6 ms·

Interesting how the total installed capacity is pretty respectable at 96GW, even though there are only 5 turbines above 5MW. In Europe the 7,5 MW Enercon onshor

by tda 7y ago

Interesting how the total installed capacity is pretty respectable at 96GW, even though there are only 5 turbines above 5MW. In Europe the 7,5 MW Enercon onshore turbine is fairly common, and offshore the 8-10MW turbines are very much in fashion. For reference, the EU has 179GW installed as of 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_European_Union https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_European_Uni...

adventured 7y ago
I'm surprised the US is that close to the EU on installed capacity on a population adjusted basis (~148 GW if you adjust the US population up to the EU population). I'd like to see the US do a lot more with its wind power resources. We've done relatively little with offshore for example (that's only just beginning to see a serious push), while having rather epic offshore potential. The US Department of Energy lists the US with a technical offshore potential of 2,000+ GW.[1] Conveniently the US population is of course also concentrated along the coasts. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/computing-america-s-offshore-wind-energy-potential https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/computing-america-s-off...
- sverige 7y ago
  The relatively recent political pushback against building turbines on farmland may encourage more of a push to develop offshore turbines. Development there was stopped early on by political resistance to having the gigantic, ugly, bird-killing machines spoiling the scenery.
  - beat 7y ago
    Only when there's an offshore to have. I live in the midwest, the nearest oceanfront is over 1000 miles away. And the "gigantic ugly bird-killing machines" arguments are falling apart quickly in the face of the reality of climate change.
    - sverige 7y ago
      Most wind farms are located far from where the electricity generated is used. For example, Facebook is building a wind farm in Nebraska for facilities in California. The loss in transmitting power that far is ridiculous. Why aren't their wind farms built off the coast of northern California? Wind turbines aren't carbon neutral. Better than coal, sure, but it's interesting that the discussion is always around building these things instead of reducing consumption. But no one gets rich off of reducing consumption.
      - cr1895 7y ago
        The water gets really deep really fast off the coast of northern California, and floating wind is still in its infancy. For example, the water depth is already 200m deep less than 25 nautical miles offshore San Francisco. For comparison in NYC that's more than 100 nm from the coast.
        sverige 7y ago
        Why does it need to be 25 nm away? Why not build them closer to shore? A half mile offset from dwellings is considered generous in the Midwest, and the wind is pretty steady along parts of that coast.
        cr1895 7y ago
        It doesn't necessarily. My point is that it's a more challenging environment than on the east coast, and I'm not aware of any offshore wind projects in planning stages on the west coast. Perhaps there are some (but I wouldn't be surprised if the intention is floating turbines). The offshore turbines tend to dwarf anything installed in the midwest. It's not really a great comparison for proximity. Logistically the west coast is challenging too because at this point the US offshore wind industry is pretty immature, and it's European companies winning the contracts to build and install the foundations. Jacket foundations could be constructed in the Gulf but the larger monopile foundations are probably going to come from Europe. The east coast seems easier to tackle first.
      - 7y ago
  - pjc50 7y ago
    People who complain about turbines killing birds are almost inevitably not interested in any of the other big killers of birds: habitat loss, invasive species, domestic cats, collisions with glass buildings, and so on.
    - sverige 7y ago
      You forgot nearly universal use of pesticides across the Midwest, creating a green desert with massive loss of insects, which also affects birds and other animals. My opposition to wind turbines has more than one basis, and my concern for birds is separate but intersects with this concern. But it doesn't matter to those who don't live near any wind farms.
    - tasty_freeze 7y ago
      Although blade strikes are easy to diagnose as a killer of birds, I'm sure the pollution released by coal/oil/gas power plants kills many birds too, not to mention all the other wildlife and humans.
  - mattferderer 7y ago
    The biggest complaint I've heard in the midwest is related to noise. One other valid complaint is they cast large shadows & shouldn't be built near a house where a giant rotating shadow will be flashing in windows. Keeping window towers a distance from homes & reducing the noise would help increase the amount significantly. I rarely hear the bird argument anymore.
  - fred_is_fred 7y ago
    Dead birds beats dead miners.
- martinald 7y ago
  If you adjust on a power consumption basis it is actually further off. US uses approx 3x the kWh per capita of the EU.
- 6thaccount2 7y ago
  In the Midwest (Kansas, Oklahoma,... etc), the US has seen a massive amount of wind developed in the past few years. To give you a feel for what I mean, in a few short years, the SPP region went from a small amount of wind to having greater than 60% renewable penetration. This means over 60% of generation serving load came from renewables at one point. ERCOT (grid operator for Texas) has also had really high numbers (upper 50).
  - batbomb 7y ago
    I’ve spent some time in Western Oklahoma on and off the last 10 years. 10 years ago there was almost nothing. 5 years ago they started popping up, 2 years ago it started to just be everywhere. In other communities that are traditionally dependent on the oil industry the economies have been touch and go, but in places with wind (like western Oklahoma and Texas), it’s almost the ultimate hedge.
- vondur 7y ago
  I think a lot of people that own coastal property don't want the offshore turbines to spoil their ocean views.
  - evan_ 7y ago
    Which frankly I don’t get. Break up that horizon line a little, add some vertical lines to the scene.
    - vondur 7y ago
      Yeah I agree, it's silly. I think they look cool. We have a lot in California here on the Antelope Valley freeway going towards the city of Mojave. Honestly, it's tough here in California to get mass alternative power installations going. People here are anti-nuclear and anti solar installations in the desert areas, in addition to being anti offshore wind installations.
- Robotbeat 7y ago
  It's because our on-shore potential is equally as great and it's a lot cheaper. Additionally, farm states are disproportionately (with respect to population) important politically, so it's easier to get subsidies for on-shore wind. This is also why ethanol accounts for ~10% of the US motor gasoline mix. Wind and solar are way better per unit land than ethanol, so hopefully ethanol is replaced by solar.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    Ethanol is used as an oxidizer that reduces emissions, production exceeds subsidies by an enormous amount.
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      Subsidies, yes, but there are large mandates as well. Also, ethanol is, I believe, cheaper than gasoline per unit volume (not necessarily per energy) so there’s incentive to blend it in.
    - todd8 7y ago
      I'm not sure that ethanol mandates are a good idea. It's not clear that the entire life-cycle costs (in terms of CO2 emissions) of adding ethanol is better than the gasoline that it displaces, see [1]. This would mean that the mandates and incentives would be be better spent on other ways to reduce emissions. [1] https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/ethanol-higher-emissions-or-lower/ https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/ethanol-higher-emissions-o...
  - scblock 7y ago
    For the most part the federal Production Tax Credit is the only subsidy of substance that applies to wind farms in the US.
    - Robotbeat 7y ago
      ...but it’s enormous. The credit is 2.1¢/kWh for first 10 years, more than half the current unsubsidized 3.6¢/kWh levelized cost of wind.
- gok 7y ago
  The big upside of offshore wind is consistency, which leads to a higher capacity factors. This matters more in the EU, which has a wind capacity factor of around 22% compared to 35% in the US.
  - scblock 7y ago
    This is true, though most of the newer Great Plains wind developments are in the mid-40 percent range and up right now.
gok 7y ago
There's a bureaucratic barrier in American turbines at 499 feet (152 meters) tall which requires FAA approval and a bunch of related paperwork. So that means turbines larger than 3MW are rare. The calculus may change when >10MW turbines become more widespread. GE is shopping around a 12-14MW design.
- scblock 7y ago
  Yes and no. Anything over 200 feet requires FAA review and approval, including of lighting. Up to 499 feet the rules are simple and well understood. Between 500 and 699 feet the rules and review are more difficult, and there are a number of sites that are unable to go to those heights because of airport and other constraints, but there are a number of projects in active development targeting 600 to 650 feet right now, and I expect more in the future. 700 feet and above is still a relative unknown, but possible. The effect is that for now most people have been targeting 500 feet, but a greater percentage of future development is likely to exceed 500 feet. Realistically this won't wait for 10 MW units, but will yield significant benefits (overall) at 4 to 5 MW.
WanderPanda 7y ago
It saddens me that Enercon does not get a grip internationally and just relies on EMEA. Their products are of extreme high quality and they are almost completely vertically integrated. It seems our german subsidiaries have poisoned their competitiveness...

by tda 7y ago

adventured 7y ago

I'm surprised the US is that close to the EU on installed capacity on a population adjusted basis (~148 GW if you adjust the US population up to the EU population). I'd like to see the US do a lot more with its wind power resources. We've done relatively little with offshore for example (that's only just beginning to see a serious push), while having rather epic offshore potential. The US Department of Energy lists the US with a technical offshore potential of 2,000+ GW.[1] Conveniently the US population is of course also concentrated along the coasts. [1] https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/computing-america-s-offshore-wind-energy-potential https://www.energy.gov/eere/articles/computing-america-s-off...

sverige 7y ago
The relatively recent political pushback against building turbines on farmland may encourage more of a push to develop offshore turbines. Development there was stopped early on by political resistance to having the gigantic, ugly, bird-killing machines spoiling the scenery.
- beat 7y ago
  Only when there's an offshore to have. I live in the midwest, the nearest oceanfront is over 1000 miles away. And the "gigantic ugly bird-killing machines" arguments are falling apart quickly in the face of the reality of climate change.
  - sverige 7y ago
    Most wind farms are located far from where the electricity generated is used. For example, Facebook is building a wind farm in Nebraska for facilities in California. The loss in transmitting power that far is ridiculous. Why aren't their wind farms built off the coast of northern California? Wind turbines aren't carbon neutral. Better than coal, sure, but it's interesting that the discussion is always around building these things instead of reducing consumption. But no one gets rich off of reducing consumption.
    - cr1895 7y ago
      The water gets really deep really fast off the coast of northern California, and floating wind is still in its infancy. For example, the water depth is already 200m deep less than 25 nautical miles offshore San Francisco. For comparison in NYC that's more than 100 nm from the coast.
      - sverige 7y ago
        Why does it need to be 25 nm away? Why not build them closer to shore? A half mile offset from dwellings is considered generous in the Midwest, and the wind is pretty steady along parts of that coast.
        cr1895 7y ago
        It doesn't necessarily. My point is that it's a more challenging environment than on the east coast, and I'm not aware of any offshore wind projects in planning stages on the west coast. Perhaps there are some (but I wouldn't be surprised if the intention is floating turbines). The offshore turbines tend to dwarf anything installed in the midwest. It's not really a great comparison for proximity. Logistically the west coast is challenging too because at this point the US offshore wind industry is pretty immature, and it's European companies winning the contracts to build and install the foundations. Jacket foundations could be constructed in the Gulf but the larger monopile foundations are probably going to come from Europe. The east coast seems easier to tackle first.
    - 7y ago
- pjc50 7y ago
  People who complain about turbines killing birds are almost inevitably not interested in any of the other big killers of birds: habitat loss, invasive species, domestic cats, collisions with glass buildings, and so on.
  - sverige 7y ago
    You forgot nearly universal use of pesticides across the Midwest, creating a green desert with massive loss of insects, which also affects birds and other animals. My opposition to wind turbines has more than one basis, and my concern for birds is separate but intersects with this concern. But it doesn't matter to those who don't live near any wind farms.
  - tasty_freeze 7y ago
    Although blade strikes are easy to diagnose as a killer of birds, I'm sure the pollution released by coal/oil/gas power plants kills many birds too, not to mention all the other wildlife and humans.
- mattferderer 7y ago
  The biggest complaint I've heard in the midwest is related to noise. One other valid complaint is they cast large shadows & shouldn't be built near a house where a giant rotating shadow will be flashing in windows. Keeping window towers a distance from homes & reducing the noise would help increase the amount significantly. I rarely hear the bird argument anymore.
- fred_is_fred 7y ago
  Dead birds beats dead miners.
martinald 7y ago
If you adjust on a power consumption basis it is actually further off. US uses approx 3x the kWh per capita of the EU.
6thaccount2 7y ago
In the Midwest (Kansas, Oklahoma,... etc), the US has seen a massive amount of wind developed in the past few years. To give you a feel for what I mean, in a few short years, the SPP region went from a small amount of wind to having greater than 60% renewable penetration. This means over 60% of generation serving load came from renewables at one point. ERCOT (grid operator for Texas) has also had really high numbers (upper 50).
- batbomb 7y ago
  I’ve spent some time in Western Oklahoma on and off the last 10 years. 10 years ago there was almost nothing. 5 years ago they started popping up, 2 years ago it started to just be everywhere. In other communities that are traditionally dependent on the oil industry the economies have been touch and go, but in places with wind (like western Oklahoma and Texas), it’s almost the ultimate hedge.
vondur 7y ago
I think a lot of people that own coastal property don't want the offshore turbines to spoil their ocean views.
- evan_ 7y ago
  Which frankly I don’t get. Break up that horizon line a little, add some vertical lines to the scene.
  - vondur 7y ago
    Yeah I agree, it's silly. I think they look cool. We have a lot in California here on the Antelope Valley freeway going towards the city of Mojave. Honestly, it's tough here in California to get mass alternative power installations going. People here are anti-nuclear and anti solar installations in the desert areas, in addition to being anti offshore wind installations.
Robotbeat 7y ago
It's because our on-shore potential is equally as great and it's a lot cheaper. Additionally, farm states are disproportionately (with respect to population) important politically, so it's easier to get subsidies for on-shore wind. This is also why ethanol accounts for ~10% of the US motor gasoline mix. Wind and solar are way better per unit land than ethanol, so hopefully ethanol is replaced by solar.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  Ethanol is used as an oxidizer that reduces emissions, production exceeds subsidies by an enormous amount.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    Subsidies, yes, but there are large mandates as well. Also, ethanol is, I believe, cheaper than gasoline per unit volume (not necessarily per energy) so there’s incentive to blend it in.
  - todd8 7y ago
    I'm not sure that ethanol mandates are a good idea. It's not clear that the entire life-cycle costs (in terms of CO2 emissions) of adding ethanol is better than the gasoline that it displaces, see [1]. This would mean that the mandates and incentives would be be better spent on other ways to reduce emissions. [1] https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/ethanol-higher-emissions-or-lower/ https://www.factcheck.org/2015/11/ethanol-higher-emissions-o...
- scblock 7y ago
  For the most part the federal Production Tax Credit is the only subsidy of substance that applies to wind farms in the US.
  - Robotbeat 7y ago
    ...but it’s enormous. The credit is 2.1¢/kWh for first 10 years, more than half the current unsubsidized 3.6¢/kWh levelized cost of wind.
gok 7y ago
The big upside of offshore wind is consistency, which leads to a higher capacity factors. This matters more in the EU, which has a wind capacity factor of around 22% compared to 35% in the US.
- scblock 7y ago
  This is true, though most of the newer Great Plains wind developments are in the mid-40 percent range and up right now.

gok 7y ago

There's a bureaucratic barrier in American turbines at 499 feet (152 meters) tall which requires FAA approval and a bunch of related paperwork. So that means turbines larger than 3MW are rare. The calculus may change when >10MW turbines become more widespread. GE is shopping around a 12-14MW design.

scblock 7y ago
Yes and no. Anything over 200 feet requires FAA review and approval, including of lighting. Up to 499 feet the rules are simple and well understood. Between 500 and 699 feet the rules and review are more difficult, and there are a number of sites that are unable to go to those heights because of airport and other constraints, but there are a number of projects in active development targeting 600 to 650 feet right now, and I expect more in the future. 700 feet and above is still a relative unknown, but possible. The effect is that for now most people have been targeting 500 feet, but a greater percentage of future development is likely to exceed 500 feet. Realistically this won't wait for 10 MW units, but will yield significant benefits (overall) at 4 to 5 MW.

WanderPanda 7y ago

It saddens me that Enercon does not get a grip internationally and just relies on EMEA. Their products are of extreme high quality and they are almost completely vertically integrated. It seems our german subsidiaries have poisoned their competitiveness...