Wind Power 39% growth in 2009. At that rate of growth Wind will surpass Nuclear in 7.5 years.

[JohnWxy]

http://awea.org/newsroom/releases/01-26-10_AWEA_Q4_and_Year-End_Report_Release.html

EIA - Electric power monthly


Wind power perCent of total power production 2009: 1.8%

Nuclear power percent of total power production 2009: 20.2%

At 39% annual growth 1.8% reaches 20.7% in 7.5 years.

Now, production of wind turbines will have to keep up and siting and installation of power lines may create some problems but even if growth slowed a bit we could see wind overtake Nuclear in 10 to 11 years. If growth of wind power slowed to 25% per year it would take 11 years to surpass Nuclear for power production.

Intermittancy of wind starts to be problem when Wind Power reaches 20% of supply within a given region. So when wind catches nuclear we will be reaching that threshold. Storage will become an issue then. Fortunately people are working on that now. CAES Compressed Air Energy Storage Worldwide

Still, it's a nice problem to have. Trying to figure out how to store so much wind power.

[OKIsItJustMe]

1. Exponential growth is difficult to maintain

According to the report (http://awea.org/publications/reports/4Q09.pdf) 2008 saw a 50% rate of increase. (They didn't keep that up in 2009 of course, even though in 2009, they built 17% more capacity than they did in 2008.)

To maintain 2009's rate of increase, in 2015 they'll have to build about 5 times as much capacity as they did in 2009.

Year | Total MW | Build | Growth
2007 |   16812  |	|
2008 |   25237  |  8425 | 50.11%
2009 |   35159  |  9922 | 39.32%
2010 |   48982  | 13823 | 39.32%
2011 |   68196  | 19257 | 39.32%
2012 |   87410  | 26811 | 39.32%
2013 |  106624  | 34365 | 39.32%
2014 |  125838  | 41920 | 39.32%
2015 |  145052  | 49474 | 39.32%
2016 |  164266  | 57028 | 39.32%

Don't get me wrong, let's build 'em as fast as we can, but let's be realistic.

[Statistical]

7. Careful if you keep that up you will be called a nuke shill.

However you are right and even the wind industries long term estimates (2020 & 2030) reflect that. Capacity will continue to grow in nominal amounts however growth rate will slide.

Unless we adopt a central/command economy and/or nationalize the wind production companies it simply is not possible to ramp production capacity by the amounts necessary to sustain geometric growth.

In any case it is time for sushi! :)

[OKIsItJustMe]

9. Better table

%&@#! Computers!

The top 3 lines are historical. From there on down is theoretical (assuming we maintain 2009's rate of growth.)

Year | Build MW | Growth |  Total MW
2007 |          |        |    16,812
2008 |   8,425  | 50.11% |    25,237
2009 |   9,922  | 39.32% |    35,159
2010 |  13,823  | 39.32% |    48,982
2011 |  19,257  | 39.32% |    68,239
2012 |  26,828  | 39.32% |    95,067
2013 |  37,376  | 39.32% |   132,443
2014 |  52,070  | 39.32% |   184,513
2015 |  72,542  | 39.32% |   257,055
2016 | 101,062  | 39.32% |   358,117
2017 | 140,795  | 39.32% |   498,912
2018 | 196,149  | 39.32% |   695,061
2019 | 273,265  | 39.32% |   968,326
2020 | 380,700  | 39.32% | 1,349,026

[Statistical]

11. Off topic what markup did you use to get data to line up properly?

Usually when I try to post a chart I can't get it to line up.

[bananas]

12. peeking at the source - "tt" (for "teletype")

http://www.htmlquick.com/reference/tags/tt.html

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. Well, actually I use a combination of TT and PRE

TT  = Teletype (AKA "Monospace")
PRE = Preformatted (don't dink with my spacing please!)

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. FWIW, the 'TT' shouldn't be needed

The 'pre' markup is enough, on DU, anyway - it implies a monospaced font.

[bananas]

21. Thanks - "hr" and "ul" can be useful

"hr" inserts a horizontal line

---

"ul" without any list elements just indents a section

[OKIsItJustMe]

29. UL would accomplish an indent, but it is not accessible (since it's not a proper use of a list.)

http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#lists

...

The HTML list elements DL, UL, and OL should only be used to create lists, not for formatting effects such as indentation. Refer to information on http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-CSS-TECHS/#style-alignment">CSS and tables for layout in the CSS Techniques http://www.w3.org/TR/WCAG10-HTML-TECHS/#ref-WCAG10-CSS-TECHNIQUES">/WCAG10-CSS-TECHNIQUES/.

Ordered lists help non-visual users navigate. Non-visual users may "get lost" in lists, especially in nested lists and those that do not indicate the specific nest level for each list item. Until user agents provide a means to identify list context clearly (e.g., by supporting the ':before' pseudo-element in CSS2), content developers should include contextual clues in their lists.

...

Instead, I use "blockquote" or "center" (as appropriate.)

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. belt AND suspenders

I've been burnt in the past.

[JohnWxy]

31. Yes, it's true as the base grows maintaining the same proportional growth becomes difficult, however

as a certain DU contributor states here http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x244480#244491 the actual installed wind power capacity far exceeded what was projected by the cited study.

IN fact the installed wind power capacity for 2009 was about 2.5 times what the cited study http://www1.eere.energy.gov/windandhydro/pdfs/41869.pdf#page=26&zoom=80">projected (for 2010) (one year after the study was published). (NOTE that 2008 & 2009 were years of dramatic contraction (availability) of credit.)

In the interest of being realistic, let us consider a few matters:

http://www.usitc.gov/publications/332/Executive_Briefings/USITC_EB_WindTurbines_David.pdf">The number of OEMs assembling nacelles in the U.S. increased from one in 2004 (GE) to five in 2008.

The number of turbine manufacturers with U.S. sales increased from five in 2003 to 13 in 2008..."The United States is a net importer of wind turbines and major components. U.S. imports of windpowered generating sets increased from $356 million in 2003 to $2.5 billion in 2008 (more than 600 percent)"

The Great Lakes area has considerable Wind Power potential .. is close to population centers and would not require the building of new transmission lines over long distances (affecting cost and time requirements).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/06/AR2008100602574.html">Studies Lift Hopes for Great Lakes Wind Turbine Farms just looking at sites off Michigan's coast-lines:
"...Michigan's coasts could produce 321,000 megawatts of energy." - now the study noted that this potential is before considering such issues as shippiing lanes, environmental concerns etc. But even if you cut that figure by a third, or a half, you are talking about a considerable power resource - close to demand centers.

Wind Resources map:
Wind Resources map

COST. This last factor is important:

Wind Power costs are closing in on Natural Gas power generation costs. So far, wind farms have been built as Private Investor projects. When Utilities start building their own wind farms the cost of wind generated power will come down another step (utilities enjoy very favorable financing rates and financing costs are a very significant part of the intitial cost of wind farms).

http://www.awea.org/faq/cost.html

Overall, Wiser and Kahn estimate wind power costs, depending on ownership and financing method, as follows:

•Private ownership, project financing: 4.95 cents/kWh including PTC, 6.56 cents/kWh without PTC.

•IOU ownership, corporate financing: 3.53 cents/kWh including PTC, 5.9 cents/kWh without.
•Public utility ownership, internal financing: 2.88 cents/kWh including REPI, 4.35 cents/kWh without.
•Public utility ownership, project financing: 3.43 cents/kWh including REPI, 4.89 cents/kWh without.

With significant increases in wind turbine manufacturing capacity, the availability of wind farm sites close to population centers and the fact that the cost of wind power generation is closing in on that of natural gas power generation these factors combined portend continued strong growth in wind power in the future.

In the OP I did state that a rate of growth declining from 39% could get you to nuclear's share in about 11 years.

For what it's worth, assuming the EIA is correct in it's projection of electric power consumption (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/speeches/newell121409.pdf#page=18">annual growth of 1% 2008-2035), growing a 1.8% share (wind power's share in 2009) to 22.1% in 2020 (20% growing at 1% per yr for 10 yrs) would require an annual rate of growth of 28.5%, or if you started at a 39% rate of growth and declined over ten years to a 15.7% rate of growth you would still get to the 22.1% of total consumption. The net increase in installed capacity in the last year would be 328% over the first year{(.030054-.00702)/.00702}. Note the increase in yearly imports of windpowered generating sets from 2003 to 2008 .. 600%. Now, will the world be able to increase its production of wind turbines that much in the next 10 years? I don't know, but I submit it's possible. Wind power is just getting started.

           0  	1.8%	1.390	2.5%
           1	2.5%	1.356	3.4%
           2	3.4%	1.325	4.5%
           3	4.5%	1.297	5.8%
           4	5.8%	1.271	7.4%
           5	7.4%	1.248	9.3%
           6	9.3%	1.226  11.3%
           7   11.3%	1.207  13.7%
           8   13.7%	1.189  16.3%
           9   16.3%	1.172  19.1%
          10   19.1%	1.157  22.1%






 
 ....Maybe it will take 15 years to reach 20% of total consumed, but that still is more than people would have imagined.  That was
 my point in projecting the possible growth of wind power - to get people to thinking about what is possible.  To show that
 it won't take 30 years to get some appreciable gains from wind power.
  

[muriel_volestrangler]

32. The thing is, exponential growth is a completely unsuitable model

Exponential growth is useful as a model when an amount has the main effect on how much growth can then be achieved. Such as living creatures, or money in a savings account.

The inputs to new turbines are: steel, fibreglass, land, planning permission, ships that can install offshore turbines, the money to buy all of these, that kind of thing. Note that the existence of turbines doesn't actually have a notable effect on how you build another turbine.

Basically, your figures are pseudo-economics, and completely meaningless. Sorry.

[JohnWxy]

34. I must take exception to your characterization "completely meaningless"..

YOu have ignored (even while mentioning factors which I cited in my comment:

1) sighting possibilities in the Great Lakes (which avoids ....
2) the logistical and cost problems of building new long transmission lines),
3) the expansion of wind turbine installations in 2009 despite the fact that 2008 and 2009 were years of dramatic contraction of credit
5) the very significant expansion of manufacturing facilities .. and
6) that life cycle costs of wind power generation are closing in on the cost of natural gas power generation (note, this is important).

These factors are part of an economic analysis, which I did mention and which you seem to have missed in my statemtent - even though you repeated some of them in your comment!(?).

Your use of the term "meaningless" to describe my observations, while ignoring the relevant factors I cited, reveals a questionable mode of argument (sorry).


Was my comment meant as an exhaustive economic analysis of wind power's future growth? I really don't think anybody would have looked at it as such, nor was it offered to be. You also have chosen to ignore my statement that the purpose of the comment was "to get people to thinking about what is possible. To show that it won't take 30 years to get some appreciable gains from wind power."

Again, given the factors I mentioned in my comment, I submit that continued strong growth of wind power, like that which has been recorded, is possible.

[OnlinePoker]

2. They may have installed 39% more capacity

but they're only generating 5.6% more power than the same time last year. Many states (mountain and pacific) saw double digit declines in production. At 5.6% production increase per year, it would only reach current parity with nuclear in 54 years. Unfortunately, the eia report doesn't say why there was such a dramatic drop in production in key producing states like Colorado so we won't know until next year if this is an aberation or not.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epm/table1_17_a.html

[kristopher]

3. That is probably a data collection problem

The EIA is pretty good at statistics, but you have to be very careful about what is and is not included as well as the timeliness of their process for collecting data.

Don't EVER trust their analysis.

[joshcryer]

4. Nonsense, their projections may be weak, but their data mining is top notch.

They're regularly cited in the peer review (I think even Jacobson cites them).

[kristopher]

5. I cite them too.

But as usual you are clueless on the topic you are spouting about. Do you see those little bitty squiggles at the bottom of the table. They tell you things you need to pay attention to:
Notes: Totals may not equal sum of components because of independent rounding. Percent difference is calculated before rounding. See Glossary for definitions. Negative generation denotes that electric power consumed for plant use exceeds gross generation. Values for 2009 and 2010 are preliminary. - See Technical Notes for a discussion of the sample design for the Form EIA-923, Form EIA-906 and Form EIA-920.

It is also relevant that this is a new data set they are compiling. Without knowing the details of their data collection it is not possible to know what the table actually reports.

[Statistical]

6. That data is only for a month.

Next month they will have Jan & Feb for 2009/2010.
Month after that Jan-March 2009/2010.

Hard to draw a conclusion from a single month.
Wind output does vary from month to month (and even year to year).

So we need to wait but likely not till next year. Generally they update the numbers once a month and the data is 3 months behind (i.e Jan in April, Febuary in May).

[OnlinePoker]

8. I know.

Unfortunately, this is the first month they've reported state by state data on wind, solar, geothermal and biomass and that is why I said it may be a fluke. I don't know how the format will go, if they'll show month by month or just annual. I would think monthly for the data to be useful but I was just making the observation that, despite a major capacity increase, at least for this month there wasn't a corresponding production increase.

[Statistical]

10. Yeah I just think it illustrates wind is variable.

Weather patterns are cylical but not perfectly cyclical.

They report month by month so next time report comes out it will be for Febuary and they will also have a YTD (Jan-Feb).

Bad news is I am not sure where they keep archives so you might want to save January so you have it seperate when Febuary data comes out.

[kristopher]

17. Wind isn't that variable over that large a geographic region.

So your conclusion is unlikely to be true. Since it is a new data collection and reporting effort, and since wind is much more dispersed and thus harder to keep track of, it seems more likely the EIA hasn't fully refined and implemented their data collection system.

[Statistical]

18. BS.

Variability decreases but there is still variability.

EIA has very good track record of collecting data. They have been collecting wind energy for a decade now. There is variability in the output every month they have on record.

You claim it is due to poor or incomplete recording is just that a completely unsubstantiated claim.

[kristopher]

19. You're slinging nuke BS again.

The EIA is a fracking bureaucracy, it isn't a church.

Again, there isn't that much variability on a continental scale. What you are claiming is that there was more than a 20% drop in the amount of energy in the winds across the ENTIRE United States.

Alternatively we have both loads of new wind farms AND a new data collection and reporting system.

Of course, you elect to go with the explanation that you think makes nuclear power look more attractive.

I prefer to go with what is more likely to be true.

[Statistical]

22. No downthread I even said one month isn't sufficient to determine reason for reduction.

However your claim of poor or inaccurate data is completely without evidence.

One month isn't a very long time. An above average number of high wind storms could of resulted in 10% higher rate of idling windfarms (to avoid turbine damage).
Wholesale energy prices tend to be low in January so many some of the older wind operators took the opportunity to get some maintenance done.

Wind is variable. That is a reality. The variability can be reduced but currently we aren't building a nationwide windfarm with the goal of reducing variability.
Each wind farm is individually owned/operated. The operators are looking to maximize ROI not reduce variability.

My first post in this thread was cautioining that the comparison is only for a single month and not too much should be drawn from it. We will know more later in year as the number of comparison months grows.

You claim that it is due to poor accounting isn't backed up by any facts.

[kristopher]

23. You are claiming that the wind across the US contained more than 20% LESS energy

than the same month previous year.

That kind of variability is nearly impossible and is the evidence that the problem is elsewhere. Since the system is new and the wind farms are new and very numerous, the probability is high that data collection and processing is the culprit.

You obviously have zero research experience.

[Statistical]

24. I didn't make that claim at all.

If you have winds that exceed the safe limit of turbines the energy hasn't gone away it simply can't be converted into electrical energy. Actually in such a scenario energy has actually increased.

If a turbine is offline for maintenance or repair the wind energy hasn't changed just the energy converted to electrical energy.

The stats don't reflect wind energy. They simply reflect the tiny % of wind energy that has been converted to electrical power. You do understand that it is possible for wind energy to remain static of even increase and the electrical stats decline.

You obviously have zero research experience.
Well at least I can recognize what metric is being researched. So even if that were true I am still far more capable than you. :rofl:

[kristopher]

25. ROFLMAO. You get more absurd every day.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=243516&mesg_id=243893

[Statistical]

26. Translation. Oh shit Kris made yet another false claim about something he doesn't understand.

Wind Energy != Electrical power from wind.

[JohnWxy]

30. one month's data isn't enough. Here's some results of taking 5 yrs of (hourly) measurements

This article is about a study of using wind farms distributed along the East Coast - over a considerable distance.

Balancing the Power of Offshore Wind

~~
~~

Kempton believes that wind farms up and down the coast, under the power of local weather conditions, could perform the same load balancing function for one another that gas turbines provide onshore.

He and his co-authors Dana Veron and Felipe Pimenta from University of Delaware and Stony Brook University associate professor Brian Colle tracked coastal winds over five years using hour-by-hour data from 11 offshore weather buoys and meteorological stations.

Then they put together a computer simulation that substituted wind farms for weather stations and included the proposed interlinking cable. They generated data simulating five years’ worth of power feeds from the hypothetical wind farms.

While the researchers found that output from individual wind farms varied widely over time, the power output of the network as a whole held steady. Fluctuations, when they did occur, were gradual, but at no time during the study period did power output on the simulated grid drop to zero.

(more)

as stated in OP, the variability becomes an issue when you reach 20% of your power coming from wind. Also, in OP, there are ways of storing large amounts of power being developed. While this is in the nascent stage, we have a few years to get this 'down'. Vanadium redox batteries have been used http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanadium_redox_battery adn can be scaled up.

[Name removed]

13. Deleted message

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

[jpak]

16. Yeah, US nuclear power grew and grew then stopped growing in 1973

yup

Why?

cuz it sucked

that's why

:rofl:

[kristopher]

20. +1

[Javaman]

27. "The mindless anti-nuke "renewables will save us" cretins"...

at least you aren't using the term "fundies" anymore. I see you have really evolved.

:eyes:

[Odin2005]

33. Wind and Solar should be reaching the exponential takeoff phase right about now according to...

...futurist Ray Kurzweil in a TED talk I watched about a year ago. In fact i think I posted the video here IIRC.