New Electricity 42% Wind Says DOE
Last year almost half the new electricity capacity added to the grid (42%) was wind power, according to Secretary Chu of the U.S. Department of Energy.
Texas led all states with 7,118 MW of total wind capacity installed, followed by Iowa (2791 MW) and California (2517 MW). Seven states now have more than 1,000 MW installed, and 13 have more than 500 MW.
$16 Billion invested in wind projects in 2008 made the United States the world leader in added capacity last year, says This the fourth consecutive year that the United States has been the world’s fastest-growing wind power market.
Wind power added 8,558 megawatts of new electricity to the grid – – and 8,400 new jobs to the economy.
The American Wind Energy Association estimates that now about half of the components needed for wind turbines are made in the United States.
Last year was a good year for U.S. wind. The United States overtook Germany to lead the world in wind capacity additions, capturing roughly 30% of the worldwide market.
Six utilities now get more than 10% of their electricity from wind.
However, this is just the very beginning of wind power in this country: nationwide, wind still only provides an average 2% of electricity consumption.
Iowa and Minnesota lead 7 states that are more than 5% wind powered.
The DOE report detailed $16 billion in investment in wind projects made in the U.S. last year that make the United States the leader in annual wind energy capacity growth.
“Wind energy will be a critical factor in achieving the President’s goals for clean energy, while supporting news jobs,” said Secretary Chu. “While the United States leads the world in wind energy capacity, we have to continue to support research and development to expand renewable energy deployment.”
The report analyzes a range of developments in the wind market, including trends in wind project installations, turbine size, turbine prices, wind project costs, project performance, and wind power prices.
It also details trends in project financing, a key concern for the wind industry in the current economic climate, as well as trends in project ownership, public policy, and the integration of wind power into the electrical grid.
The economic meltdown last Fall both helped and hurt wind.
The expected expiration of the ITC by the end of the year was already slowing growth planned for 2009. Then the financial crisis in the Fall unexpectedly opened an opportunity to sneak an extension of the ITC into the must-pass bailout plan, so that wind investments could continue to get a tax credit.
But on the other hand, the financial meltdown itself has hurt investment in everything. 2009 might not look so good.
Via U.S DOE 2008 Wind Technologies Market Report
Image from Australian photographer Anthony James
Have a tip for CleanTechnica? Want to advertise? Want to suggest a guest for our CleanTech Talk podcast? Contact us here.
Our Latest EVObsession Video
CleanTechnica uses affiliate links. See our policy here.
Let’s not forget that the percentages are higher because g & t companies are hesitant to move forward with nuclear and coal projects (thus bringing on the end of our industrial base and causing a dramatic inflation to the our cost of electicity)–and this is all before the grandeous CO2 experiment gets going.
Let’s not forget that the percentages are higher because g & t companies are hesitant to move forward with nuclear and coal projects (thus bringing on the end of our industrial base and causing a dramatic inflation to the our cost of electicity)–and this is all before the grandeous CO2 experiment gets going.
Does the U.S. know what 8,558 megawatts of wind power looks like?
Wind uses 50,000 acres / 0.30 = 166,667 acres for 1,000 MW
166,667 acres = 260 sq mi for 1,000 MW
8,558 MW/1,000 MW = 8.558
8.558 x 260 sq mi = 2,225 sq mi
8.558 x 166,667 acres = 1,426,336 acres
I HOPE this is based on offshore with tidal energy complements… because that land use would be nearly TWICE the size of Yosemite National Park 1189 square miles or just about the size of Delaware.
Based on the same public wind study maps and viable locations they would be installed within an endless eye shot of each other.
Is my math off? Or are our expectations.
Goals are healthy and wind is good… but if we plan our future around unobtainable goals both will fail.
Thus back to coal, oil and nuke following four decades of the same mistakes.
Balance is key. If we just throw money at one renewable sector we could sacrifice the others.
The cash for junkers was a prime example moving funding away for solar and other renewables just to ‘stimulate’ cars no one will want or can afford to drive by 2020.
It sounds like a long way away. But the majority of cars on the road are over 10 years old…
Had this money gone to a few urban sustainable energy programs (or even wind) it would have equaled REMOVING a millions of cars and not adding a million NEW ones to the problem.
Math is hard because it is reality based. We need to keep our numbers and expectations solid for a prosperous future.
I do believe there are a few brilliant people at the DOE that understand the achilles heels of wind being ‘storage’ and ‘peak use demand loads’. I also feel these same people see the same solutions to those problems that I and other experts do. Then the 42% is NOT unobtainable and becomes realistic.
Yet all of the renewable projects being proposed for these billions have the same problems that have plagued them since the 70’s.
And with the cost of nuclear going up 4 fold in a decade with NO future disposal or sustainable uranium fuel answers wind, geothermal and tidal should be kicking it’s butt.
But they are not. The large overly optimistic and misrepresented renewable goals being proposed have the obvious achilles heels written in and are pushing nearly everyone in ‘power’ to say we need to go nuke.
History, learn from it or become it
– Haase
Does the U.S. know what 8,558 megawatts of wind power looks like?
Wind uses 50,000 acres / 0.30 = 166,667 acres for 1,000 MW
166,667 acres = 260 sq mi for 1,000 MW
8,558 MW/1,000 MW = 8.558
8.558 x 260 sq mi = 2,225 sq mi
8.558 x 166,667 acres = 1,426,336 acres
I HOPE this is based on offshore with tidal energy complements… because that land use would be nearly TWICE the size of Yosemite National Park 1189 square miles or just about the size of Delaware.
Based on the same public wind study maps and viable locations they would be installed within an endless eye shot of each other.
Is my math off? Or are our expectations.
Goals are healthy and wind is good… but if we plan our future around unobtainable goals both will fail.
Thus back to coal, oil and nuke following four decades of the same mistakes.
Balance is key. If we just throw money at one renewable sector we could sacrifice the others.
The cash for junkers was a prime example moving funding away for solar and other renewables just to ‘stimulate’ cars no one will want or can afford to drive by 2020.
It sounds like a long way away. But the majority of cars on the road are over 10 years old…
Had this money gone to a few urban sustainable energy programs (or even wind) it would have equaled REMOVING a millions of cars and not adding a million NEW ones to the problem.
Math is hard because it is reality based. We need to keep our numbers and expectations solid for a prosperous future.
I do believe there are a few brilliant people at the DOE that understand the achilles heels of wind being ‘storage’ and ‘peak use demand loads’. I also feel these same people see the same solutions to those problems that I and other experts do. Then the 42% is NOT unobtainable and becomes realistic.
Yet all of the renewable projects being proposed for these billions have the same problems that have plagued them since the 70’s.
And with the cost of nuclear going up 4 fold in a decade with NO future disposal or sustainable uranium fuel answers wind, geothermal and tidal should be kicking it’s butt.
But they are not. The large overly optimistic and misrepresented renewable goals being proposed have the obvious achilles heels written in and are pushing nearly everyone in ‘power’ to say we need to go nuke.
History, learn from it or become it
– Haase
Now that the heavy consumers, the factories , have all moved to Asia to exploit the cheaper labor there, and the ultra-modern factories, newly established with American capital, Why does the U.S.A. need more power? One would think we need less! Jobs are disappearing by the fifties of thousands monthly, Families are shrinking in face of the repuglican depression, Our Cars are now made by BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai, in other lands, We are soon to import Buick’s and Cherries from China, and we are a net importer of Asain foodstuffs! Why do the Uber-Rich American folk need more power? What do they do with it anyway? The poor folk are all in single light-bulb shanties, or tent cities, The middle class is decimated, never to consume again. The only folk that need and can pay for electricity are the Uber-Rich, What in hell are they doing with all the power? Why do they need more? Stats Please! Show Power Demand?
Now that the heavy consumers, the factories , have all moved to Asia to exploit the cheaper labor there, and the ultra-modern factories, newly established with American capital, Why does the U.S.A. need more power? One would think we need less! Jobs are disappearing by the fifties of thousands monthly, Families are shrinking in face of the repuglican depression, Our Cars are now made by BMW, Mercedes, Audi, Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai, in other lands, We are soon to import Buick’s and Cherries from China, and we are a net importer of Asain foodstuffs! Why do the Uber-Rich American folk need more power? What do they do with it anyway? The poor folk are all in single light-bulb shanties, or tent cities, The middle class is decimated, never to consume again. The only folk that need and can pay for electricity are the Uber-Rich, What in hell are they doing with all the power? Why do they need more? Stats Please! Show Power Demand?