Energy News: Wind energy and carbon emissions

The Coffee Shop
1

Summary: wind power grew by 27% in 2006 and major corporations are building new turbine production plants and creating jobs in rural areas. In other news, CO2 emissions from energy use in the U.S. actually had a small decline in 2006.
DOE Releases First Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Market
DOE released its first annual report on developments and trends in the U.S. wind power market last week. The publication, “Annual Report on U.S. Wind Power Installation, Cost, and Performance Trends: 2006,” analyzes trends in the marketplace, including project costs, turbine sizes, and developer consolidation. The report concludes that wind power is competitive and has been consistently priced at or below the price of electricity produced at fossil-fueled or nuclear power plants. Wind project performance has also been increasing due to improved project siting and technological advances in wind turbines.
The report notes that U.S. wind power capacity increased by 27 percent in 2006 and that the United States had the fastest-growing wind power capacity in the world in 2005 and 2006. For the second straight year, the United States led the world by installing 2,454 megawatts (MW) of wind power capacity in 2006—16 percent of the capacity installed worldwide that year—followed by Germany, India, Spain, and China. Leading the way in annual capacity growth in the United States are Texas, Washington, and California. The report also notes that GE Energy is the dominant wind turbine manufacturer for the U.S. market, although it is facing increasing competition from both domestic and foreign companies, several of which are building manufacturing facilities in the United States. See the DOE press release, the complete report (PDF 2.5 MB), and a summary presentation about the report (PDF 2.9 MB). Download Adobe Reader.
http://www.eere.energy.gov/images/spacer.gif http://www.eere.energy.gov/news/images/07_06_06_clipper_liberty.jpg
Clipper Windpower’s 2.5-megawatt Liberty wind turbine is the largest produced in the United States.
Credit: Clipper Windpower
As evidence of increasing growth and competition in the U.S. wind power market, GE Energy is in the process of shipping 267 1.5-MW turbines to FPL Energy for use at the Peetz Table Wind Energy Center in Colorado, and on Monday shipped its 1,000th 1.5-MW wind turbine to FPL Energy. Meanwhile a Spanish competitor, Acciona Windpower, is building an assembly plant in West Branch, Iowa, that will produce 250 1.5-MW wind turbines per year starting in 2008. Other foreign competition comes from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, which just announced U.S. orders for 788 wind turbines with a collective capacity of 1,363.4 MW; Suzlon Wind Energy Company, which is delivering 400 MW of wind turbines to PPM Energy; and Vestas Wind Systems A/S, which has received an order for 50 3-MW wind turbines from BP Alternative Energy. On the domestic front, Clipper Windpower, Inc. just commissioned eight of its new 2.5-MW Liberty wind turbines for a project near Buffalo, New York, and has announced firm and contingent orders for 2,240 Liberty wind turbines over the next five years. Manufactured in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Liberty wind turbines are the largest produced in the United States. See the press releases from GE Energy, Acciona Windpower, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Suzlon (PDF 29 KB), and Vestas (PDF 21 KB), and the Clipper Windpower press releases on the turbine commissioning (PDF 36 KB) and the prospective sales (PDF 42 KB).

EIA: U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Use Declined in 2006
The energy-related production of carbon dioxide in United States decreased by 1.3 percent in 2006, according to an initial estimate by DOE’s Energy Information Administration (EIA). Carbon dioxide is the dominant greenhouse gas emitted in the United States, and since most of it is produced through energy use, the trend in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions generally reflects the nation’s trend in overall greenhouse gas emissions. The EIA credits the decline to mild weather conditions, a drop in demand caused by high energy prices, and the use of less carbon-intensive energy sources in the production of electricity. Overall, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions decreased from 5,955 million metric tons in 2005 to 5,877 million metric tons in 2006. However, over the long term, energy-related carbon dioxide emissions have increased by 17.9 percent in the United States since 1990.
Of particular interest is a 1.2 percent decline in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from industry, despite an estimated 3.9 percent increase in industrial output. This suggests an industrial shift toward energy efficiency or low-carbon energy sources. In fact, industrial emissions of carbon dioxide in 2006 were nearly equal to the level of emissions in 1990. The EIA will release a full inventory of greenhouse gas emissions and a more detailed analysis of the trends in November. See the EIA press release.

2

I had a completely different perception of what your post was going to be about.

‘‘Wind - Carbon Emissions’’ I was expecting a video of the ‘‘farting preacher!’’ ; )

3

EIA: U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions from Energy Use Declined in 2006
Of particular interest is a 1.2 percent decline in energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from industry, despite an estimated 3.9 percent increase in industrial output.

Excellent news. I expect that people are thrilled.

4

“In other news, CO2 emissions from energy use in the U.S. actually had a small decline in 2006.”

What is with this? I thought Bush sucked and that global warming was all caused by his not signing the Kyoto treaty.

Those windmills are very cool. Despite the percentage increases though, isn’t wind power, like ethanol, essentially impossible to scale up to volumes that displace significant percentages of existing capacity.

5

You know for a fact that there was no bad weather or earth quakes in recorded history until Bush took office in January of 2001. It’s all his fault and always will be.

6

I agree that wind power is not likely to displace 10-15% of our existing capacity. I would be interested to know what percentage of additional capacity being created is from wind (or other alternative sources).

There was a pretty good article on money.com over the weekend with regards to solar advances. Not so much for adding a solar panel to your home, but more for an electric utility to add solar capacity to their portfolio.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2007/06/01/100050990/index.htm

Edited to add: Plus these developments are good for Iowa. Two of the plants mentioned in Fatmouse’s post are in eastern Iowa (Cedar Rapids and West Branch), and while they do not mention Iowa as providing a lot of wind power (they mention TX and CA), we are starting to get quite a few “wind farms” in the western part of the state.

7

“What is with this? I thought Bush sucked and that global warming was all caused by his not signing the Kyoto treaty.”

Are you trying to credit Bush with the decreased energy use emissions?

On your other question, that would depend on what you mean by “significant” percentages. A European country has integrated wind into their portfolio so that it provides about 25% of their electricity. I would say that’s signficant. It would be more difficult to do that here since the wind is usually in areas sparse in population leading to increased transmission costs. On the ethanol front, what would you consider significant enough displacement of gasoline to provide benefits? Would a cut of 10% of our importation of foreign oil be enough?

For me, energy usage should be like a stock portfolio. Diversified. That way if one commodity or source goes through a disruption, it doesn’t need to have a catastrophic effect on everything.

8

Are you trying to credit Bush with the decreased energy use emissions?

There was a drop in energy and CO2 emissions last year, but the articles last week declared it was related to more moderate weather and had nothing to do with any specific efforts on anyones’ part.

The bottom line is, when the weather returns to “normal” so will energy usage and emissions.

Given that current wind power production capacity is at or less than 2% of total U.S. energy production (and that could be 2% of just electrical energy production, I don’t have the stat ref in front of me), it is pretty farfetch to assign last years’ aberration to a specific technology like wind power.

9

There was a drop in energy and CO2 emissions last year, but the articles last week declared it was related to more moderate weather and had nothing to do with any specific efforts on anyones’ part.

That’s only partially true. And it wouldn’t account for the more efficient manufacturing, either.

The EIA credits the decline to mild weather conditions, a drop in demand caused by high energy prices, and the use of less carbon-intensive energy sources in the production of electricity.

10

Dagnabit parkito. I was trying to set a trap for Art. Thanks for spoiling my fun for the day.

Jerk.

11

“what would you consider significant enough displacement of gasoline to provide benefits? Would a cut of 10% of our importation of foreign oil be enough?”

I am guessing you would have to plow under a big part of the country for that.

I do agree with your portfolio argument. As you pointed out earlier, ethanol often works well only near its source, for example.

I have also read that you would have to cover the country in windmills to satisfy our electricity needs. I am not at all sure that is true though, so that is why I ask the question. Regardless, that doesn’t mean that certain locations aren’t low hanging fruit ripe for exploitation.

I still think windmills are really cool, regardless.

12

“I have also read that you would have to cover the country in windmills to satisfy our electricity needs.”

As you mentioned, that might be true only if you were shooting to get all your electricity from wind. But we’re not shooting for that, just a responsible portion of energy from wind. Some areas might be able to get to 20% or so from wind. Some places might be hard pressed to hit 1%. And, in some places, you really shouldn’t be putting up wind turbines and transmission lines.

And yes, hit the low hanging fruit first, just as most projects are doing.

13

Dagnabit parkito. I was trying to set a trap for Art.

The problem with fool proof traps is that fools aren’t smart enough to know how they work in the first place.

And, for future reference, in my specific case, it is jerkito.

14

I am guessing you would have to plow under a big part of the country for that.

More of a question here, but does everyone else around the country already have 10% ethonal gas? Around here, Midwest, it’s pretty hard to find 100% gas, everything is 10% ethonal. Guess what I’m saying is that unless this is a unique Midwest thing we are already providing almost 10% of our transportation imports via ethonal.

~Matt

15

For me, energy usage should be like a stock portfolio. Diversified.

Good comparison. We may loose a little benefit of the “mass of economy” having several smaller energy sources, but that will be far over ridden from competition, diversification and specialization.

All we need 10 different types of energy sources to provide 10% of our energy needs and we’re good to go.

If we look at the specialization aspect finding those should be pretty straightforward with present day technology.

~Matt