Roger Caiazza
In October 2023 an article of mine was published here that addressed the wind is always blowing somewhere fallacy used by green energy proponents to argue that large amounts of storage and any new dispatchable emissions-free resources are not necessary in a future electric system that relies on wind and solar generating resources. I recently discovered the US Energy Information Administration Hourly Electric Grid Monitor that provides hourly net generation by energy source for the Lower 48 states. This article describes 2024 energy source data with an emphasis on wind energy relative to the “wind is always blowing somewhere” claim.
Wind Lulls
I don’t think anyone is claiming that extended periods of low wind and solar resources is not an issue. In September Parker Gallant noted that industrial wind turbines (IWT) in Ontario “show up at the party, almost always, after everyone has left” in a post that described poor performance of the province’s wind turbines over a five day period in September 2024. I evaluated the performance of New York’s 2,454 wind turbine fleet and found that there was an hour when the total generation was 0.2 MW during this September event. David Theilen directly addressed the wind is always blowing somewhere argument with this graph using data from the US Energy Information Administration Hourly Electric Grid Monitor.
Figure 1: US Energy Information Administration Hourly Electric Grid Monitor December 2024
EIA data
I used the data dashboard at the US Energy Information Administration Hourly Electric Grid Monitor as the source of the hourly 2024 generation by energy source data used in this analysis. EIA notes that this is “Hourly total net generation and net generation by energy source for the Lower 48 states.” The settings widget enables a user to change the time and period albeit hourly data are only available for up to 31 days, so I had to import data by month. There is another issue. January generation categories included Wind, Solar, Hydro, Unknown, Other, Petroleum, Natural Gas, Coal, and Nuclear. December generation categories changed to Battery storage, Solar with integrated battery storage, Pumped storage, Unknown energy storage, Wind, Solar, Hydro, Unknown, Other, Petroleum, Natural Gas, Coal, and Nuclear. I made no attempt to account for the different categories when I downloaded the data.
Figure 2: US Energy Information Administration Hourly Electric Grid Monitor
I wanted to show the installed capacity for the different energy sources but I was only able to find EIA values for solar – 107,400 MW. Figure 3 shows the Maximum Hourly Generation (MW) in 2024 for the primary energy source categories that gives an idea how much capacity is installed for each energy source. Note the maximum solar is 75% of the EIA installed capacity. I expect the percentage of installed wind relative to the observed maximum hourly MW would be even less.
Figure 3: US Energy Information Administration Hourly Electric Grid Monitor 2024 Maximum Hourly Generation (MW)
Figure 4 lists the US Energy Information Administration Hourly Electric Grid Monitor 2024 Total Energy (GWh). I was frankly surprised how much wind capacity was generated on an annual basis. However, totals and averages are not the primary planning issue – determining how much energy is needed in the worst case is a prerequisite for reliability planning.
Figure 4: US Energy Information Administration Hourly Electric Grid Monitor 2024 Total Energy (GWh)
Table 1 summarizes nationwide energy source hourly data for 2024. Solar has the most hourly variability because it is unavailable at night. Wind has 95% variability and petroleum that is used for peaking purposes has 99% variability. Only nuclear has less variability than the total energy. The distribution of wind energy hourly output is notable.
Table 1: US Energy Information Administration Electric Grid Monitor 2024 Hourly Data Distribution
For a general idea of the variability of the wind resource across the Lower 48 consider Figure 5 graph of annual hourly data.
Figure 5: US Energy Information Administration Hourly Electric Grid Monitor 2024 Hourly Wind Energy Production (MW)
I could not find a map of wind energy facilities at the EIA website. Synapse Energy has developed an interactive map of U.S. power plants, including wind facilities which is shown as Figure 4.
Figure 6: Synapse Energy Map of U.S. Wind Power Plants
Assuming that the EIA wind energy facilities are similar to those used by Synapse Energy it is clear that there is a wide spatial distribution across the Lower 48. In the next step I analyzed temporal variation.
Table 2 provides an estimate of wind lulls at different thresholds. I evaluated the hourly data to determine the total available wind energy (GWh) available when the total available wind capacity was less than six percentile thresholds. At the first percentile only 14,440 MW or less was generated. This level is 15% of the maximum observed hourly wind capacity. There were 14 episodes that met this threshold and total energy generated during those periods was 988 GWh. From a planning standpoint the maximum duration is important. There was a 14-hour period when all the Lower 48 wind facilities produced less than 15% of the maximum observed capacity and the total energy generated was only 29 GWh which is only 2% of the capability over that period. At the 25th percentile, all the wind facilities produced 40% of the maximum observed capacity. There were 180 episodes that met this threshold and total energy generated during those periods was 63,430 GWh. For the maximum duration there was a 115-hour period when all the Lower 48 wind facilities produced less than 40% of the maximum observed capacity and the total energy generated was 2,319 GWh which is 21% of the capability over that period.
Table 2: US EIA Electric Grid Monitor 2024 Hourly Wind Lulls
Discussion
It is a stretch to try to extrapolate these data for planning purposes to determine the resource gap for a specific area. A sophisticated analysis that addresses the location of the wind facilities, the interconnections between the facilities, and the generation from other resources on an hour-by-hour basis is required. Nonetheless, using the data to guess the impacts is instructive.
To take advantage of the wind blowing somewhere argument it would be necessary to upgrade the transmission system. Assuming that transmission is available there is still a clear need for backup energy. If the entire wind energy system would need to produce 50% of the maximum observed capacity to cover both local and distant energy needs note that this analysis found that 25% of the time only 40% of the maximum was available. The worst case was a 115-hour period when all the Lower 48 wind facilities produced only b2,319 GWh of a possible 11,150 GWh. Assuming 50% of the maximum is needed to support the system there would be an energy gap of 3,256 GWh over this 115-hour period. At a cost of $148/kWh to $400/kWh the storage needed for this event would be $482 to $1,302 billion.
Recently, Russ Schussler (the Planning Engineer) published an article that argued that the intermittency issue addressed here might be solvable: “The long-term problems associated with wind and solar due to their intermittency could and may likely be made manageable with improved technology and decreasing costs.” In my opinion, practically speaking it is not possible. It would be necessary to upgrade the electric transmission system, deploy short-term storage, and develop and deploy a dispatchable emissions-free resource all to address short and infrequent periods and to somehow finance those resources with those constraints.
Importantly, even if intermittency can be addressed Schussler argues that there is a fatal flaw:
Overcoming intermittency though complex and expensive resource additions at best gets us around a molehill which will leave a huge mountain ahead. Where will grid support come from? Wind, solar and batteries provide energy through an electronic inverter. In practice, they lean on and are supported by conventional rotating machines. Essential Reliability Services include the ability to ramp up and down, frequency support, inertia and voltage support. For more details on the real problem see this posting. “Wind and Solar Can’t Support the Grid” describes the situation and contains links to other past postings provide greater detail on the problems.
Conclusion
Green energy advocates who minimize the challenge of transitioning the electric grid to wind and solar rely on the claim that the “wind is always blowing somewhere”. The 2024 wind energy data suggest otherwise. I have no doubt that a proper electric reliability resource planning analysis would verify that my intermittency concerns are real and that revolving the issues would be prohibitively expensive. Coupled with the grid support issues, the green dream of a wind and solar electric generating system is a fantasy that will never be viable.
Roger Caiazza blogs on New York energy and environmental issues at Pragmatic Environmentalist of New York. This represents his opinion and not the opinion of any of his previous employers or any other company with which he has been associated.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Others have shown that the ‘same’ is true for Europe. When a winter high comes off the Atlantic, all the major wind reliant countries—UK, Denmark, Germany—are equally and simultaneously affected. The only solution is fossil fuel fired backup, which in turn guarantees that wind will always be uneconomic. Simple, inescapable fact.
Redundancy costs. It costs even more with a “Dutch Auction”.
“Redundancy costs”
Yes. So does fuel. A lot. Wind and sun have no fuel costs.
The FF backups do. Therefore Wind and Sun do have fuel costs.
Nick, maybe technically, but It’s what you want to harness and use their intermittent energy for that costs.
A motza, in the case of utility-scale reliable electricity supply application.
Admitting that they’re a dicey proposition and require permanent 100% propping up with reliable production sources is the hardest part of sobering up from the addiction to the w&s fantasy.
Maybe re-purpose the 12-steps programme that A.A. offers?
Fuel does cost, but it is one of the smallest costs for a power plant.
Beyond that, wind and solar only reduce the amount of fossil fuels used by a small percent as fossil fuel plants have to be kept at warm standby, at a minimum. As a result, even when their power isn’t needed, they are still burning fuel.
Nick, have you grown tired of embarrassing yourself yet?
“Fuel does cost, but it is one of the smallest costs for a power plant.”
Just not true. Here, via WUWT and Paul Homewood, is the LCOE from DESNZ. The dark blue at the top is the carbon cost, which you probably want to ignore. Then for CCGT, fuel is about 80% of cost, and exceeds the entire cost of onshore wind and solar.
Seems like a big possibility for double dipping to have both Fuel and Carbon in the CCGT column….
Carbon is the social cost of emissions.
Come on Nick.
You’re a scientist ffs.
“Social cost” is on the same plane of Mazlow’s Heirarchy of Needs pyramid as “Self Actualization”.
(aka – wanking)
Yes Nick is off in lala land with the lefties who invented that junk.
They seem to forget humans expire CO2 so using there crazy logic every person has a “social cost of carbon”. What is next is they charge us per breath?
We are all polluters, dontchaknow. We should all be in court, all 8 million of us, including the lawyers, clerks, judges, and jury.
Carbon(Dioxide) is needed by ALL plants and IS the first link in the food chain for ALL life on Earth
Carbon is the main element in Diamonds
Carbon is the main element in Graphite
Carbon is the main element in Coal
Carbon is the main element in DNA proteins for ALL Carbon based lifeforms…like you
Balanced against the social BENEFITS of “emissions,” the “social cost” is NEGATIVE.
As MarkW conveys, wind and solar are unreliable. Estimates such as shown in your Figure 2 do not capture any costs associated with this.
Unreliable electricity sources by definition cannot be depended upon. They might be fine for some applications, and might be suitable for serving third world quality lifestyles. They are not fit for serving modern societal needs, however.
So, the carbon costs twice, I take it. First, you cannot run the grid on wind/solar. You must have some dispatchable power in the mix. Moreover, the ramping that wind/solar cause in the CCGT plant, or even in an open cycle plant, means you do not save all the fuel costs when wind/solar are priority dispatched. Thus some of the fuel costs can, arguably, be apportioned to the “clean” sources. Now, 50Eu per MWhr is only 6 cents or so per kWhr. There is no way that offshore costs so little. One of my senior design groups costed a Texas facility and needed over 12 cents. Finally, the cost of carbon here is high and is an imposed cost because of orthodoxy.
When all is said and done all these generating sources cost about the same. But one is not like the others….
The point of the graph was to show that for CCGT fuel costs are about 80% of total operating costs (excluding carbon cost). Pople here like to ignore this.
The ramping issue is alleviated by batteries. You may not save all the fuel costs, but saving a large fraction is a lot of money.
And its increasing cost because the cost of finding and producing the fossil fuels increases as it becomes its harder to find and extract them.
You are ignoring the fact that remains true for renewable energy because you require FF to back them up. I know in the green fantasy you have a world power grid but countries find the other countries using it as leverage. Hence it becomes a National Security issue and only a fool relies on imported electricity.
Not every country has access to fossil fuels either so are they fools to rely on imported gas, coal or oil?
At least solar energy is available for pretty much everyone.
Relying on imports of coal, oil and gas is far better than relying on wind and solar – which will also be imported (the windmills and solar panels) AND will still require coal, oil and gas imports (wind and solar need backup).
Your point was?
Electricity only comes over dedicated routes and cables via neighbouring countries. Oil and gas can be shipped around the world to any country with a coastal port or a good navigable river from any politically sympathetic supplier. There are lots of potential suppliers.
Technology has lowered the costs of finding and extracting fossil fuels enormously. From 3D seismic, lateral drilling, fracking etc.
So its cheaper to do North Sea oil investigation and extraction than it was to work the Texas oil fields? Righto.
Those costs are high for some, that’s true and much smaller for others, but natural gas prices can be very volatile and are hostage to international politics.
However, the point you are missing is that over longer and longer operating periods the wind/solar droughts become longer and often gather together in the manner of a fractal dust. Batteries needed to cover an arbitrarily long dry-spell, so to speak, are not affordable. I frankly would be very fearful of a power system dependent on batteries anyway. It is not like being able to fire up a rarely used oil power plant in dire situations like New England did two weeks ago.
The best way to reduce the political exposure of markets is to ensure they have diverse supply in competition. If transport is reasonably fungible the market will work to rearrange supply.
That does not work for wind, whose distribution depends on weather, or wind turbines and solar panels whose dependence on China is highly concentrated.
Typical cost of construction for Solar, Wind and Gas generation
Solar costs $1,500 – $1,800/KW to install (until the next storm or 15 yrs)
…and gives you zero capacity at night during peak demand
Wind costs $1,451/KW to install (and more to replace in 20 years)
…and gives you zero output if the wind isn’t blowing “Just Right”
Gas costs $820/KW so about half the cost of the others
…and doesn’t care about weather or time of day
Solar requires 4-6 acres per MW of capacity so 800MW Solar Capacity would need 3,200-4,800 acres (to produce something near nameplate from 10am-2pm)
Wind requires 2 acres for the base and up to 40 acres clear per turbine for a typical 2MW unit so 800MW wind generation would need 1,600 acres for the masts and up to 32,000 acres clear to not hamper their fuel source. (To produce near nameplate when the wind is “Just Right”)
Gas requires 30 acres for a typical 800MW plant and can produce nameplate regardless of weather or time of day
Nuclear can house 2 – 1100MW (2.2GW) and operate on 12 acres with up to a 98% capacity factor
Nick, if the LCOE of offshore wind is as low as “figure 2” claims, then why are new offshore wind facilities asking for about 3X market rates for electricity?
Also by figure 2, fuel is a dominant cost for CCGT only as long as capacity factor exceeds 20%, peaking plants often have less than 20%.
Lazard makes it very clear that because of the difference in “performance characteristics” (weather dependent and intermittent) wind and solar can not be “directly compared to dispatchable sources”. They’ve added a few features that help:
Definitions:
I provided a scenario to Copilot based on the Henry Hub price of natural gas on February 8,2025. Here’s what Copilot came up with: Onshore wind investment value is about 1/3rd of CCGT, largely because of CCGT 3x longer life cycle.
Fuel Cost $0.01777/kWh for CCGT
Here is a less complicated presentation of costs, based on the UK and US offshore experience.
High Costs/kWh of Wind and Solar Foisted onto a Brainwashed Public
.
The three main US subsidies are:
Federal and state tax credits, up to 50%, and cash grants,
5-y Accelerated Depreciation write off of the entire project
Deduction of interest of borrowed money
.
The effect of the three items is to reduce the owning and operating cost of a project by 50%, which means electricity can be sold at 50% less than it costs to produce.
Utilities pay 15 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from fixedoffshore wind systems
Utilities pay 18 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from floating offshore wind
Utilities pay 12 c/kWh, wholesale, after 50% subsidies, for electricity from larger solar systems
.
Excluded costs, at a future 30% W/S annual penetration on the grid, the current UK level:
– Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement to connect distributed W/S systems, about 2 c/kWh
– Traditional power plants to quickly counteract W/S variable output, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh
– Traditional power plants providing electricity during 1) low-wind periods, 2) high-wind periods, when rotors are locked in place, and 3) low solar periods during mornings, evenings and at night, about 2 c/kWh
– W/S electricity that could have been produced, if not curtailed, about 1 c/kWh
– Importing electricity at high prices, when W/S output is low, 1 c/kWh
– Exporting electricity at low prices, when W/S output is high, 1 c/kWh
– Disassembly on land and at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites, about 2 c/kWh
Some of these values exponentially increase as more wind and solar systems are added to the grid
.
The economic/financial insanity and environmental damage of it all is off the charts.
No wonder Europe’s near-zero, real-growth economy is in such big do-do. That economy has been ties into knots by inane people
European Owners of US offshore windmills can claim:
1) An energy communities tax credit of 10 percent
2) A base tax credit of 30 percent
3) State tax credit and other incentives of up to 10%
YOUR tax dollars are building these projects so YOU will have much higher electric bills.
Remove YOUR tax dollars and none of these projects would be built, and YOUR electric bills would be lower
None of those measures account for the cost of curtailment, which becomes increasingly dominant as renewables penetration rises above about 60% of supply. Adding more wind farms adds mainly to production in hours that are already in surplus, while doing very little to increase production during periods when winds are slight. Costs of storage to try to utilise the surplus soon become prohibitive.
Its LCOE, so the comparison is apples and oranges. You’ve left out the costs of making the wind and solar into dispatchable sources. Construction, maintenance and…. fuel costs for this, too. And transmission to get the wind power to where there is demand.
You do not eliminate fuel costs by installing wind and solar, because the product you get out of them is unusable and unsaleable in this form. No-one tries to use raw wind or solar power to generate electricity which will replace gas or other conventional.
To do LCOE right you have to include all of the costs of making the product dispatchable and available, and you also have to reduce the output in the calculation to cover the periods when its generating large amounts in excess of demand. Its basically useless, so it should not figure in the calculation at all.
The question to ask, if you really think wind and solar are cheaper source of generation, is why the UK bids are so high?
By the way – what are the DESNZ assumptions for the price of fuel?
The price of fuel varies like the wind. The cost of wind is constant. But
“You do not eliminate fuel costs by installing wind and solar, because the product you get out of them is unusable and unsaleable in this for”
The products are of course sold and used. Fuel costs may not be eliminated, but they are greatly reduced.
Where’s the carbon cost for Wind and Solar? There’s certainly a lot of CO2 released in…
Making the Solar PV Cells
Making thousands of steel masts
Making thousands of 2MW generator nacelles
Making 10s of thousands of 300′ blades
Making the roadways to get them to their plots for installation
Transporting them on hundreds of ships from China
Transporting them on 10s of thousands of trucks to their sites
Clearing those tens of thousands of acres
Pouring 300-900 yards of concrete in the footing for each turbine mast
Refining the metals for the thousands of miles of new transmission facilities
Transporting those to their respective sites for installation
Giga Tons of wasted carbon for part time power that can’t be run when needed and might not be needed when their “Free fuel” decides to be available
It is well established that DESNZ are dealing in fantasy figures. The Inch Cape wind farm reached financial closure a few days ago with over £3.5bn of borrowing secured for a 1,080MW wind farm. That excludes any share of the cost of the interconnector built to take its output down the coast to England which is another £1.8bn for 525MW. So that’s £5.3bn. Even if they achieved their output claim of “nearly 5 TWh” a year (they won’t, because like nearby Seagreen a significant chunk of output will be curtailed due to the nature of their contract, let alone whether such a capacity factor would be achieved allowing inter alia for maintenance downtime. Keeping the sums simple, a lifetime output of 100TWh and a generously low maintenance cost of £15/MWh adds another £1.5bn taking the cost total to £6.8bn. That’s £68/MWh before we add anything for financing, which would rake the total up to around £100MWh. It could easily be 20% higher if output disappoints and is more in line with other wind farms. There are also questions about the longevity of the turbines.
And both Wind and Solar require total replacement multiple times at Inflation rate increased pricing over the lifetime of a typical CCGT Generator, more so when compared to Nuclear
And both Wind and Solar will require partial replacement from Strong Winds AND periodic Hail Storms perhaps annually
Wind and sun: the most expensive free energy evah!
Wind and Sun have no fuel costs…true
Wind and Sun do have Fool Costs though.
They are …
…short lived
…susceptible to the vagaries of weather
…powered by unavailable fuel (you can’t add fuel to either and make them work)
No wind, No Wind Generation…too much wind, No Wind Generation (you can’t go “Blow” on the and make them productive)
Clouds, no Solar…Snow, vastly reduced Solar…5pm until 8am, No Solar Fuel (you can’t shine a light on them to produce power during Peak Demand)…8-10am or 2-5pm limited Solar Fuel
But wind and solar *do* have fuel costs. Spinning fossil fuel plants must be present to deal with frequency modulation (which means some of their fuel costs would be ‘allocated’ to wind and solar in an *accurate* “accounting” of costs), and you also need fossil fuel powered plants running in “spinning reserve” using 40% of the fuel they use to do the job by themselves in order to “step in” when wind and solar face-plant (which means some *more* of their fuel costs would be ‘allocated’ to wind and solar in an *accurate* “accounting” of costs).
Of course, Nick isn’t interested in an *accurate* accounting of costs, which is why he continues to point to the FICTION that is called “LCOE.”
The bottom line is simple: the more wind and solar are added to any grid, the MORE EXPENSIVE and LESS RELIABLE that grid becomes.
And batteries DO NOT solve these problems, since their cost is STAGGARING and they DO NOT and CANNOT remove the need for fossil fuel powered plants in the mix.
That’s true. Wind and solar have no fuel costs, whether there is wind and sunlight or not.
Fuel costs is only a sliver of the total lifetime cost of ownership.
If wind and solar were free, they would not need to charge consumers even a penny.
Just to take a set of accounts I recently downloaded, in its most recent financial year Greater Gabbard generated 1,871 GWh while admitting to fuel use of about 16GWh to support the operation. They omit to cover imports of electricity to keep the blades turning to avoid brinelling etc. when winds are slight. This could account for 0.5-1% of output based on data I’ve looked at at other wind farms.
Perhaps they should stick them where the sun don’t shine.
What’s also a other important factor is the position of these winter highs. As the recent warming of the British winters is l believed largely linked to the increased formation of the winter highs over the Azores and Europe. As with the increased chances of winter highs forming in these locations, then there is a the greater chance of mild SW winds occuring during the winter months.
During this January that trend has reversed and its this that has lead to this year’s January been 1.1C below the 1991-2020 mean average temp here in England. Should this continue into future winter months, then not only will the winter highs bring light winds but also colder weather.
And, of course, wind only operates in it’s “Goldilocks Zone” of 9-50mph
Wind below 9mph and the pressure can’t overcome the inertia of the bearings to turn the blades.
Similarly wind above 50-55mph and the auto break system kicks in to prevent bearing damage from over pressure and prevent runaway.
Newer larger turbines will in turn require even stronger winds to overcome inertia and would be less effective at a higher bottom end wind speed.
This article is not discussing the less than 15 minute variations of wind output each day.
Those variations have to be counteracted, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, by a fleet of quick-reacting traditional generators to ensure steady conditions on the grid, plus another fleet of traditional generators to supplement any W/S short fall. Those services are certainly not for free.
.
If W/S is about 30% on the grid, the present UK level, the cost of each fleet is about 2 c/kWh.
This is in addition to grid expansion and reinforcement, also costing 2 c/kWh
That 6 c/kWh is in addition to the heavily subsidized cost of wind and solar electricity.
.
In China, India, Russia, etc., about 40% of the world population, they do not believe in IPCC horsesh.t, the cost is 5.5 c/kWh
.
CO2 is essential for flora and fauna growth. Plants love 1200 ppm
Net Zero by 2050 is a super expensive, unaffordable suicide pact
Green fanatics love viable fantasies.
When the lights go out, console yourself that the wind is blowing somewhere else.
The slogan should be “the wind is always blowing somewhere else”.
Just tow the wind farms to where the wind is. Easy peasy. /s (if necessary).
Yes let’s see if the wind blowing in China helps the US, the UK, or Europe keep their grids working. LMAO.
Roger, Nice article. The wind is always blowing somewhere certainly tries to shift the burden of solution to an unaffordable expansion of transmission, but there is another problem. How much wind energy can be produced from the varying area where the “wind is always blowing?” It means in effect that each and every place where the wind might be blowing has to have capacity enough to satisfy demand at all other place where it isn’t.
I took data in various places, including the entire lower 48, and looked at the time intervals of top 25% of demand, then looked at the distribution of wind capacity factors, and found capacity factor of 95% availability during these periods as being only about 7% of nameplate rating.
We can fuss with thesee statistics all we want, but the end result, which I have even gotten a utility to admit in a public hearing, is that wind is only about 10% effective in closing generation shortfall. This is essentially the ELCC statistic some utilities even advertise for wind. One thing is for certain wind is not “used and useful” for delivering service in anything like the manner of thermal plants.
BTW, there is a huge database at EIA of all generating plants. I can’t recall exactly where it is on the website. I have downloaded it and sorted through it using Excel to get inventories in PACE. You should be able to do it for the entire country.
I found a copy of the big data file in question, but my naming of it doesn’t provide much on where it resides on the EIA site. I downloaded in February 2024 and the data was only current to december 2022, so it takes a while to assemble the file. It’s big — nearly 70MB and is taking a long time to open. If it gets there, I will send info to you, but I might not have a header in the XLS telling me the name of the ZIpped file. Sorry I can’t be of more help.
Thanks i will take a look when I get a chance.
If you are still looking at this, the big data file has a heading entitled “Inventory of Operating Generators”. I tried using that phrase in the search bar, but still can’t find the original ZIP file on the EIA site. Their search doesn’t work very well.
My Chromebook I was using at the time pooped out, but I can still search its download folder and maybe find it that-a-way. I’ll look.
Plus, like they say with respect to investments, “past results” (in particular as respects wind) is “not an indicator of future performance.”
Plus wind and solar often produce when *not* needed, and *don’t* produce *exactly* when MOST needed.
And once again, “batteries” DON’T “fix” these issues. Their cost is eye-watering, and there is no guarantee they will be “charged” when needed.
The bottom line being you simply can’t rely on wind, solar and batteries.
not so Scientific American:
How Scientific American sacrificed science for progressive politics
Not so Scientific. Not so American.
The problem with the “Wind is always blowing someplace” argument is that it would require Significant Over Build EVERYPLACE to allow for “Extra Generation and Transmission Capacity” to be available when the wind isn’t blowing anyplace else
Wouldn’t that just be wonderful?
And as a bonus, it wouldn’t put the grid at risk in some subset of a single country, we can simultaneously put the *entire world’s* grid at risk all at the same time!
Now picture how long a “cold start” of a worldwide grid would take. They were talking months JUST for the State of Texas if the whole thing went down.
All advocates of wind-powered electricity generation should have to be compulsorily required to spend at least one year ‘before the mast’ of an ocean-going sail yacht.
So as to gain just a modicum of appreciation how fickle winds can be, and what skill and experience are required to achieve acceptable performance from the equipment (sails & vessel).
Only then should the advocates be pontificating about “the wind always blows somewhere)/
The other intermittency problem is Russian spy ships mapping all the seafloor cables around the UK.
And dragging their anchors through them…
This site seems to be quite comprehensive for those wishing to research further:
https://globalwindatlas.info/en/about/introduction
Upto a point. Probably better is
https://www.renewables.ninja/
Which allows hourly profiles to be generated based on MERRA2 data.
“wind is always blowing somewhere”
Sounds like my favorite excuse to start drinking early – ‘It’s 5 o’clock somewhere!’
“Synapse Energy has developed an interactive map of U.S. power plants, including wind facilities which is shown as Figure 4.”
It says “Figure 6” below the image presented.
The sun is shining somewhere. Wind is blowing somewhere. True enough but the actual requirement is the generators must generate enough gigawatt hours worth of energy over say, the year, and storage must be sufficient to account for the longest time where demand exceeds supply of energy.
Storage is the key. There’s no point even thinking non dispatchable energy sources can work without it.
‘Storage is the key’. True. The problem is that grid scale storage to cover renewable intermittency does not exist—and very likely never will.
Never say never.
Its what’s needed to have a viable transition so its inevitable unless we succeed with fusion. Storage costs have been falling and simultaneously the spend is increasing.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1383650/grids-and-storage-investments-worldwide/
Tim, I hold several issued US patents in novel energy storage materials, and remain deeply conversant with all energy storage technologies—batteries, flow batteries, supercaps, high speed flywheels, pumped hydro, pressurized air, …— trust me when I say likely never. The laws of physics and chemistry say so.
Shipstones were in a sci-fi novel.
Are you going to say not enough litihum? Well what about sodium?
No they dont. This is a silly thing to say. They simply dont.
Don’t forget compressed air and gravity 🙂
It’s also about round trip efficiency, which is limited by physics and chemistry.
Fusion would be nice, but isn’t necessary. Fission can supply all the world’s energy generation needs very easily.
Could, but isn’t. IMO its going to be generations (ie 20-40 years) before it even starts in earnest if it starts at all.
And Fusion is always 20 years away. We know how to do Fission. It’s proven reliable technology. The only thing holding it back is the regulatory state. If it takes 20-40 years, no big deal. We have plenty of FF to keep us going.
That is the common belief. But I think its unintuitive to understand goals that span multiple human lifetimes.
Willis did an analysis on what it would take to fully transition by 2050 and he did the analysis in 2020. It was one 2.1GW Nuclear power station every day for the 20 years. That’s completely unachievable.
Even if you believe fossil fuels last for another 140 years, its still one 2.1GW Nuclear power station every week from today onwards.
That’s just not happening and not likely to happen soon either. Every year that goes by is less fossil fuels left and less time to transition.
So will it be ok to defer and start transitioning to nuclear energy in 20-40 more years?
*My bad typo..the unrealistic transition was 30 years not 20. And means nearly two nuclear power stations per week by 2160ish
As opposed to breezes and sunshine which NEVER will.
There is a much more realistic avail power source humans or rats running in little wheels … no R&D required available today 🙂
Let the Cimate Nazis and their political allies do it, since they are the ones who “believe” in the imaginary “crisis.”
Viable transition?!
How exactly does that happen when the claim we need to “transition” to worse-than-useless wind and solar conveniently ignores that fact that neither can exist without what you claim a need to “transition” FROM to begin with?!
Transition isn’t immediate. If it was there wouldn’t be a problem. Transition is over many decades and interim positions involve some renewable energy, some stabilising elements (ie storage) and some reliable base load generation like coal or gas.
We’re transitioning to a worse energy source so it has to be forced.
The alternative is we dont transition and let the market take care of it but in that case we won’t start until supply cant meet demand for energy ( ie. we’re pretty much out of fossil fuels) sometime in the future and then people die because by definition there isn’t enough energy.
No, renewables won’t be cheaper by then causing earlier change. Energy underlies everything including the cost of the renewables themselves. They’ll never be cheaper. They’re just not better.
Tim,
You are being reasonable. The problem is that politicians think that the transition can be done by 2040. Their insistence on this aspriational schedule will lead to a disaster.
They’re driven by the climate agenda and that’s a mistake. Its going at the wrong pace, making the wrong decisions and for the wrong reasons. I wonder how history will look back at this time. Not favourably for some, I expect.
I’d have to disagree. There is nothing “reasonable,” or even sane, about suggesting we need to “transition” to worse-than-useless wind and solar power, which are 100% dependent on fossil fuels for their existence anyway., and are not viable as grid power on their own.
We don’t have resources to waste on wind and solar.
You’re missing the point.
YOU CANNOT BUILD (and back up) WINDMILLS AND SOLAR PANELS AND BATTERIES WITHOUT COAL, OIL AND GAS.
And “in decades,” all the worse-than-useless windmills and solar panelsand batteries ALREADY IN EXISTENCE will need REPLACEMENTS.
If you’re worried about “running out” of fossil fuels, wasting them producing something that CANNOT supply the required energy is idiotic.
Would not a grid system based on the belief that the wind is always blowing somewhere require windmills everywhere, and enough wire to connect them?
Of course. That free energy is very expensive to gather, doncha know?
It would but then you are reliant on other countries to supply you and you have a small National Security issue 🙂
Germany and much of the EU imported gas from Russia that didn’t play out to well did it!!!
It’s a left green fantasy and only a fool country would do it. The bottom line is you have to be able to generate your countries power from within your country.
They should have invested in competing supply.
Other fuels, other countries.
Not to mention it will all need replacements in about 20 years IF you’re lucky.
There is no need to go down to hourly data to dimension a battery firmed wind generating system. You only need weekly data because the battery will have to store at least a week.
Take a look at your data. From hour 4400 to hour 70.000 the average output was about 42GW or a CF of 9.3%. The lowest two consecutive weeks averaged 25GW or 5.5%.
The average demand is close to 460GW. To meet that averaging 9.3%Cf would require installed capacity of 4948GW. But there are two weeks when the CF is down by 3.8% so the battery has to cater for this. 0.038 x 4948 x 168 x 2 = 63TWh.
Lets say installed wind costs $1000/kW and battery is $300/kWh. Generators cost close to $5tr and battery close to $20tr. The most economic solution would be even more than 10.7 times generator overbuild to reduce the size of the battery
I expect the lowest capital option for a battery firmed wind system in USA would be around $8tr spent on both generators and battery to total $16tr.
You would only need 52 weekly data points as the basis for scoping a system. It would be necessary to check the design with say 10 years of historic data.
Aaaaaand….
Replace every 10 years (or earlier in the cases of self-immolation). A rolling continual cost of $1,600,000,000,000 per year. That’s only about $4,500 per person per year. Forever. A veritable bargain!
But when you add solar and some dispatchable generation like coal, gas or nuclear, the battery can still be smaller because the baseload (ie GWh) can be counted on.
Or you could go ‘old school’, and just use coal, gas or nuclear, and zero need for batteries. You know, like we’ve been doing for over a century…
You can’t just have “some” dispatchable generation. You need enough to power everything, because wind and solar are so unreliable. Batteries are only going to last for minutes at grid scale. If they don’t catch fire…
They need to last much longer for renewable energy to work in the long term.
They need to be able to supply the grid for when demand is greater than total generator supply and for as long as it takes for that to no longer be the case.
And the other requirement is that there be sufficient time between those incidents for them to recharge to a suitable level. Nobody said it would be easy, but that’s what it’ll take.
More dispatchable energy (eg Coal, Gas or Nuclear) involved makes it easier and existing generation is perfect for that. So shutting down existing generators is a mistake IMO.
Shutting down existing generators is a mistake, as is building worse-than-useless intermittent generators that increase grid costs and decrease grid reliability.
My focus is on New York’s insane pollicies which call for zero-emissions in the electric sector. As long as the leadership continues to support wind and solar there is an insurmountable problem with correlated wind and solar leading to long periods of low resource availabilty.
I think that 52 weekly points could scope the system well enough that any sane person would say we cannot afford to go forward. Using 10 years of historic data is a start but what about the 15-day period in 1961 when the low temperature in Albany NY was below zero every day. The amount of storage needed for that period is only needed once every 60 or so years. What kind of business model can cover those costs when you need to replace the batteries every 15 years? If you don’t build it then there will inevitably be a blackout that will make the Texas disaster of a few years ago look tame.
Were it not for the demand to go zero you could build fossil-fired backup but the amount needed is equivalent to the existing system so why build two? When all the costs for a 24-7, 365, loss of load expectation over 60 years are totaled up then nuclear looks cheap.
Russ Schussler’s recent article also argues that “the real problem is that wind, solar and batteries do not readily provide essential reliability services necessary to support the grid.” He explains why this challenge is so great that it will likely never get resolved no matter how much money is spent.
Schussler and I agree that it is becoming increasingly apparent that wind, solar and batteries when pursued at high penetration levels result in high costs, lower reliability and poorer operational outcomes.
It will never work!
It took a long read to get to his point which is the following
And its simply not correct. Batteries/Inverters can manage their own frequency control. Actually, there is no fundamental frequency issue with inverters, that’s a problem for spinning generators only.
The outage and fix at Broken Hill proves proof.
The battery at Broken Hill which was supporting the township which went off grid after a transmission tower failure was eventually configured to do its own frequency control and the stability problems went away from the local grid until it could be brought back into the main grid. The main issue was regulatory, not technical.
The Broken Hill battery became a practical example of a localised grid that disputes Russ Schussler’s claim that it cant work.
Perhaps you need to go do some reading there are factual errors in your claim. Once the city was isolated reconnecting it back to the grid was fun and took days because the town was out of sync to the rest of the grid. They had a number of tries to do section by section but ran into problems and in the end took everything down and then brought it all back up.
The main issue was entirely technical regardless of how you try to spin it.
It did spin up some R&D on how an out of sync grid might slowly be brought back in sync but there is a lot of work to go on that.
Do you have a reference? I never saw that.
At any rate, this is hardly a blocker. Syncing back to the grid is a trivial technical problem even if it hadn’t been implemented as a feature of that particular battery.
Probably stop reading activist junk and try reading just plain engineering reports and no it isn’t easy and the path forward for broken hill is still not clear
Background
https://reneweconomy.com.au/agreement-finally-reached-to-switch-on-broken-hill-battery-10-days-after-storm-blows-down-power-lines/
Commissioning report which already knew problem under “lesson learnt” only they didn’t learn.
https://arena.gov.au/assets/2024/01/AGL-Broken-Hill-Grid-Forming-Battery-Lessons-Learnt-Report-1.pdf
There is still no solution re-syncing is reliant on the diesel generator and without it can’t be done.
Lefties and green activist can wave there hands and say it’s easy but they are not power engineers and if you believe them I have a bridge for sale for you.
I’d already read the lesson’s learned document. Its been discussed here before.
Perhaps you have an actual quote?
Anyway, this issue of resyncing is irrelevant to this argument that rogercaiazza was making
A current (minor in principle) technical issue joining two grids doesn’t support the argument that “wind, solar and batteries do not readily provide essential reliability services necessary to support the grid”
There is just nothing fundamentally true about that argument even if it was an issue in a recent case.
Do you understand that in that commissioning document the diesel generator was running … now follow the issue.
Even your crazy leftie green renewable engineers get the problem
https://reneweconomy.com.au/regulatory-madness-promotes-dirty-diesel-over-renewable-mini-grid-at-broken-hill/
The diesel or a new promoted hydrostor solution has to be on available to assist with the sync. The only alternative would be to change over every feed in generator on the system both private and public at the power operator expense. Apart from the billions of dollars initial cost the power operator becomes liable for a suitable warrantee. Bluntly you are dreaming if you think that is going to happen. The nutcase in the above left loon publication thinks that is what should have been done and is crying a dirty diesel which is far cheaper is option 1.
The issue with the green blob is nothing is hard you just have to spend lots of other peoples money.
Meanwhile later this year AGL will be fined it’s own report notes the backup diesel generator is required and they did nothing about it for months and got caught.
Yes. Do you understand that once the battery was configured to provide FCAS services (ie be Grid Forming), the localised grid stabilised when the diesel generators couldn’t hold it on their own?
As I’ve said, supply a reference. In principal there is no difference between the diesel generator doing that or the battery. In practice maybe the battery didn’t have the functionality.
FCAS services are NOT grid forming. They are synthetic inertia, with the rate of charge or discharge linked to the degree of frequency variation from 50Hz on an agreed schedule that is supposed to avoid creating unwanted hysterisis and feedback. The batteries simply follow grid frequency. If they did not you would create massive voltage instability.
The battery configuration that caused the grid to stabilise is called “Grid Forming” as opposed to the other mode “Grid Following” and in that mode it provides FCAS.
The problem is that the transmission system relies on the frequency inertia of the spinning generators. Invertors do not help the transmission grid. That support has to be conjured up by something else at considerable cost.
No it doesn’t. Inverters produce synthetic inertia and they don’t suffer from frequency control issues like a spinning generator does under load either.
Batteries are frequency followers. If they don’t they become destabilising.
Incorrect. Like Roger and others, your understanding is years old.
Russ Schussler is one of the few people on the various climate blogs that I take seriously when commenting on electric power systems. Most EE’s don’t have a good understanding of what makes a stable electric grid.
TtTM does not have a good understanding of what makes a stable electrical grid either.
Bold statement given your own understanding.
Above you have demonstrated your lack of understanding.
Above where?
Very nice Roger. As big a believer as I am for actual data my concern with what you have done is that wind and solar are given preference to fossil fuel and nuclear. Fossil fuel and nuclear are likely more efficient and beneficial than the data shows because they are required to act as stand by for wind and solar. Wind and solar don’t work, stop building them. Fossil fuel and nuclear work, build them. Remove all wind and solar from the grid.
At least in the US, we have enough natgas that CCGT is the low cost solution. Both in Europe and the US (Vogtle), 3G nuclear has been an utter disaster, way late and way over budget. Better to run with CCGT while working the kinks out of whatever 4G nuclear proves best (there are several possibilities) and then go nuclear.
The next serious stab at nuclear construction on the North American continent will be Ontario Power Generation’s Darlington project. One 300 MW GE-Hitachi BWRX-300 SMR will be constructed followed by three others if the first can be brought in on cost and on schedule.
The first BWRX-300 reactor is supposed to go online in 2030. Three others will go online by 2034 if the first project stays on track.
Ontario’s government is footing the bill for these reactors. The goal is to establish Ontario as the go-to source of nuclear technology in North America and to demonstrate their ability to deliver new-build reactors on schedule at the quoted price.
Suppose OPG does manage to deliver the four GE-Hitachi reactors on cost and on schedule. What happens next after that?
Long into the future here in North America, nuclear will not be cost competitive with natural gas. If we start buying nuclear again, it will be done strictly in the context of a public policy decision to place energy security and reliability above lowest possible energy cost as the driving priority.
Which means that most if not all of the new-build reactors constructed in North America in the future will be funded either directly by state governments or else by quasi-government corporations such as the TVA.
What about PacificCorp’s Wyoming Natrium project?
Looking at their published schedule for the Natrium project, IMHO, it is hopelessly optimistic — way too much new technology being implemented in way too short a timeframe.
With the election of Donald Trump as president, and with his policy of putting an end to the Green New Deal, it will not be all that surprising if the Wyoming Natrium project is cancelled at some point in the next two to three years.
Natural gas depends on just in time delivery so can get shut down if there is no oil backup. Nuclear gets around that problem and provides dependable baseload.
In my opinion going nuclear makes sense if only to save natural gas for transportation.
Saving natural gas for transportation is a public policy decision, not an energy market decision.
Once wind and solar subsidies end — assuming these subsidies do actually end at some point — using nuclear as a means of getting around the problem of just-in-time delivery of natural gas is a solution which must be enforced by a firm public policy decision to invest in nuclear.
New York State’s support for wind & solar depends in some good part on continued support from the federal government under the Green New Deal. I am eager to see what Governor Hochul’s response will be if and when that federal support ends.
Will she attempt to keep wind and solar alive on her own initiative, or will she instead ‘reluctantly’ switch her allegiance to a rapid expansion of nuclear power — knowing full well that: (1) this major change in policy depends in large part on the success, or possible lack thereof, of the Ontario government’s Darlington SMR project; and that (2) an expansion of nuclear in New York will not go forward unless it is paid for with state funds.
Excellent summary of all points. I agree.
My bet is Hochul will “reluctantly” switch her allegiance because bad orange man made her do it. Of course that will not not be enough for the bat crap crazy constituency that she is catering to. Get out the pop corn this will be fascinating to watch.
Gas is costly to transport. That’s why the price in the UK can be $16/MMBtu while it’s only $4/MMBtu at Henry Hub, or why Citygate prices in parts of the US 48 even are at substantial premia.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_pri_sum_a_EPG0_PG1_DMcf_m.htm
Coal is excellent baseload power and with modern pollution control equipment presents no air pollution concerns. The US is the “Saudi Arabia of Coal” and should use it.
And unlike NG coal can be stockpiled.
Agree, nothing can compete with CCGT generated power in the U.S.in the next 10 years, not even close, no doubt about it. But the good news is SMR doesn’t need to, it only needs to compete with essentially worthless wind and solar, and the even better news is now that under the Advance Nuclear Act, enacted in to law July 2024, SMR is eligible for the same tax credit as wind and solar.
The need for SMR in the U.S is to provide a cost effective alternative to the economy destroying wind/solar/battery farce. Low information voters are not going to stop requiring their elected officials to “do something about CO2”. To them, CO2 is pollution, not plant food. SMR can satisfy this political requirement.
Once one or two assembly line SMR factories are up and running producing a 100 or more reactors every year even U,S based CCGT’s running on $6.00/MCF natural gas will struggle to be competitive. Natural gas prices like those now at <$400/MCF are as unsustainable as wind and solar without subsidies because they are below reserve replacement costs except in limited formation “sweet spots”.
Small scale modular nuclear requires an assembly line factory that produces dozens of modular systems every year to be cost effective. Such a factory will reduce manufacturing costs by at least 40%. The components are shipped to the job site on semi-trailers for assembly and the walk away safe reactors are operational in two years, the same timeframe as wind and solar farms. SMR’s have >3x the capacity factor of a 50% solar/50% wind farm. .
Ontario plans to use the OPG / GE-Hitachi Darlington project as a means of expanding its existing nuclear component manufacturing industrial base.
The added manufacturing capacity will be made available to any SMR vendor who wants to make use of it.
Getting on board early with supporting nuclear component manufacturing on its side of the US-Canadian border in a partnership with the Canadians would seem to be in New York State’s long-term economic interests.
But would the eco-loons in NYS allow such a partnership to go forward?
They might not have a choice in the matter if Governor Hochul decided to flex her political muscle and told the eco-loons to go pound sand.
You nailed it: But would the eco-loons in NYS allow such a partnership to go forward?
I agree:
Wind and solar don’t work, stop building them. Fossil fuel and nuclear work, build them. Remove all wind and solar from the grid.
At the very last start paying for the ability to provide power at all times and discount weather-dependent resources.
And the sun is always shining somewhere, except if it’s shining in an area where no solar panels exist, whom does it actually benefit? The reality regarding energy generation is that it has to be available when it’s needed at affordable prices, and wind and solar still don’t fill the bill.
As the British and other countries have demonstrated clearly, the ONLY way to overcome intermittent renewable electricity is to have stand-by base power equal to the instantaneous power demand, ready to go at a second’s notice, plus seasonal and peak demand variations.
Moreover, intermittent power is redundant, a waste of money, commodities, and space and is an ecological-environmental disaster.
Even Norway, a small population country with a large land area and hydroelectric impoundment (almost entirely built between 1950 and 1985) can run out of electricity in drought years. The reservoirs must get Norway through its frozen winter.
Norway heats with electricity, up to 70% of it energy demand, but depends on its hydrocarbon reserves for 70% of its revenue.
Globally, electricity meets ~20% of the total energy demand. The other 80% is still a dream.
In other words, civilization requires base, dispatchable power with only two major options: hydrocarbon and nuclear fueled power plants.
And coal.
This wind is always blowing somewhere fallacy relies on the insane to make it work.
For this to be true, you need to build wind generation for the same city in multiple locations plus the transmission lines in between.
The idiots who believe this works ignore the fact that the generation capacity in the different location is already being used.
That final point is key. Somebody is going to build all this capacity for the few times that somebody far away is going to need it is an insanely idiotic position. The alternative is that the control areas that need it will build the wind turbiines and the transmission lines for the few times they need it. Eqally idiotic position.
Even more idiotic – replacing *all of it* every 20 years, less if damaged by the weather sooner.
Not to mention a massive subsidy will be necessary to convince anyone to build useful power plants (i.e., dispatchable – coal, oil, gas, nuclear, since while they last MUCH longer, don’t last forever) when they are required to take a “back seat” when the worse-than-useless wind and solar are producing.
Yawn! Another day another blade failure-
High winds detach another serrated edge from turbine at Australia’s largest wind project | RenewEconomy
At least they didn’t all fall off at once-
Investigation underway after wind turbine collapses in Victoria’s west following storm, sparking safety concerns | Sky News Australia
Skeptical science is a big promoter of “Wind is always Blowing Somewhere”
I Have commented there – with the comment they should understand the EIA grid monitor and compare the talking points with actual source data.
One commentator “michael Sweet” has responded multiple times that no one should review the “raw data” or review the “source data”
Sounds familiar…Climategate…USAID…