Global Wind Power Capacity May Rival Nuclear Within Four Years

[bananas]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-23/global-wind-capacity-to-reach-200-gigawatts-in-2010-gwec-says.html

Global Wind Power Capacity May Rival Nuclear Within Four Years
By Jeremy van Loon - Thu Sep 23 11:03:05 GMT 2010

Installed power capacity from wind turbines around the world will probably rival the potential generation of electricity from nuclear plants within four years, the Global Wind Energy Council said.

Installed wind capacity by 2014 will probably reach 400 gigawatts, Steve Sawyer, secretary-general of the council, said in an e-mailed statement. Current nuclear power capacity is about 376 gigawatts, according to the World Nuclear Association.

Investments in wind power last year exceeded money spent on all other energy technologies including nuclear power, according to the International Energy Agency. Fifty-nine reactors are presently under various stages of construction globally, the World Nuclear Association said on its website.

<snip>

This year wind capacity will reach close to 200 gigawatts with 40 gigawatts of new capacity added. By 2020, there may be as much as 1,000 gigawatts of wind power installed around the globe, GWEC, which promotes wind development, said today.

[madokie]

1. Great news

rec'd to no avail

[kristopher]

2. Recced and still a goose egg.

[NickB79]

3. Guess the author hasn't heard of nameplate capacity and capacity factors?

400 GW of potential wind capacity doesn't equal 400 GW of potential nuclear capacity, unfortunately.

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

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

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[NickB79]

14. Simply pointing out that 400 GW of wind isn't the same as 400 GW of nuclear is complaining?

Do you feel I was factually incorrect in stating that?

And when did I become a nukenut, when I clearly wrote: "400 GW of potential wind capacity doesn't equal 400 GW of potential nuclear capacity, unfortunately"?

Oh wait, I forgot anyone who disagrees with you (or sometimes even those who do agree with you, just not in the exact tone you care for) are "nukenuts".

[GliderGuider]

5. Here's a look at the ACTUAL generating situation

Wind is currently generating around 15% of the electricity being produced by nuclear plants.

The projection is a second-order polynomial. It has a better than 99.5% fit, and shows that wind might pull equal with nuclear in ten years or so. At that point wind would likely be generating around 12% of the world's electricity.

Actual generation numbers in 2014 as per the original article seem likely to be a bit less than half that of nuclear.

[OnlinePoker]

6. Can you tell us where you got your wind statistics for 2008 and 2009?

I use the International Energy Statistics page at the DOE and they only show full year generation for wind up to 2007. At that time, nuclear generated 2,593 Bkwh of electricity and wind generated 164 Bkwh of electricity, or 6.3% of nuclear's generation. To go to 15% as you claim, wind would need to have generated 385 Bkwh in 2009, more than double the amount from two years earlier. I don't find this credible even with the higher capacity of wind plants over those two years. The EIA site says wind generation statistics to 2009 won't be updated until 30 Oct.

http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=2&pid=2&aid=12

[GliderGuider]

8. I used the data in Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power
I'm not sure where they get theirs, but the numbers up to 2007 are the same as the EIA numbers, so I figure they're close enough for horseshoes.

[OnlinePoker]

11. I see the wiki reference

It's the World Wind Energy Report put out by the World Wind Energy Association. The report is at:

http://www.wwindea.org/home/images/stories/worldwindenergyreport2009_s.pdf

Page 10 of the report has one mention of a generation of 340 Twh of electricity in 2009, but I'd feel more comfortable with their figures if they had a chart with where this electricity was generated (they have no problem saying where and how much capacity is installed in this report). I also question their predictions for sustained future growth as there has been a concerned backlash, especially in North America and Europe over these projects going ahead. It's getting harder to get permission to build them. Last year in Canada, there was 40% new capacity installed and in the U.S., 39.3%. So far this year, only 180 MW extra capacity(a 5.4% increase) have been installed in Canada and in the States, as of 20 Jul, 1144 MW extra capacity (a 3.3% increase, though there are 6022 MW under construction but no date of completion given). Maybe it's a temporary blip on an otherwise steady upward climb, but I don't think so. I got my figures for installed capacity at the Canadian and U.S. Wind Energy Association websites.

http://www.canwea.ca/farms/index_e.php

http://www.awea.org/projects/default.aspx

[GliderGuider]

12. I share your skepticism about the continued growth rates

I think wind power buildout is going to be an early casualty of citizen backlash in the short term and capital availability in the longer term. I'm still expecting to find that the current global recession is just the beginning of a larger, longer and much more serious slowdown in growth of all kinds.

But that's just a personal opinion.

[kristopher]

13. That sounds about right.

But world nuclear capacity (and actual generation) is on a declining trend. Nuclear has been falling and has dropped to between 13-14% of global electric supply (down from 15% in 2005). This percentage figure translates to 2558 TWh of delivered electricity in 2009 that was generated by 439 reactors with an overall average Energy Availability Factor (EAF) of 77.1% (the US is 79.1%).

If we limit the period of global observation to the last 3 years we find the 2007-2009 3 year average rose to 80.1%.

70 reactors with 40GW of capacity that are scheduled to be lost by 2016 and from 2016 - 2026 it is expected that there will be another 192 fewer nuclear plants in operation than now for a combined reduction in capacity of 202GW from 262 total fewer plants.

Using an 80% EAF that represents an approximate reduction of 1,416 TWh of delivered electricity from nuclear power.

http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.factors.htm?faccve=EAF&facname=Energy%20Availability%20Factor&group=Country
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.factors3y.htm?faccve=EAF&facname=Energy%20Availability%20Factor&group=Country
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.agereac.htm




Edited to correct omission of period thru 2016.

[DrGregory]

7. "Installed Capacity" or Energy Actually Delivered.

Installed power capacity from wind turbines around the world will probably rival the potential generation of electricity from nuclear plants within four years, the Global Wind Energy Council said.
=========================================================================

One has to be careful here. Wind energy is intermittent. You don't
get winds that drive the wind turbine to capacity all the time.

Additionally, the power delivered falls off super-linearly with the
wind speed. In fact, it's a power law - the power of the wind turbine
goes like the 3rd power of the wind speed.

So suppose you had a 1 Mw(e) wind turbine that outputs its rated
power at a wind speed of 50 mph. However, your wind isn't blowing
at 50 mph all the time. Suppose the wind blows on average 25 mph.
Well 25 mph is 50% of the 50 mph max; so we would get 50% power, right?

WRONG - you get only 12.5% power because the power goes up/down by the
cube of the wind speed.

So you can have 1 Mw(e) installed capacity; but that 1 Mw(e) installed
capacity only delivers 125 kilowatts on average.

So does the Global Wind Energy Council say that they are going to have
turbines, the sum of the rated capacities equals that of nuclear power
plants.

Or are they saying that wind turbines will ACTUALLY DELIVER as much
power as nuclear power plants actually deliver in the cited year?

It's a BIG DIFFERENCE!!!

Dr. Greg

[GliderGuider]

9. Capacity factor is a well-known concept around here, doc.

The wind enthusiasts and organization publish little except nameplate capacity numbers. The global capacity factor has been running between between 22% and 26%. It's up to the honest brokers out here on the intertubes to remind everyone that the capacity figures from the wind organizations are really just marketing numbers. See my post above.

[DrGregory]

15. Yes.

Capacity factor is a well-known concept around here, doc
===================================================

Yes - but the last time I used the term "capacity factor"
the resulting discussion indicated that many didn't know
the proper usage of the concept.

For one, the had "capacity factor" confused with
"availability factor".

You are correct about the dishonest "marketing"

Quoting "nameplate" capacity or installed capacity
is legitimate for any power plant with a throttle.
That is, via the throttle, one can summon the
nameplate power output on demand.

However, any time you get your energy from
Mother Nature, you don't have a throttle. You
can only get what Mother Nature is offering at
the time.

Dr. Greg

[Nederland]

16. Bookmarked

I hope were all still around in four years to have a good laugh over this one...

[bananas]

17. Here's a couple more to bookmark - "Nuclear Power 2010" and "The Simmons-Tierney bet"

Still three months to go - they could happen!
:rofl:

First, "Nuclear Power 2010" - will they make it???

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x258711

bananas Thu Sep-16-10

Will "Nuclear Power 2010" reach its goal?

The goal of "Nuclear Power 2010" was "Operation of new nuclear power plants by 2010".
There are about 3 and a half months left, do you think they'll make it?

<snip>

Next, the Simmons-Tierney bet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmons%E2%80%93Tierney_bet

Their final agreement was a commitment to tabulate every closing price-per-barrel of oil for each market day of 2010, then average out those prices for the entire year from January 1 through December 31, adjusted for inflation to 2005 prices. If the year-end adjusted average comes out to $200.00 or more per barrel, Mr. Simmons wins. If it averages out to less than $200.00, Mr. Tierney wins. The winner takes the entire pot of US$10,000.00, plus interest—$5,000.00 from both parties, currently sitting in escrow.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x251383

bananas Mon Jun-21-10 10:31 AM

Poll question: The Simmons-Tierney Bet

I didn't even know about this. Or maybe I forgot about it.
Who do you think will win?
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3738
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simmons%E2%80%93Tierney_bet

<snip>

Poll result (21 votes)
I'm a peak oiler - Simmons will win (16 votes, 76%)
I'm a cornucopian - Tierney will win (5 votes, 24%)

We're already having a good laugh over this one, but bookmark it anyway:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x258924

ID’s LANCE GREYLING’S- SPEECH ON THE PEBBLE BED MODULAR REACTOR

16TH SEPTMEBER- All I can say today is vindication, vindication, vindication.

<snip>