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
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: Sustaining the Wind, Part I... [View all]kristopher
(29,798 posts)19. Still making shit up, eh?
New NREL Data Suggests Wind Could Replace Coal as Nations Primary Generation Source
The new report finds wind is poised to become a dominant and possibly the primary source of electricity in the U.S.
Clayton Handleman
August 13, 2015
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) recently released data showing that the capacity factor (CF) for wind power can reach 65 percent -- comparable to the CF of fossil-fuel-based generation.
While the headlines arent as sexy as Teslas "Ludicrous mode," the transformative implications for climate change dwarf Elon Musks latest accomplishment. Increasing a generators CF can increase its value in a variety of ways, including: reduced cost of energy, improved transmission-line utilization, and often, reducing stress on the grid by providing more power at times of peak demand. It will also likely reduce the amount of storage and natural gas needed to manage the grid under scenarios of high renewables penetration. Implicitly, NRELs new report positions wind to become a dominant and possibly the primary source of electricity in the U.S.
Figure 1: Areas of the U.S. With Various Gross Capacity Factors for Differing Wind Technologies
Wind Potential Chart US 072015

Source: NREL
Note: The curve to the left shows the historical data, the middle (red) curve shows the data for state-of-the-art turbines, and the blue shows the anticipated performance of "near-future" turbines.
CF is the ratio of a generators average power output over a year to its nameplate rating. A CF of 100 percent would indicate that the generation source was always on and operating at its full rated power. Simply stated, a higher capacity factor means a generator of a given size will produce more energy over the year. CF sets a lower bound on the amount of time that a generator operates. If a generator is not operating at its full nameplate rating all the time, then it will produce power for a percentage of time that exceeds its CF.
With little fanfare, NREL released updated data showing that, with current technology, wind turbines could generate more than enough energy at 55 percent CF to power the entire U.S. However, the real stunner is that near-future turbine technology (i.e., 140-meter towers) could boost that to 65 percent CF. With the current national average wind CF (see page 34) at about 33 percent, this represents a near doubling. According to NREL, using current technology and siting it in prime locations, wind power CF can already exceed that of natural gas. Using "near-future" technology, wind powers CF will exceed the CFs of both coal (61 percent) and natural gas (48 percent) achieved nationwide in recent years....
The new report finds wind is poised to become a dominant and possibly the primary source of electricity in the U.S.
Clayton Handleman
August 13, 2015
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) recently released data showing that the capacity factor (CF) for wind power can reach 65 percent -- comparable to the CF of fossil-fuel-based generation.
While the headlines arent as sexy as Teslas "Ludicrous mode," the transformative implications for climate change dwarf Elon Musks latest accomplishment. Increasing a generators CF can increase its value in a variety of ways, including: reduced cost of energy, improved transmission-line utilization, and often, reducing stress on the grid by providing more power at times of peak demand. It will also likely reduce the amount of storage and natural gas needed to manage the grid under scenarios of high renewables penetration. Implicitly, NRELs new report positions wind to become a dominant and possibly the primary source of electricity in the U.S.
Figure 1: Areas of the U.S. With Various Gross Capacity Factors for Differing Wind Technologies
Wind Potential Chart US 072015

Source: NREL
Note: The curve to the left shows the historical data, the middle (red) curve shows the data for state-of-the-art turbines, and the blue shows the anticipated performance of "near-future" turbines.
CF is the ratio of a generators average power output over a year to its nameplate rating. A CF of 100 percent would indicate that the generation source was always on and operating at its full rated power. Simply stated, a higher capacity factor means a generator of a given size will produce more energy over the year. CF sets a lower bound on the amount of time that a generator operates. If a generator is not operating at its full nameplate rating all the time, then it will produce power for a percentage of time that exceeds its CF.
With little fanfare, NREL released updated data showing that, with current technology, wind turbines could generate more than enough energy at 55 percent CF to power the entire U.S. However, the real stunner is that near-future turbine technology (i.e., 140-meter towers) could boost that to 65 percent CF. With the current national average wind CF (see page 34) at about 33 percent, this represents a near doubling. According to NREL, using current technology and siting it in prime locations, wind power CF can already exceed that of natural gas. Using "near-future" technology, wind powers CF will exceed the CFs of both coal (61 percent) and natural gas (48 percent) achieved nationwide in recent years....
http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/new-nrel-data-suggests-wind-could-replace-coal-as-nations-primary-generatio?utm_source=Daily&utm_medium=Headline&utm_campaign=GTMDaily
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
24 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Thanks for your kind words. Regrettably anything I might do to fight magical thinking...
NNadir
Jul 2015
#3
The main technical advantage - and it's huge - that fossil fuel have over so called...
NNadir
Aug 2015
#6
Thanks for the link. You just busted my beliefs, as I google EROI, so there's that.
RiverLover
Aug 2015
#9
Forgive me if I missed it but water about the water needed for cooling power plants?
Finishline42
Aug 2015
#11
What do you think of this author's take, basically a rebuttal of a German study...and it seems
RiverLover
Aug 2015
#13
Thanks for your reply. But before I stick my head in my fossil fueled oven, (because if what you
RiverLover
Aug 2015
#16
Well...if you have no hope because so called "renewable energy" is an expensive failure...
NNadir
Aug 2015
#18
I've provided lots of references from the primary scientific literature, for the...
NNadir
Aug 2015
#20
It isn't what people think of you that you should heed, it is what they think of your reasoning.
kristopher
Aug 2015
#23