Southern Company Seeks Wind Power For Georgia

[echinatl]

Originally Posted by dante2308

I still haven't heard you explain what exactly it is we are waiting for.

Tell me exactly what prevents us from implementing renewables today and exactly why they are unable to carry the load. It seems like everything you are saying is based on the assumption of an argument you forgot to actually make.

My argument is that based on the current and future energy demand wind power only will not be able to keep up. The time it takes to secure the land, manufacture the parts and build the towers, and then the amount of power generated given the amount of land used isn't enough.

To prove this you need to look at the amount of power we need, and then the amount of wind power that can be produced each year. Plus factor in old power plants coming off-line because of age that need to be replaced. All of that info is out there but unfortunately I don't get paid for my time on skyscraperpage.com (unfortunately!), so I'll find some time to pull the numbers later on.

[dante2308]

Okay. I think I understand you better.

Here is the deal. Wind power becomes 20% of our energy supply by 2020. This isn't wishful thinking... it is simply the trajectory we are on at the moment.

Here is a snapshot:

US Wind Power Capacity in MW
2005: 9,149
2006:11,603 +27%
2007:16,819 +45%
2008: 25,170 +49%
2009: 35,159 +39%

Now I'm not saying this is exponential at all, but the construction per year increased right through the Great Recession and actually would have been higher in 2009 had financing been available.

However lets then use 2009 as the extended growth rate. (1.39^10 = 26.29X) Thats a high value so lets assume it is far too optimistic. That would represent a complete replacement of current coal by 2020. Let run a pessimistic scenario. 2010 construction was estimated at 16,000 by year end which is a 45% increase. Lets say that we can only maintain the 2010 pace of 16k bucking all trends. (0.45*10 +1= 5.57) That would put 10% of our current supply of power under wind.

So we have two bounds:
2009 percentage growth: 47% of current total MWh with wind alone
Current numerical growth: 10% of current total MWh with wind alone

Now what happens to energy demand going forward? Source: EIA

Electricity Demand in Quadrillion BTUs
2007: 12.84
2008: 12.69
2009: 12.24
2010: 12.34

But watch what happens after:

2011: 12.72
2015: 13.20
2020: 13.39
2030: 15.26

2010-2020 difference: +8.5%
Residential 2010-2020 difference: +6.7%
Commercial 2010-2020 difference: +16.23%
Industrial 2010-2020 difference: +18.58%
Transportation 2010-2020 difference (total energy consumed): +14.2%
Total energy consumed nationwide 2010-2020: +8.6%
Total projected population growth from 2010-2020: 10.04%

Total energy consumed nationwide 2020-2030: +5.7%

Bloody murder? No. Actually we are becoming less energy intensive as a nation and have been for a while even before the recession.

This means that essentially all energy constructed since 2007 is replacement of older hardware. Thats where the difference in our arguments has been. The replacement already started not in 2025 but in 2007. There is no waiting for the future involved. Each and every single MW is replacing our 2007 capacity.

[dante2308]

Think about it, we built several tens of gigawatts of renewable electricity capacity and our demand went down 5%. This is the definition of replacement. This isn't a wishful thinking on part of the EIA and it does not represent a plan or agenda. In fact you can read the methodology here. It basically makes the worst case scenario assumption on everything so that it can be used as a planning tool. Wind grew some 15X faster than it predicted in 2005 for example.

[Fiorenza]

We're talking miniscule contribution of wind energy. According to Wikipedia

According to the American Wind Energy Association, wind will generate enough electricity in 2008 to power just over 1% (equivalent to 4.5 million households) of total electricity in U.S.

Also this

For those with an economic interest in capturing as much of the climate-change pork barrel as possible, there are two ways of presenting the costs [of wind power] in a favourable light: first, define the cost base as narrowly as possible; and, second, assume that the costs will fall over time with R&D and large-scale deployment. And, for good measure, when considering the alternatives, go for a wider cost base (for example, focusing on the full fuel-cycle costs of nuclear and coal-mining for coal generation) and assume that these technologies are mature, and even that costs might rise (for example, invoking the highly questionable ‘peak oil hypothesis’).

[dante2308]

Thank you for hypothetical talking points to counter hypothetical ways that one could mess with statistics. I'd really love to know where that comes from. Is it directly from a lobbyist? A special thanks for the prediction from three years ago about two years ago. I just looked up where you got that and it is both unsourced and you cut off the end of the sentence. I wonder why. The sentence ends:

over 1% (equivalent to 4.5 million households) of total electricity in U.S., up from less than 0.1% in 1999.

Was the 10 fold increase not important enough to include? What about the next one?

U.S. Department of Energy studies have concluded wind harvested in the Great Plains states of Texas, Kansas, and North Dakota could provide enough electricity to power the entire nation, and that offshore wind farms could do the same job.

Or the next one?

In addition, the wind resource over and around the Great Lakes, recoverable with currently available technology, could by itself provide 80% as much power as the U.S. and Canada currently generate from non-renewable resources

Considering that you have not provided a source as requested proving that nuclear power is cheaper than wind, then as I have said, you aren't contributing. You have nothing to gain, stop being contrarian for the sake of it. What percentage of our electricity came from nuclear during the first three years of its adoption? Of all the silly points to make. We shouldn't build it because two years ago it was only providing power for 4.5 million homes.

Edit: By the way, since when is 4.5 million 1%? Are there 450 million homes?

[cybele]

Well, you have already got people like T-Bone Pickens and probably Bill Gates on it, both of who are good men. Let them get it up and going and I predict the rest will get on board.

I am a little surprised you don't read more about wind in Saudi Arabia and Iraq and whatnot. They should have plenty of it and open flat land so they can just hold onto their oil for the time being.

[dante2308]

Saudi Arabia doesn't have to pay market prices you see. Communist monarchies for the win.




The rest of us have to pay fair prices. This isn't uncommon. Most countries actually don't mind being dependent on foreign oil.



Some don't give a crap at all about the environment if you'll remember Bejing's air quality re Olympics.



Some went hydro in a big way.



The US was as of 2008:
37.1% Petroleum
23.8% natgas
22.5% coal
8.5% nuclear
7.3% renewable forms

[dante2308]

U.S. wind power installed capacity now exceeds 35,159 MW which is enough to serve 9.7 million average households.

Apparently we went from 4.5 to 9.7 million households by the end of 2009 from 2008. There are 114 million US households.

No. We added 2.4 million homes in 2009. The first number was a projection of what 2008 could be that you dug deep down into Wikipedia until you found something. Wikipedia is not a source.

As per our energy predictions provided in the second post in this page, we would need to increase our electric supply by 0.8% a year to keep up with demand until 2035. This is being outdone by renewable investments.

Current average electricity generation:
435,391MW

[Fiorenza]

Again, total wind contribution as of now is only some figure over 1%. We're talking miniscule. Without the hype and subsidies we'd still be at 0.1%.

Having said that, to the extent that free-market, unsubsidized wind power helps to reduce foreign dependence I'm all for it.

[dante2308]

So you want us to take away the subsidies for the rest of the industry, break up super monopolies like the Southern Company that kill the free market, and stop government funded construction and maintenance of things like natgas pipelines and storage?

Of course not. You want us building nuclear and natgas which is frankly impossible and frankly illogical without the government.

I said it before and I'll say it again. Next to coal, wind is the single cheapest form of energy in the US. The free market has never been in play in the energy sector. If it were, nuclear would not even exist and our air would be akin to the think black sulfur cloud that hangs over China. Furthermore, our level of technology would be so woefully behind the countries that invested in research that every scrap of energy would be dependent of foreigners.

[Fiorenza]

I'm for regulation to prevent abuses, but against (virtually) all subsidies - whether they be to Southern Company or the wind industry.

[dante2308]

Thats fine. Just as long as you realize that the play field isn't remotely level. That new energies could become competitive with the status quo is miracle onto itself.

If you don't like subsidies, then how about we price pollution? Being irresponsible isn't cheaper when you aren't shoveling the costs on other people who have no say at all.

[Fiorenza]

That's fine. Let's eliminate subsidies, have excise taxes on pollution, and return to the taxpayers the savings and revenue generated thereby.

[dante2308]

I'm getting a little confused as to what the previous generations were doing. If the new energy technologies of the future are akin to wind mills, wood stoves, and mirrors in the case of solar thermal, what exactly made us consider coal, natgas, and nuclear in the first place?

If three wind turbines could power 4,800 homes in 2010, then why were people killing themselves in coal mines in the late 19th century to power a few lightbulbs per block? I mean people love excluding hydroelectricity from the renewable statistics but hydroelectricity is actually the most advanced of the lot seeing what it takes to build these dams compared to a stick and pinwheel or mirrors in a sunny place.

[Fiorenza]

How soon do you expect the nonsustainables to be phased out?

[dante2308]

Originally Posted by Fiorenza

How soon do you expect the nonsustainables to be phased out?

What an ironic question. They aren't sustainable.

2100 or so. I find it interesting that people say "we have enough natural gas for 100 years so we should switch everything to natgas" as if doing that means we can still use it for 100 years or that 100 years is somehow a long time.

[Fiorenza]

More reserves will be proven in the next 100 years.

[dante2308]

Doesn't really matter. Finite is finite.

One has to assume at some point that society will actually plan for the future and not behave like an undisciplined child procrastinating till the last minute. Wouldn't it feel nice for once not to have an expiration date looming over civilization?

[Fiorenza]

Wouldn't it feel nice for once not to have an expiration date looming over civilization?

There is an expiration date, we just don't know exactly when it is.

[dante2308]

..........