
For the First Time, Wind on the Plains Supplied More Than Half Region's Power - mastazi
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-13/wind-on-the-plains-supplied-more-than-half-region-s-power-needs
======
Animats
That's because there's not much load in that area. America's best wind power
belt is north from the Texas panhandle up to Canada.[1] But there are no big
cities in that region.

The US thus needs more long DC power lines. The technology is already in use
in China. The Zhundong-Sichuan power line goes 2600km. It's a DC line at 1.1
megavolts carrying 10 gigawatts. That technology could easily carry power from
the wind belt to the rest of the US.

[1]
[http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/80m_wind/USwind300dpe4-11.jpg](http://www.nrel.gov/gis/images/80m_wind/USwind300dpe4-11.jpg)

~~~
melling
It was also at 4:30am on a Sunday morning.

~~~
epistasis
This is of course expected, and not a knock on the achievement at all. Wind is
in its early days, and growing quickly. There's only so much installed
capacity, so it's going to reach it's peak percentage of the energy mix when
the demand is lowest. And it will only do that if its the cheapest available
energy.

Also, wind tends to be higher at night-time, which makes them a good
complement to solar. Getting to >50% is something that many many many people
have doubted is possible at all.

------
rodionos
The runaway favorite in wind energy is Denmark, where wind turbines,
predominantly offshore-based, produced 44% of the total energy production in
2016.

[https://apps.axibase.com/slider/energinet-2016/?slide=2](https://apps.axibase.com/slider/energinet-2016/?slide=2)

However, wind energy production is remarkably volatile with the minimum and
maximum average hourly production per day being two orders of magnitude apart:
912.7 MWh (min) vs 102.6 GWh (max).

[https://apps.axibase.com/slider/energinet-2016/?slide=24](https://apps.axibase.com/slider/energinet-2016/?slide=24)

They started incentivizing solar generation since it is counter-seasonal
compared to wind, wind is stronger in winter months.

[https://apps.axibase.com/slider/energinet-2016/?slide=5](https://apps.axibase.com/slider/energinet-2016/?slide=5)

This is not sufficient however, so sufficient reserved conventional capacity
and interconnects to Norway (hydro) and Germany (gas) is something that helps
them even out production on abnormal days.

~~~
Retric
Hydro + Wind + Solar is a powerfull mix. Hydro tends to have fixed power per
year, and a lot of flexibility when you release that power. Solar matches the
daily demand in most areas, though Denmark is very far north to produce solar
they can import solar from the south.

Wind is really cheap and provides some power 24/7 but does not match the
demand curve. So even then you still needs some backup power either from
pumped hydro or peaking power plants.

IMO, the real downside is the electric grid becomes even more complex to
manage and takes real investments to handle shifting supply.

~~~
venomsnake
Real investment usually means lots of real jobs. So win win.

------
ph0rque
This quote reveals the actual progress:

'“Ten years ago we thought hitting even a 25 percent wind-penetration level
would be extremely challenging, and any more than that would pose serious
threats to reliability,” Bruce Row, Southwest Power Pool’s vice president of
operations, said in the statement. “Now we have the ability to reliably manage
greater than 50 percent. It’s not even our ceiling.”'

------
iharhajster
It amazes me how humans constantly have sheer lack of will power to solve some
global issues. For example, according to this pie [1], electric car is still a
car indirectly running on fossil fuels.

For fun, let's think for a second how much solar panels does it take to power
planet Earth. After rough calculation it's about 496805 km2, which is
approximately an area of Spain. This calculation is based on consumption
predicion of 198 PWh per year in 2030, and average solar energy of 1000W/m2
with 20% efficiency and 70% sunny days a year. Of course, this is an ideal
"world is at peace and there is always somewhere sun shinning" model and it
uses today's best available technologies. Storage and transmission system
errection would pose a cooperation challenge on a global scale. Just morning
food for thought...

[1] [http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-
Gene...](http://www.tsp-data-portal.org/Breakdown-of-Electricity-Generation-
by-Energy-Source#tspQvChart)

~~~
sand500
But your car is also a battery and you could charge it using excess home
solar.

I personally think the answer is to expand nuclear power. Current and next
generation plants are way safer than the designs used for Cherynobl, Three
Miles or Fukushima .

~~~
6d6b73
Nuclear power seems cleaner, but when you take under consideration things like
waste fuel storage it simply does not make much sense.. Yes, it's a great
short term solution, but what if in 500 years there is nobody to take care of
all of the spent fuel, and clean up all of the nuclear power plant sites?

~~~
Filligree
In 500 years the fuel will have decayed to near-harmlessness. It'd still be a
toxic heavy metal, so you don't want to eat it, but simply standing next to it
isn't going to kill you.

There's also the little detail that we're using the least efficient fuel cycle
imaginable. More efficient ones, e.g. involving breeder reactors, wouldn't
produce nearly as much waste.

~~~
6d6b73
What if just one of the almost 500 power plants goes into a meltdown after a
disaster/asteroid strike/pandemic . How long will it take for the fuel to
become harmless? 20k years?

~~~
trome
Compare how many people are killed, let alone animals per unit of energy
produced with Wind as compared to Nuclear. Wind is far more deadly to humans
(from accidents) & animals than the public is lead to believe. Nuclear despite
its accidents is far less lethal towards the environment around it.

Wind is only a third as deadly as coal apparently, which isn't too great in my
book: [http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-
eag...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/09/29/forget-eagle-deaths-
wind-turbines-kill-humans/#3236c8893c86)

Also: [http://firsttoknow.com/in-october-2013-two-engineers-
became-...](http://firsttoknow.com/in-october-2013-two-engineers-became-
trapped-on-a-burning-wind-turbine-this-was-their-final-picture/)

~~~
dududu
however, the article is saying "coal is the biggest killer in U.S. energy at
15,000 deaths per trillion kWhrs produced, while nuclear is the least at zero.
Wind energy kills a mere 100 people or so per trillion kWhrs, "

------
corradio
We're looking to expand
[http://www.electricitymap.org](http://www.electricitymap.org) to the US in
order to properly visualise this. Can anyone help? I'm looking for volunteers
to help here:
[https://github.com/corradio/electricitymap/issues/143](https://github.com/corradio/electricitymap/issues/143)

------
acchow
Has anyone done any back-of-the-napkin math on how much solar PV we can
harness before we start contributing to _actually warming_ the planet? Since
it turns mostly-reflected-back-to-space radiation into absorbed-onto-the-
surface radiation.

Is there a point at which we need to focus more on wind? (since wind arises
from already-being-absorbed-by-surface radiation)

------
Maakuth
Yet they account for a modest percentage of the total production. This is
where PowerPack and other grid storage technologies would need to come in - to
counter the variability of renewable production. Pumped hydro would be cost
effective per MWh stored, but there's limited chance for building that.

~~~
samcheng
There are other mechanisms that can also help ameliorate the challenges of
intermittent ("non-dispatchable") power generation:

\- Long-range (generally, DC) power transmission lines. China is investing
heavily here.

\- Similarly, inter-grid connections. See
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Amigas_SuperStation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tres_Amigas_SuperStation)
\- Superconductors!

\- Diversified renewables. Solar works on the stifling windless summer days;
wind works on those nasty drifting snow winter nights.

\- Dispatched demand. For example, industrial facilities can be incentified to
shut down power-hungry processes on days with less available electricity, in
exchange for cheaper electricity on other days.

\- Of course, 'peaker' natural gas turbines. A surprising number of gas power
plants are used less than 10% of the time...

~~~
kodfodrasz
In the few factories I have worked the power hungry processes cannot be
stopped on demand (eg. one day notice), as it would waste products, it would
mess up minimum stockpile lean manufacturing, as the process cannot be
interrupted, it could often damage equipment, and usually restarting these
processes is very expensive in terms of energy (eg. Reheating a kiln)

The renewables are simply not predictable enough for this, that is why
nuclear, an later fusion power will have its place in the energy mix in the
foreseeable future.

~~~
samcheng
You're right; many of these facilities go so far as to install backup Diesel
generation on-site.

There are plenty of opportunities for demand-shaving, though. The simplest one
is to simply reduce the HVAC load by adjusting the thermostat.

I agree we need some nuclear, too, at least in the short term; it's not an
either-or proposition. We need nuclear AND renewables AND smart grid AND
storage.

~~~
maxerickson
The paper mill near here has one of the larger power plants (biomass, burns
waste wood) in the region. It uses more power than the nearby small towns
combined.

The best way to get industrial consumers to switch is to drive down costs.
We're certainly nowhere near 250 Megawatt-hour batteries being cheap and
commonplace, but there are projects of that scale that have been announced (in
particular I'm thinking of the Vanadium flow battery being installed in
China).

------
aaronbrethorst
Ah good, perhaps we will soon be able to dump our asinine requirements around
ethanol (which, I think, only exist because of Iowa's unique position in
choosing Presidential candidates.)

~~~
toomuchtodo
Only if we can get more EVs on the road to reduce petrol consumption.

------
arca_vorago
It is worth noting Texas has it's own grid seperated from the west and east
grids supplying most of the rest of the world. I had a relative who was a
project manager on some of the big wind installs in Texas, but for some reason
I can't remember his main criticism of the project which caused him to move
over to solar work...

~~~
mikeyouse
They're building some huge interconnect HVDC lines to the rest of the country
from the Panhandle region. There's a 4GW, 600kv line slated for completion in
2018 that's going to bring Texas and Oklahoma wind power to the TVA.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/huge-
transmission...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/huge-transmission-
line-will-send-oklahoma-wind-power-to-tennessee/)

------
aaron695
4:30 a.m. on Sunday

Seriously people? Many places are throwing away energy at this time. This is
like a participation award.

> The power grid that supplies a corridor stretching from Montana to the Texas
> Panhandle was getting 52.1 percent of its power from wind at 4:30 a.m. on
> Sunday, Little Rock, Arkansas-based Southwest Power Pool Inc. said in a
> statement Monday.

~~~
yborg
I fail to see why the time it happened is relevant here. We're talking about
generating capacity here, not draw. The wind blows around the clock, this
could have happened at 4:30 PM.

------
kumarski
I quit thinking about this energy source after re-opening my chemistry book.

You need ~400M-500M tons of steel to make 2-3 Terawatt Hours of Electricity

Disclaimer: My family owns a steel plant, so I'm bias in that I think the
carbon emissions required to produce steel wind turbines don't make
sense/don't match the intention of building wind turbines.

~~~
pjc50
Where does that "~400M-500M tons of steel" number come from?

The turbines tend to have composite blades and steel towers. Actual studies
put the amount of energy returned by wind turbines at ~18 times the energy
invested:
[http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1863](http://www.theoildrum.com/node/1863)

And if not wind turbines, then what is your preferred low-carbon energy
source?

~~~
kumarski
You have to think bigger about materials level embodied energy.

If you go about looking at energy density without evaluating the feedstock
materials and embodied energy, your maths won't achieve the desired result.

I was doing the math on the back of a napkin, but there's quite a few papers
on the topic.

www.vaclavsmil.com/wp-content/uploads/15.WINDTURBINE.pdf

I might be off by 25M-50M tons, but I think the overall assertion is valid.

My belief about how to fix the problems with energy grid:
[http://engineersf.com/things-humanity-could-do-right-now-
to-...](http://engineersf.com/things-humanity-could-do-right-now-to-save-
planet-earth-from-climate-change/)

Any sort of libertarian or free-market approach to this problem will likely
fail. This is one of those mission critically deal breakers where human
behavior can't be modulated in a desired direction.

~~~
pjc50
From that very paper you linked:

"the aggregate installed wind power of about 2.5 terawatts would require
roughly 450 million metric tons [of steel]"

That's terawatts (nameplate power capacity) NOT terawatt-hours! A very
important distinction since the steel is a onetime cost for the life of the
turbine and can potentially be recycled at EOL.

Yes, you need currently available usually fossil energy to make renewable
sources, including PV and nuclear. _What is the alternative?_ Yes, embodied
energy / EROEI is important, but it has to be considered fairly across all
technologies. Including battery storage and nuclear plants, and the
replacement of petrol vehicles with EVs.

