Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Annual Wind Power Market Report Confirms Technology Advancements, Improved Project Performance, an…
(Please note: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory - copyright concerns are nil.)
http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016/08/17/annual-wind-market-low-wind-energy-prices/
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Annual Wind Power Market Report Confirms Technology Advancements, Improved Project Performance, and Low Wind Energy Prices[/font]
News Release Jon Weiner 510-486-4014 • August 17, 2016
[font size=3]Wind energy pricing remains attractive to utility and commercial purchasers, according to an annual report released by the U.S. Department of Energy and prepared by the Electricity Markets & Policy Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). Prices offered by newly built wind projects are averaging around 2¢/kWh, driven lower by technology advancements and cost reductions.
“Wind energy prices—particularly in the central United States—are at rock-bottom levels, with utilities and corporate buyers selecting wind as the low-cost option,” said Berkeley Lab Senior Scientist Ryan Wiser. “Moreover, enabled by technology advancements, wind projects are economically viable in a growing number of locations throughout the United States.”
Key findings from the U.S. Department of Energy’s reflective “Wind Technologies Market Report” include:
Berkeley Lab’s contributions to this report were funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Additional Information:
The full report, 2015 Wind Technologies Market Report, a presentation slide deck that summarizes the report, and an Excel workbook that contains much of the data presented in the report, can all be downloaded from: windreport.lbl.gov
The Department of Energy’s release on this study is available at: energy.gov/windreport
# # #
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory addresses the world’s most urgent scientific challenges by advancing sustainable energy, protecting human health, creating new materials, and revealing the origin and fate of the universe. Founded in 1931, Berkeley Lab’s scientific expertise has been recognized with 13 Nobel prizes. The University of California manages Berkeley Lab for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. For more, visit www.lbl.gov. The Electricity Markets & Policy Group at Berkeley Lab is online at emp.lbl.gov, and can be followed on Twitter at @BerkeleyLabEMP.
DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit science.energy.gov.
[/font]Updated: August 17, 2016[/font]
News Release Jon Weiner 510-486-4014 • August 17, 2016
[font size=3]Wind energy pricing remains attractive to utility and commercial purchasers, according to an annual report released by the U.S. Department of Energy and prepared by the Electricity Markets & Policy Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). Prices offered by newly built wind projects are averaging around 2¢/kWh, driven lower by technology advancements and cost reductions.
“Wind energy prices—particularly in the central United States—are at rock-bottom levels, with utilities and corporate buyers selecting wind as the low-cost option,” said Berkeley Lab Senior Scientist Ryan Wiser. “Moreover, enabled by technology advancements, wind projects are economically viable in a growing number of locations throughout the United States.”
Key findings from the U.S. Department of Energy’s reflective “Wind Technologies Market Report” include:
- Wind power represented the largest source of U.S. electric-generating capacity additions in 2015. Wind power capacity additions in the United States surged in 2015, with $14.5 billion invested in 8.6 gigawatts (GW) of new capacity. Wind power constituted 41% of all U.S. generation capacity additions in 2015, up sharply from its 24% market share the year before and close to its all-time high. Wind power currently meets about 5% of the nation’s electricity demand, and represents more than 10% of total electricity generation in twelve states, and more than 20% in three of those states.
- Bigger turbines are enhancing wind project performance. Since 1998-99, the average capacity of wind turbines installed in the United States has increased by 180% (to 2.0 megawatts (MW) in 2015), the average turbine hub height has increased by 47% (to 82 meters), and the average rotor diameter has increased by 113% (to 102 meters). Moreover, turbines originally designed for lower wind speeds are now regularly deployed in higher wind speed sites, boosting project performance. Increased rotor diameters, in particular, have begun to dramatically increase wind project capacity factors. For example, the average 2015 capacity factor among projects built in 2014 reached 41%, compared to an average of 31% among projects built from 2004–2011 and 26% among projects built from 1998–2003.
- Low wind turbine pricing continues to push down installed project costs. Wind turbine prices have fallen 20% to 40% from their temporary highs in 2008, and these declines are pushing project-level costs down. Wind projects built in 2015 had an average installed cost of $1,690/kilowatt(kW), down $640/kW from the temporary peak in 2009 and 2010.
- Wind energy prices remain very low. Lower installed project costs, along with improvements in capacity factors, are enabling aggressive wind power pricing. After topping out at nearly 7¢/kWh in 2009, the average levelized long-term price from wind power sales agreements has dropped to around 2¢/kWh—though this nationwide average is dominated by projects that largely hail from the lowest-priced central region of the country. Recently signed wind energy contracts compare favorably to projections of the fuel costs of gas-fired generation extending out through 2040. These low prices have spurred demand for wind energy, both from traditional electric utilities and also, increasingly, from non-utility purchasers like corporations, universities, and municipalities.
- The manufacturing supply chain continued to adjust to swings in domestic demand for wind equipment. Wind sector employment reached a new high of 88,000 full-time workers at the end of 2015, and the profitability of turbine suppliers has generally rebounded over the last three years. For wind projects recently installed in the United States, domestically manufactured content is highest for nacelle assembly (>85%), towers (80-85%), and blades and hubs (50-70%), but is much lower (<20%) for components internal to the nacelle. Although there have been a number of recent manufacturing plant closures, each of the three major turbine manufacturers serving the U.S. market has one or more domestic manufacturing facilities in operation.
Berkeley Lab’s contributions to this report were funded by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
Additional Information:
The full report, 2015 Wind Technologies Market Report, a presentation slide deck that summarizes the report, and an Excel workbook that contains much of the data presented in the report, can all be downloaded from: windreport.lbl.gov
The Department of Energy’s release on this study is available at: energy.gov/windreport
# # #
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory addresses the world’s most urgent scientific challenges by advancing sustainable energy, protecting human health, creating new materials, and revealing the origin and fate of the universe. Founded in 1931, Berkeley Lab’s scientific expertise has been recognized with 13 Nobel prizes. The University of California manages Berkeley Lab for the U.S. Department of Energy’s Office of Science. For more, visit www.lbl.gov. The Electricity Markets & Policy Group at Berkeley Lab is online at emp.lbl.gov, and can be followed on Twitter at @BerkeleyLabEMP.
DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the United States, and is working to address some of the most pressing challenges of our time. For more information, please visit science.energy.gov.
[/font]Updated: August 17, 2016[/font]
9 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
First of all, a watt is not a joule but rather it is a joule per second. As a result all of the stupid talk about capacity - it's really peak capacity and not average continuous capacity is absurd.
We have both metrics because both are useful. That utility is evident in the three charts where #1 shows the improvements in technology and siting by tracking the 'capacity factor'. The second chart uses total capacity to standardize the cost numbers for comparison across generating platforms. It is used with data on production in the third chart to show the cost per unit of electricity. (1 Mwh = 1000 kwh)
Nuclear also has a highly variable capacity factor. In fact, it isn't at all unusual for multibillion dollar plants to have a capacity factor of 0 (zero) for years (sometimes decades) at a time. It was also useful to tell us in advance that unless the UK curtailed their energy efficiency and renewable programs, their move to build new nuclear reactors would face a market where competition would force those nuclear reactors to recoup their costs with a 56% or so capacity factor.
This accounts for the fact that after 50 years of cheering, the entire wind industry assembled in that half a century has been unable to match the increase in the use of the dangerous fossil fuel natural gas in the last ten years.
Wow! Nnads has just discovered that a house doesn't keep the rain off before the roof is built. However, he seems to still lack the honesty to discuss the full array of renewable sources, as would be appropriate given his criticism. Here's why he makes that choice: nuclear is a trivial contributor as it only produces about 2.5% of final energy consumed.
Wind turbines rely heavily on the mining of increasingly rare and toxic metals; they are lucky to operate 20 years before turning into junk for landfill, and they have soaked up nearly a trillion dollars worldwide in just the last ten years ...
Not-so rare "rare earth minerals" are helpful to the economics of wind, but they aren't "relied upon heavily". The most useful is an element that improves the performance of generator magnets, and the Japanese have just developed a substitute for it. That will be more of a boon to electric vehicles than wind since the difference in per unit final price is more noticeable in EVs.
...while producing very little energy. World energy demand now is at roughly 570 exajoules per year, and the useless and expensive wind industry hasn't been able to produce 5 of them.
Another attempt to deceive the reader can be seen in the unlabeled use of "primary energy" as the standard for energy consumption. Primary energy counts the planet warming, un-utilized heat released by large fossil and nuclear steam generating plants. Wind and solar do not produce that waste. So when the claim is made that the world consumes 570EJ, that means that people actually use only about 40% of that 570EJ to do work with. This graph shows in detail how that wastage is distributed:
See also:
The bullshit about it being "cheap" is only obtained by ignoring the costs of keeping redundant dangerous natural gas plants in operating conditions, and in fact operating them whenever the wind doesn't blow, with the waste from this "back up" dumped directly into the planetary atmosphere at huge expense to all future generations.
This may seem to be just jumbled semantics, but there are some important points involved.
Wind and solar are variable, but reliable. That is, while the wind and sun don't always perform, weather forecasting allows us to forecast with great and increasing accuracy when those resources will be available. This means that we can plan ahead for where substitute energy will come from. While the transition away from fossil fuels is underway, there is a lot of natural gas in the non-renewable part of the grid so the alternatives that are present will (in addition to other wind/water/solar sites) include the thermal sources of natural gas, coal and nuclear. However, as more renewables from the full array of choices are added to the grid, they will force the thermal sources off the grid because of the low marginal costs of those resources.
Back to the issue at hand - when the raw energy sources are available, the equipment to convert wind and solar to electricity almost never fails - meaning the equipment is very reliable. When an equipment failure does occur, it is unlikely to involve more than a singe solar array or wind turbine. Meaning the grid barely, if at all, notices thee loss.
Nuclear power, on the other hand, has it's fuel source on site and we know that the raw energy is always available. However, the conversion equipment and process is prone to sudden unanticipated failures that, even in best case, is long lasting. In the worst cases the failure can last months or years. Sometimes, as in the case of Fukushima and the global ripple effect, it can be permanent.
When these instantly occurring, totally unanticipated failures inevitably happen (it isn't rare) it's imperative for grid stability that there be enough back-up generation sitting there waiting to make up for the sudden,very, very large amount of shortfall. That is always either coal or natural gas operating in a state of "spinning reserve" (burning fuel with the steam system in operation and the turbine spinning).
The predicable nature of variable renewable generation is much like the predicable nature of changing energy demand from consumers, and is handled in exactly the same way. The nature of sudden failure from a nuclear plant SCRAM is unique and commands particular and equally unique attention in planning. This means that nuclear power is the energy source guilty of what Nnads is trying to lay at the feet of renewable generation.
As a result in this fad, this misplaced faith in this garbage technology we are now observing record breaking increases in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere, which for the first time ever were over 3.00 ppm in a single year in 2015 (3.05 ppm precisely) and are on a pace to blow that awful figure away in 2016.
This is another face claim. While the underlying data is accurate, as can be seen in the chart below, laying it at the feet of renewable energy is simply not justified.
The wind energy scam is a huge lie we tell ourselves to convince ourselves that we give a shit. The inability to think critically about this huge unsustainable disaster that functions as a fig leaf for the gas industry is a crime against all future generations.
Oh yes, and it does kill birds, bats and other creatures, but it's nothing like the seven million human beings who die each year from air pollution while we engage in shit-for-brains nonsense like imagining the wind industry is significant.
It isn't.
Oh yes, and it does kill birds, bats and other creatures, but it's nothing like the seven million human beings who die each year from air pollution while we engage in shit-for-brains nonsense like imagining the wind industry is significant.
It isn't.
Those claims are idiotic poppycock with a large dash of pure balder. See original post in this thread for reliable data in proper context.
(Please note, material from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory–copyright concerns are nil.)
http://www.nrel.gov/electricity/transmission/variability.html
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Variability of Renewable Energy Sources[/font]
[font size=3]Wind and solar energy are referred to as variable generation sources because their electricity production varies based on the availability of wind and sun. However, they are not the only source of variation in a power system. The demand for electricity, or load, also varies, and the power system was designed to handle that uncertainty. Short-term changes in load (over seconds or minutes) are generally small and caused by random events that change demand in different directions. Over longer periods (several hours), changes in load tend to be more predictable. For example, there is a daily pattern of morning load pickup and evening load drop-off highly correlated with human endeavors. The key difference is that load variations are better understood than wind and solar variations. Uncertainty arises when levels and variabilities of power supply and demand must be sequentially matched.
Some aspects of renewable energy variation are easily predicted. For example, the electricity production of an individual wind turbine is highly variable. But the aggregate variability of multiple turbines at a single site is significantly less variable. The aggregation of multiple wind generation sites over a large geographic area results in even less variability. Harnessing the "law of large numbers," variability smoothing over large areas, yields enhanced prediction. Variability also decreases as the timescale decreases. The variability of large-scale wind power over seconds or minutes is generally small. Over several hours, however, it can be great.
[font size=2]A 9-hour comparison of second-to-second variability of wind production between a wind plant with 15 wind turbines and a wind plant with 200 wind turbines[/font]
Similarly, some aspects of solar variability are predictable (for example, sunrise and sunset). Other aspects, such as intermittent cloud cover, are much less so. However, the same reduction in variability is observed for the aggregation of solar photovoltaic plants over a broad geographic area.
[center]
[font size=2]A comparison of solar power production variability in Southern California.[/font][/center]
All types of variability must be managed by the electric power system operator. With low penetrations of variable generation, the related impact and response are small because the wind and solar variability is much less than the load variability. At high penetrations, however, the renewable variability may be more challenging to respond to.
NREL is addressing variability issues on the transmission system through its work on:
For additional information, see Long-Term Wind Power Variability (PDF).
[/font][/font]
[font size=3]Wind and solar energy are referred to as variable generation sources because their electricity production varies based on the availability of wind and sun. However, they are not the only source of variation in a power system. The demand for electricity, or load, also varies, and the power system was designed to handle that uncertainty. Short-term changes in load (over seconds or minutes) are generally small and caused by random events that change demand in different directions. Over longer periods (several hours), changes in load tend to be more predictable. For example, there is a daily pattern of morning load pickup and evening load drop-off highly correlated with human endeavors. The key difference is that load variations are better understood than wind and solar variations. Uncertainty arises when levels and variabilities of power supply and demand must be sequentially matched.
Some aspects of renewable energy variation are easily predicted. For example, the electricity production of an individual wind turbine is highly variable. But the aggregate variability of multiple turbines at a single site is significantly less variable. The aggregation of multiple wind generation sites over a large geographic area results in even less variability. Harnessing the "law of large numbers," variability smoothing over large areas, yields enhanced prediction. Variability also decreases as the timescale decreases. The variability of large-scale wind power over seconds or minutes is generally small. Over several hours, however, it can be great.
[font size=2]A 9-hour comparison of second-to-second variability of wind production between a wind plant with 15 wind turbines and a wind plant with 200 wind turbines[/font]
Similarly, some aspects of solar variability are predictable (for example, sunrise and sunset). Other aspects, such as intermittent cloud cover, are much less so. However, the same reduction in variability is observed for the aggregation of solar photovoltaic plants over a broad geographic area.
[center]
[font size=2]A comparison of solar power production variability in Southern California.[/font][/center]
All types of variability must be managed by the electric power system operator. With low penetrations of variable generation, the related impact and response are small because the wind and solar variability is much less than the load variability. At high penetrations, however, the renewable variability may be more challenging to respond to.
NREL is addressing variability issues on the transmission system through its work on:
- The Western Wind and Solar Integration Study
- The Eastern Renewable Generation Integration Study
- Energy imbalance markets
- The FESTIV model.
For additional information, see Long-Term Wind Power Variability (PDF).
[/font][/font]
http://www.nrel.gov/electricity/transmission/energy_storage.html
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Energy Storage[/font]
[font size=3]Renewable generation sources such as solar and wind energy are variable by nature. Because of this, some people believe dedicated energy storage is needed to support solar and wind power. But this isn't the case at transmission scales.
Historically, variations on the electric power system (caused by changes in system load, generation and dispatch, and network topology) have been handled at the system level because it is less expensive to aggregate variability before balancing it. As a result, storage is almost never "coupled" with a single energy source; it is most economic when it is operated to support an entire system.
Storage is nearly always beneficial to the electric power system. This is why 20 gigawatts of pumped hydropower storage was built in the United States decades before wind and solar energy were considered viable generation technologies. Even with the addition of relatively high penetrations of solar and wind generation, energy storage would continue to provide support to the entire grid—storing energy from a mix of sources and responding to variations in net demand.
Today, more than 26 gigawatts of wind power are operating in the United States, and no additional storage has been added to the electric power system as dedicated support. More than a dozen studies have analyzed the costs of large-scale grid integration of wind power and found that no additional storage is necessary to integrate penetrations of up to 20% wind energy in large balancing authority areas.[/font][/font]
[font size=3]Renewable generation sources such as solar and wind energy are variable by nature. Because of this, some people believe dedicated energy storage is needed to support solar and wind power. But this isn't the case at transmission scales.
Historically, variations on the electric power system (caused by changes in system load, generation and dispatch, and network topology) have been handled at the system level because it is less expensive to aggregate variability before balancing it. As a result, storage is almost never "coupled" with a single energy source; it is most economic when it is operated to support an entire system.
Storage is nearly always beneficial to the electric power system. This is why 20 gigawatts of pumped hydropower storage was built in the United States decades before wind and solar energy were considered viable generation technologies. Even with the addition of relatively high penetrations of solar and wind generation, energy storage would continue to provide support to the entire grid—storing energy from a mix of sources and responding to variations in net demand.
Today, more than 26 gigawatts of wind power are operating in the United States, and no additional storage has been added to the electric power system as dedicated support. More than a dozen studies have analyzed the costs of large-scale grid integration of wind power and found that no additional storage is necessary to integrate penetrations of up to 20% wind energy in large balancing authority areas.[/font][/font]
http://www.nrel.gov/electricity/transmission/frequency_response.html
[font face=Serif][font size=5]Frequency Response[/font]
[font size=3]Electric power system operators must consider the frequency response of renewable energy generation. Wind and solar generation use significantly different technologies from conventional power plants; therefore, their electrical characteristics and performance are different.
When a large generating plant shuts down, the frequency of the electric power system drops because of the imbalance between generation and load. The frequency decline is checked in the first few seconds by conventional synchronous machines, which contribute stored inertial energy to the system. Over the next few tens of seconds, synchronous machines equipped with governors increase their power output in an effort to stop system frequency decline and stabilize it at a certain level. Synchronous machines can also respond to frequency increases caused by large losses of load. This frequency response—both inertial and governor—could change with significant levels of variable generation.
Most modern wind turbines and solar arrays connect to the grid via power electronics-based converters. These converters decouple the wind and solar generation from the grid and its frequency excursions. When equipped with governor-like controls, the converters can also allow the renewable generation to contribute to grid frequency stabilization. They can provide governor response to frequency drops only when they are operating in a curtailed condition.
In addition, wind turbines can provide an inertia-like response by contributing power to the grid from their own stored kinetic energy. Solar arrays, which lack a large rotating mass, would need auxiliary storage to provide inertial response.
Because wind and solar generation primary and inertial responses differ from those of conventional generators, and this is not entirely understood, NREL is researching the effects of displacing conventional generation with significant quantities of wind and solar generation, including how this will affect the system frequency response at different penetration levels.
NREL is addressing frequency response issues on the transmission system through its work on active power controls. For more information, see Role of Wind Power in Primary Frequency Response of an Interconnection (PDF)[/font][/font]
[font size=3]Electric power system operators must consider the frequency response of renewable energy generation. Wind and solar generation use significantly different technologies from conventional power plants; therefore, their electrical characteristics and performance are different.
When a large generating plant shuts down, the frequency of the electric power system drops because of the imbalance between generation and load. The frequency decline is checked in the first few seconds by conventional synchronous machines, which contribute stored inertial energy to the system. Over the next few tens of seconds, synchronous machines equipped with governors increase their power output in an effort to stop system frequency decline and stabilize it at a certain level. Synchronous machines can also respond to frequency increases caused by large losses of load. This frequency response—both inertial and governor—could change with significant levels of variable generation.
Most modern wind turbines and solar arrays connect to the grid via power electronics-based converters. These converters decouple the wind and solar generation from the grid and its frequency excursions. When equipped with governor-like controls, the converters can also allow the renewable generation to contribute to grid frequency stabilization. They can provide governor response to frequency drops only when they are operating in a curtailed condition.
In addition, wind turbines can provide an inertia-like response by contributing power to the grid from their own stored kinetic energy. Solar arrays, which lack a large rotating mass, would need auxiliary storage to provide inertial response.
Because wind and solar generation primary and inertial responses differ from those of conventional generators, and this is not entirely understood, NREL is researching the effects of displacing conventional generation with significant quantities of wind and solar generation, including how this will affect the system frequency response at different penetration levels.
NREL is addressing frequency response issues on the transmission system through its work on active power controls. For more information, see Role of Wind Power in Primary Frequency Response of an Interconnection (PDF)[/font][/font]
Here the same curves squished 1/10.
Plotted over a year the yellow "smoothed" graph would look just as hairy as the blue graph.
Anyways we're still talking about a 50% displacement of fossil fuels over time, at best.
It says as much in your excerpt.
NREL is researching the effects of displacing conventional generation with significant quantities of wind and solar generation
50% would certainly be a significant reduction.
That's not my point. Is a gas powered high energy industrial lifestyle, augmented by wind and solar, something we ought to promote for EVERYONE on earth? Would it make the world a better place?
"Better than coal" carbon dioxide emissions just isn't good enough. In an expanding economy, with more and more people being assimilated into high energy industrial society, the end results are just as grim. Twice as many people using half the fossil fuel doesn't solve the problem.
I'm not pissing on my neighbor's solar panels or net metering, I'm simply noting that linear incremental reductions in fossil fuel use are of little consequence in a system that is growing exponentially. People in China and India and Africa seem to want the same stuff we've already got, and just like us, they'll burn fossil fuels to get it.
The thing we have to invent is desirable societies with stable populations that don't need fossil fuels at all. Meanwhile we're going to have more and more miserable people fleeing places global warming has made uninhabitable, even here in the U.S.A..
