Comments on: Texas Wind Power: Reality vs. Hype (despite burdensome state mandate, only a 1.2% share projected for 2014) http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/texas-wind-power-the-numbers-versus-the-hype-despite-mandates-1-2-share-by-2014/ A free-market energy blog Sat, 11 Feb 2012 20:41:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: IS THERE GLOBAL COOLING? | Centurean2′s Weblog http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/texas-wind-power-the-numbers-versus-the-hype-despite-mandates-1-2-share-by-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-14834 IS THERE GLOBAL COOLING? | Centurean2′s Weblog Sun, 12 Dec 2010 08:12:53 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4255#comment-14834 [...] Huge Texas wind farms can only be relied on for 8.7% of rated capacity [...] [...] Huge Texas wind farms can only be relied on for 8.7% of rated capacity [...]

]]> By: Climate Change Linksdump | Idiotprogrammer http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/texas-wind-power-the-numbers-versus-the-hype-despite-mandates-1-2-share-by-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-3066 Climate Change Linksdump | Idiotprogrammer Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:03:02 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4255#comment-3066 [...] Bryce on how Texas wind power is overhyped. Note that I don’t agree with the premises or the conclusions of this article, but I’m still [...] [...] Bryce on how Texas wind power is overhyped. Note that I don’t agree with the premises or the conclusions of this article, but I’m still [...]

]]> By: The Global Shale Gas Revolution (Dear Renewables: Meet the New Competition for Power Generation) — MasterResource http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/texas-wind-power-the-numbers-versus-the-hype-despite-mandates-1-2-share-by-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-2767 The Global Shale Gas Revolution (Dear Renewables: Meet the New Competition for Power Generation) — MasterResource Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:02:53 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4255#comment-2767 [...] crash projects in renewables, which are, in any event, ineffective from the standpoint of both the energy supply and environmental [...] [...] crash projects in renewables, which are, in any event, ineffective from the standpoint of both the energy supply and environmental [...]

]]> By: T. Caine http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/texas-wind-power-the-numbers-versus-the-hype-despite-mandates-1-2-share-by-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-2180 T. Caine Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:05:26 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4255#comment-2180 Tom- That seems to make sense to me. I guess it would all come down to the degree of the spikes and drops and how much inefficiency that creates in the existing grid. Naturally, I don't know the figures, but it seems like it could be considerable. Adding storage to wind generation could help lessen the irregularity, but also blow the cost. Tom- That seems to make sense to me. I guess it would all come down to the degree of the spikes and drops and how much inefficiency that creates in the existing grid. Naturally, I don’t know the figures, but it seems like it could be considerable. Adding storage to wind generation could help lessen the irregularity, but also blow the cost.

]]> By: Mike Giberson http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/texas-wind-power-the-numbers-versus-the-hype-despite-mandates-1-2-share-by-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-2181 Mike Giberson Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:40:07 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4255#comment-2181 Sure "net annual production" is not a complete measure of wind power's contribution. The minute-by-minute variability matters because system operators need to keep quantities supplied and consumed in near constant balance. Also, production at different times of day and different times of the year can have an immense affect on the value of production. But relatively speaking, the 1.2 percent number in the original post is an even more faulty and misleading indicator of wind's value. I agree that wind power's growth is largely driven by subsidies of various sort, and the subsidies are wasting taxpayer money (and real resources), but there is no need to get hung up on capacity factors and ERCOT's reliability planning exercises. I'd recommend a focus on exposing the waste associated with the subsidies and urging market rules that pay electric producers according to the value they provide. The rest of these details will take care of themselves. Sure “net annual production” is not a complete measure of wind power’s contribution. The minute-by-minute variability matters because system operators need to keep quantities supplied and consumed in near constant balance. Also, production at different times of day and different times of the year can have an immense affect on the value of production.

But relatively speaking, the 1.2 percent number in the original post is an even more faulty and misleading indicator of wind’s value.

I agree that wind power’s growth is largely driven by subsidies of various sort, and the subsidies are wasting taxpayer money (and real resources), but there is no need to get hung up on capacity factors and ERCOT’s reliability planning exercises. I’d recommend a focus on exposing the waste associated with the subsidies and urging market rules that pay electric producers according to the value they provide. The rest of these details will take care of themselves.

]]> By: Tom Tanton http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/texas-wind-power-the-numbers-versus-the-hype-despite-mandates-1-2-share-by-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-2179 Tom Tanton Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:14:19 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4255#comment-2179 T. Caine: the net annual production is a faulty and misleading figure for the simple fact that the minute to minute variability of wind does things to the rest of the grid and multitude of generators. First of all forcing a larger-than-necessary spinning reserve just INCREASES fuel consumption (how do you 'spose the spin is made--burn fuel but don't generate electrons...) Also forced ramping on generators set at less than full load also increases their fuel consumption as well as wear and tear. And the only reason for the continuing return on the investment from the "free wind" is because of very heavy tax subsidies and forced market buys. Finally, I believe you have "net power" and net generation mixed up. "Power" is capacity, not energy. T. Caine: the net annual production is a faulty and misleading figure for the simple fact that the minute to minute variability of wind does things to the rest of the grid and multitude of generators. First of all forcing a larger-than-necessary spinning reserve just INCREASES fuel consumption (how do you ‘spose the spin is made–burn fuel but don’t generate electrons…) Also forced ramping on generators set at less than full load also increases their fuel consumption as well as wear and tear.

And the only reason for the continuing return on the investment from the “free wind” is because of very heavy tax subsidies and forced market buys.
Finally, I believe you have “net power” and net generation mixed up. “Power” is capacity, not energy.

]]> By: T. Caine http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/texas-wind-power-the-numbers-versus-the-hype-despite-mandates-1-2-share-by-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-2177 T. Caine Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:25:39 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4255#comment-2177 Robert, While it may be true that the Texas wind fleet suffers from unreliability and as a result, keeps it from being included as a cemented portion of the state's baseload, I'm not sure that this alone determines that their wind systems are as deficient as you seem to describe. I would think the goals for measuring success are still: achieving a continuing return on investment for turbines by using (free) wind for power, displacing the need to purchase coal and natural gas, reducing greenhouse gas generation and all of the extraneous harm associated with mining, refining and transport of fossil fuels. If that is true, then for a variable production source like wind, the bottom line is still the net annual generation, not the minute to minute sustained generation. When I attempted to search, I could not find this number for Texas, but I have read an article about a power emergency in the state when wind generation fell from 1,700 MW to 300 MW. That means for some amount of time, it was still producing 1,700. It seems conceivable that the annual production could be higher than a disappointing 1.2% of total production. Part of the reason that coal and natural gas plants are so popular is their dispatchability. If it means that the Spinning Reserve in Texas is a higher percentage of total production because of variability in wind production, maybe that is fine? It does not negate the contribution that wind may have to the net power produced. Robert,

While it may be true that the Texas wind fleet suffers from unreliability and as a result, keeps it from being included as a cemented portion of the state’s baseload, I’m not sure that this alone determines that their wind systems are as deficient as you seem to describe.

I would think the goals for measuring success are still: achieving a continuing return on investment for turbines by using (free) wind for power, displacing the need to purchase coal and natural gas, reducing greenhouse gas generation and all of the extraneous harm associated with mining, refining and transport of fossil fuels. If that is true, then for a variable production source like wind, the bottom line is still the net annual generation, not the minute to minute sustained generation.

When I attempted to search, I could not find this number for Texas, but I have read an article about a power emergency in the state when wind generation fell from 1,700 MW to 300 MW. That means for some amount of time, it was still producing 1,700. It seems conceivable that the annual production could be higher than a disappointing 1.2% of total production.

Part of the reason that coal and natural gas plants are so popular is their dispatchability. If it means that the Spinning Reserve in Texas is a higher percentage of total production because of variability in wind production, maybe that is fine? It does not negate the contribution that wind may have to the net power produced.

]]> By: abetterenergyplan. http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/texas-wind-power-the-numbers-versus-the-hype-despite-mandates-1-2-share-by-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-2176 abetterenergyplan. Mon, 24 Aug 2009 14:46:05 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4255#comment-2176 we have the same problem in Ontario. Our government has sold the public on wind citing 'capacity' abilities. Yet, 'output' ability is obviously lower and never really citied. Hype vs' reality and everyone is drinking the hype-aid. we have the same problem in Ontario. Our government has sold the public on wind citing ‘capacity’ abilities. Yet, ‘output’ ability is obviously lower and never really citied. Hype vs’ reality and everyone is drinking the hype-aid.

]]> By: Andrew http://www.masterresource.org/2009/08/texas-wind-power-the-numbers-versus-the-hype-despite-mandates-1-2-share-by-2014/comment-page-1/#comment-2178 Andrew Mon, 24 Aug 2009 13:28:48 +0000 http://masterresource.org/?p=4255#comment-2178 "Less radioactivity" One wonders if the Sierra Club would turn off the sun to prevent skin cancer? More to the point...how exactly did Perry get so clueless? “Less radioactivity” One wonders if the Sierra Club would turn off the sun to prevent skin cancer?

More to the point…how exactly did Perry get so clueless?

]]>