Peak Oil is You
Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)
Page added on January 23, 2013
Wind Beats Out Natural Gas To Become Top Source Of New Electricity Capacity For 2012
Through June of 2012, renewable energy was right behind natural gas in terms of the most new energy generating capacity being installed in the United States, with wind making up most of the renewables push. And now Business Insider has flagged the numbers for the remainder of the year.
Last week, they reported that wind ultimately pulled ahead of natural gas to become the leading installer of new capacity in 2012, at 10,689 total megawatts.
Those numbers came from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission’s report on the trends and highlights in U.S. energy for the past year. According to FERC’s update, natural gas installed 8,746 megawatts of new capacity, coal installed 4,510 new megawatts, and solar came in fourth with 1,476 new megawatts. Here’s the relevant table from the report, conveniently highlighted by Business Insider:
One thing to note here is the issue of capacity factor: That’s how much power an installation actually produces as a percentage of its theoretical capacity. (Which is what’s listed in the table.) Natural gas plants do quite well in this regard: Their median performance tends to come out to at least 80 percent, and they max out at 93 percent, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory’s cost database.
Unfortunately, wind power doesn’t perform as well, due to the intermittency of, well, wind. Its median tends to be around 40 percent offshore. Onshore it’s been at 30 percent, though arguably onshore performance is pulling alongside offshore. And both max out at 50 to 54 percent. So even though wind beat out natural gas for new capacity in 2012, the new natural gas installation will almost certainly wind up generating more total electricity.
The good news for wind is that it’s still a relatively young technology, with lots of room to improve. The energy it does deliver is produced much more efficiently in comparison to natural gas — the former loses less than one percent of its energy as waste heat, while the latter can lose as much as 54 percent. Natural gas production in the U.S. may be on track to plateau, leading to predictions of rising prices, which will give wind power a further economic opening.
And, of course, there’s the fact that, while cleaner than coal, natural gas remains a contributor to greenhouse gas emissions both through leaks and combustion.
10 Comments on "Wind Beats Out Natural Gas To Become Top Source Of New Electricity Capacity For 2012"
GregT on Wed, 23rd Jan 2013 4:46 am
While wind in of itself is “renewable”, wind turbines are not. They require vast amounts of fossil fuel energy to plan, build, and maintain.
Shaved Monkey on Wed, 23rd Jan 2013 5:12 am
As its a comparison of the take up of wind V Gas the environmental impact required to deliver gas to the power station, pipes, drills, containment transport etc. would be far worse.
Arthur on Wed, 23rd Jan 2013 7:33 am
Wind turbines are perfectly renewable als iron atoms in the steel do not decay. Once the iron is mined it can be used in all eternity to be part of the wind turbine. EROEI ca. 20, which is perfect.
http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2012/12/08/cash-cow-wind-energy/
Intermittency is a problem, but can be solved by building new hydro storage facilities in mountaineous areas.
Arthur on Wed, 23rd Jan 2013 7:56 am
To preempt the claims made here that windturbines do not produce a positive net energy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc_furnace
It takes 440 kwh to produce one metric ton of steel. A Siemens 5MW windturbines weighs 400 ton, all in. So it costs 160,000 kwh = 160 mwh to morph iron ore in steel… or 52 hours = 2 days of operation of that very same windturbine!!! Add to that 1000 ton of concrete and you get the full picture: windturbines have a large net energy. The tower will last centuries, blades and gearbox maybe 30 years. And again, te steel can be produced efficiently with electricity, no fossil fuel necessary.
Wind energy: go for it.
Arthur on Wed, 23rd Jan 2013 11:02 am
I have spend two hours writing this blogpost about net energy of wind turbines, based on 2009 US DoE data for a reference 5 MW wind offshore turbine:
http://deepresource.wordpress.com/2013/01/23/net-energy-wind-turbines/
I arrive at EROEI values for these type of windturbines that are far higher than the value of 20, mentioned in the 2006 article in theoildrum. The data is derived on production of steel using electricity instead of fossil fuel.
Nothing beats wind energy on a good windy location.
Kenz300 on Wed, 23rd Jan 2013 2:48 pm
Renewable Energy Provided half of all new US electrical generating capacity in 2012.
http://www.renewableenergyworld.com/rea/news/article/2013/01/renewable-energy-provides-half-of-all-new-us-electrical-generating-capacity-in-2012
The transition to safe, clean alternative energy sources has begun.
BillT on Wed, 23rd Jan 2013 2:53 pm
Arthur, it may take that much to smelt it into a liquid, but that is only one of many steps to get steel into a wind generator producing electric.
How many mwh does it take to mine the ores, ship them from all parts of the country/world, truck them to the foundry, load them into the furnace, make the bricks that line the furnace and the or dies,the electrodes that melt the steel ores and scrap,(or hydrocarbons in the form of coke or natural gas, the furnaces that they are melted in, the cranes that move that molten steel down the foundry to the forms or machines that form it? Then that raw billet goes to another foundry where it is again heated and extruded or rolled into another form, cut machined, and hauled again to the assembly area, hoisted into place with cranes, then maintained for 10-15 years and then removed and recycled at almost the original energy cost? and we have not even gotten into the mining machines used to start the process.
If you think it is just a matter of remelting old steel, you are wrong. Old steel is just one part of a new pour. And how do you get those 400 tons back to smelter? 20-16 wheelers? A train?
No, a wind generator takes many multiples of 160 mwh to produce and when this round wears out, they will NOT be replaced. The mining machines will be worn out also and they CANNOT be replaced with ‘renewable’ power.
If you don’t believe me, research huge mining machines and see how they gobble energy and turn it into thousands of horsepower. That can only be done with oil. Not to mention the thousands of gallons of hydrolic OIL.
No, the ‘renewables’ will never be even close to the cheap energy of oil.
Arthur on Wed, 23rd Jan 2013 8:01 pm
Bill, could be, but it seems to me to most energy-intensive step, the smelting.
As I said before, after the global population numbers will start to dwindle (2040?), there will be by and large ***no need for mining***, as all the stuff you need is already above the ground, more than you need, as economic growth and subsequently the need for stuff will be diminished. Want to build a wind turbine? Just collect ca. 800 rusting cars (800 ton) from the road and push them to the electro smelter, if necessary with two horses.lol.
Example Holland. Currently installed electricity base: 20 GW peak. 10 GW would be enough for reasonable comfortable living (led lighting, thermo wired clothing, small fridge, gadgets). That is 2000 5MW turbines. Life span 30 years=10,000 days=1 machine per 5 days. One large truck group would be enough to do the transport for the entire country. Tower and wings could be taken apart on the spot after a century of usage using welding/cutting. They have build 100 m high towers 5 centuries ago with far less means.
“No, the ‘renewables’ will never be even close to the cheap energy of oil.”
That we agree upon.
BillT on Thu, 24th Jan 2013 1:14 am
Yep…push 1,600 tons several hundred or maybe a thousand miles to a smelter…yep.
By the end of the century, Holland will all be under water again except, what mountain is it that is about 400 feet above the old sea level? And who is going to have what money to pay for all this? No one! When you are worried about food, water and shelter, you are not going to be worried about electric.
Arthur on Thu, 24th Jan 2013 7:18 am
There will be shipping and rail like in the early days of industrialism for transport of goods, but nothing in the intensity of today.