiveness of these particular NIMBYs, a certain someone calls him out as an oil shill. I'm not being exhaustive here.

Essentially, if anyone points out that there are unresolved issues with wind turbines that government agencies and the like grapple with, issues that should probably be discussed in public discourse so we're not irreversibly committing valuable resources to something that won't work as we all hope, a certain someone shouts insults and accusations while never offering anything of substance. In light of this, just what would be the identifying characteristics of a paid prowler?

[kristopher]

25. Nice try chump.

But long term posting history reveals the underlying attitudes, beliefs, values and GOALS. YOU are clearly on a mission - to discredit renewable energy. Having been called on it you are now trying to minimize the damage.

I routinely discuss the energy issues with people who are legitimately trying to find answers to our energy security and climate change problems while pursuing the most efficient solutions with the smallest environmental footprint. I also study (in an academic context) the "public debate" around these issues.

You are NOT engaged in legitimate discussion.

You have an agenda outside of that you stated.

Part of that agenda is to discredit renewable energy.

I'll wager ten to one that the rest is the promotion of nuclear energy.

[amborin]

32. YOU violate one of the top principles of scientific research:

disinterestedness

you clearly have a horse in the wind race

i suspect you've invested in some developments

only an irate, anti-environmentalist businessman acts the way you do

[kristopher]

33. Nice try, no cigar.

Objectivity is the word you are looking for. That is what shapes the conclusions , the willingness to be open to new data and the willingness to change your conclusions when they are shown to be wrong.

It doesn't require someone to sit idly by while paid operatives manipulate the public with false arguments and scare tactics.

Climate change is the most pressing problem facing not only humanity, but the entire biiosphere. My research includes interviews and discussions with high level members of many of the major environmental organizations in the country and I can say with complete confidence that they get it - they understand the threat that climate change poses and they fully support he deployment of renewable energy sources. To a person, they find the use of the environmental banner by dark interests with agendas related to things like fossil fuels and nuclear energy to be abhorrent.

You aren't interested in wildlife - if you were you would be a hell of lot more concerned with getting coal and petroleum out of our lives than badmouthing renewable energy projects. That line of argumentation is precisely the profile of the 'dark interests' I spoke of.

[amborin]

36. same to you

you aren't the least intersted in wildlife

only interested in black/white thinking

[joshcryer]

21. I find it amusing how you get so utterly flustered over this legitimate observation.

I remember when hard drives were sold for "10 GB" and people thought they were getting 10*1024^3 bytes when in fact they were getting 10*10^9 bytes. Every hard drive sold now has a disclaimer, especially because the difference between the two becomes significant the larger drives are.

[kristopher]

26. I wouldn't call it "flustered"

I'd say it is just identifying those who demonstrate a pattern of deliberately trying to derail and/or negatively influence discussion of the Democrat's energy policy in order to promote the Republican Party's energy policy.

The hard drive example is not relevant unless you can show that the most massive industry in the world is dedicated to obstructing adoption of 10GB hard drives.

[OnlinePoker]

27. Democrats like Ted Kennedy who fought the Cape Wind project all the way?

[kristopher]

28. Another favorite Republican talking point

What does the selfishness of Ted and Robert Kennedy have to do with the policy position of the Democratic party or your attempts to spread disinformation?

[joshcryer]

29. I guarantee you that construction contracts say "may not produce more than 30%" or something...

...like that. I guarantee you. I'd wager, if you're really in the industry, you've seen these contracts. As wind adoption gets bigger *someone* will fuck up and confuse the town or city that orders the wind farm, and there *will* be a lawsuit about nameplate capacity vs produced power. It's only a matter of time.

Hard drive and flash drive manufacturers got away with it for about 5 to 10 years, misleading consumers about what the capacity really was.

No worries, though, because news reports are beginning to put a "nameplate" disclaimer in their wind reports. This is why it would be better if the wind people actually avoided the "nameplate" designation.

[kristopher]

30. Don't be a dolt.

You clearly have no idea how these projects get built; you are being childish.

Here is an example: http://depsc.delaware.gov/irp.shtml

Take a bit of time to browse the quantity of data and number of various evaluations that the process is subject to.

[joshcryer]

37. Thanks for proving my point, exquisitely.

Here's an example contract: http://depsc.delaware.gov/documents/Delmarva-Bluewater%20Form%20PPA.pdf

See pages 16 and pages 22 (22 and 28 in Adobe):

“Maximum Contract Capacity Amount” means, for each Capacity Year, the Capacity Value (expressed in MWs) of the Project for such Capacity Year, less one (1) MW for each MW of such Capacity Value over 100 MW up to and including 117 MW (which 17 MW above the first 100 MW committed to Buyer have been separately committed by Seller to Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, Inc.), up to a maximum Capacity Value of 122 MW. By way of example, (i) if the Capacity Value of the Project is 108 MW, the Maximum Contract Capacity Amount would be the first 100 MW from the Project, (ii) if the Capacity Value of the Project is 120 MW, the Maximum Contract Capacity Amount would be 103 MW (with the first 100 MW from the Project being committed to Buyer, the next 17 MW from the Project committed by Seller to Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, Inc., and the next 3 MW from the Project committed by Seller to Buyer), and (iii) if the Capacity Value of the Project is 173 MW, the Maximum Contract Capacity Amount would be 105 MW (with the first 100 MW from the Project being committed to Buyer, the next 17 MW from the Project committed by Seller to Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation, Inc., and the next 5 MW from the Project committed by Seller to Buyer).

“Project Capacity” shall mean the total intended aggregate nameplate capacity rating of the Project, or 450 MW.

It gets even better on page 17 (23 Adobe), when they talk about the actual amounts that the wind will produce (meaning that the "total intended aggregate nameplate capacity" is non-existent. It will be utterly amusing when this sort of contractual bullshit gets its day in court. (And it will.)

One thing I hate is when shit is redefined in contracts. For example, "Project Capacity" is not in reality "project capacity." But "some capacity the project is inherently, physically, incapable of."

[kristopher]

38. Do you seriously say that is the same as what you wrote earlier?

"I guarantee you that construction contracts say "may not produce more than 30%" or something...

...like that. I guarantee you. I'd wager, if you're really in the industry, you've seen these contracts. As wind adoption gets bigger *someone* will fuck up and confuse the town or city that orders the wind farm, and there *will* be a lawsuit about nameplate capacity vs produced power. It's only a matter of time.

Hard drive and flash drive manufacturers got away with it for about 5 to 10 years, misleading consumers about what the capacity really was.

No worries, though, because news reports are beginning to put a "nameplate" disclaimer in their wind reports. This is why it would be better if the wind people actually avoided the "nameplate" designation."


What you have copied is part of a power purchase agreement. It isn't a "disclaimer" in any way, shape, or form. It is a description of how much power the producer is obligated to deliver to the purchaser and it obligates the purchaser to buy as much as it does the seller to provide.

Note that they are referencing a separate obligation from the same facility to Delaware Municipal Electric Corporation. Although it is based on estimates of actual production it isn't support for the concept you were referring to earlier. You'll have the same type of language in any other type of generation.

There is a difference in this general area, however, between wind and other types of generation. That is the way the contractual obligation to deliver on demand is handled. Thermal generation is deigned around the concept of dispatability. That contractual hurdle has been one of the primary structural obstacles to properly valuing the production of wind or solar. If you enjoy these types of details, find the section describing "failure to deliver" and see how it is being handled.

Again, that isn't related to the nameplate capacity or the capacity factor, it is the same provision that exists if a peaking plant can't deliver at 2PM.

Also, there is little likelihood that these provisions would result in court cases. The contracts are well thought out and there is little ambiguity.

[joshcryer]

39. I quoted the exact weasel language I was referring too, or "something like that."

The weasel language is as I said it would be. You cannot deny with as much spamming as you want.

The contracts could lead to court cases if a local politician failed to allow his constituents to know that what they were getting was far less than what they thought they were getting. Said community could then, if they so chose, file a lawsuit, and precedent will make this weasel language no longer the norm.

[kristopher]

40. If that's what you think then you don't understand what you are reading.

I explained it, and I can't do better than that. For example, the idea that a pol is going to be taken to task by constituents is beyond absurd; just look at the process documented on the page I gave you! For one thing, tt isn't even under the control of politicians - it is a very clearly defined process that is part of the fundamentals of the charter for the public service commission.

Try dropping your assumptions and leaving your drive to "be right" behind while rereading it while bearing in mind my explanation.

[joshcryer]

41. You have to look at it from a NIMBY perspective.

Read the comments on the wind farm in the link you showed. It is fully conceivable that community action people can and will in fact sue over this. Sorry that you cannot understand how reality works.

[kristopher]

42. Josh - this is my profession.

[One_Life_To_Give]

43. 3,000MW or 26 million MW-HR

By definition 30% Cpacity factor means that over the course of a year we can expect 30% of nameplate power to have been delivered on average. So 10,000 * 30% * 24hrs * 365 = 26million MW-HR and change.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.