> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Dan Minette > Sent: Monday, July 10, 2006 9:27 AM > To: 'Killer Bs Discussion' > Subject: RE: An Inconvenient Truth > > > > Third, the sites you refer to are either promotional sites or articles > that quote only the promoters. Important information isn't given. For > example, > is the power output that is quoted the capacity, or the expected average > output? If it is the former, then it cannot be used to determine the > fraction of the total power output....since that number is dependant on > the wind speed. I'll look some more, but I have a beer that says that, > given two numbers...both of which have some validity...marketing people > will quote the number that looks better for them.
I've looked at another Texas site, and the numbers that are quoted are definitely capacity numbers. This brings up the question, "what fraction of rated capacity can a utility count on from wind vs. other production?" One source on this is the American Wind Energy Association....which certainly sounds like a pro wind energy site. http://www.awea.org/pubs/factsheets/050629_Myths_vs_Facts_Fact_Sheet.pdf Here they state, in their myth vs. fact section, <quote> A utility in the Northwest, PacifiCorp, added 20% of its wind projects' nameplate capacity into its baseload calculation in the utility's 2004 Integrated Resource Plan. This indicates that utilities with experience with wind energy on their system consider it able to provide some consistent power on a regular basis. <end quote> Looking at DOE, http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/epa/existing_capacity_state.xls we see that, overall, 92% of the nameplate capacity for power can be counted on for peak summertime demand. Even rounding down to 90%, this is quite different from wind. Now, it is true that the average wind capacity may be higher than the baseline. Let's add 50% to be generous...that still is only 30% of nameplate capacity. This makes sense, since the nameplate capacity of wind represents the capacity at full output: which is at the upper end of usable wind velocity. Even a 20% drop from maximum wind speed will cut output by about half of the nameplate capacity. So, one needs to figure another factor of 3 in the equation. Thus, the optimistic projections are for 2% of energy production in Texas in 5-7 years will be from wind. And, Texas is touted as a near ideal location, with its mesas exposed to relatively high wind, and it's offshore winds. I may need to revise my 2% in 10 years downwards, I think....given the data that you've provided, Rob. :-( Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
