Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.

Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby dashster » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:08:41

as percentage of total electricity production that is. :)

Image
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly

In 2015, 11 states generated at least 10% of their total electricity from wind. As recently as 2010, only three states had at least a 10% wind share. Iowa had the largest wind generation share, at 31.3%, and South Dakota (25.5%) and Kansas (23.9%) had wind generation shares higher than 20%. Two additional states, Texas and New Mexico, are on track to surpass a 10% wind generation share in 2016, based on data through July. Wind generation in Texas, the highest wind electricity-producing state, made up 24% of the national total wind generation and 9.9% of Texas's total electricity generation in 2015.


States with the highest wind generation shares are located in the Central High Plains and the Rocky Mountains, regions that have high wind resources.

Image
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly and National Renewable Energy Laboratory Wind Maps


At the national level, wind's share of total U.S. electricity generation has risen every year since 2001. Wind facilities produced 190,927 gigawatthours (GWh) of electricity in 2015, accounting for 4.7% of net U.S. electric power generation. This level represents a doubling of wind's generation share since 2010, when the share was 2.3%. Based on monthly data through July, wind has provided 5.6% of U.S. generation in 2016.

Image
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly
Note: 2016 based on data through July.


The increase of wind power in the United States has been driven by a combination of technology and policy changes. Technological changes include improved wind technology and increased access to transmission capacity. Policies such as the Federal Production Tax Credit (PTC), Investment Tax Credit (ITC), and state-level renewable portfolio standards (RPS) have led states to build more wind capacity. The PTC grants a federal tax credit on wind generation, while the ITC allows federal tax credits on wind farm investments. State RPS, meanwhile, require that a minimum percentage of electricity generation comes from renewable energy.
Twenty-nine states and the District of Columbia have RPS policies, and an additional eight states have renewable portfolio goals. Besides RPS, many states provided incentives—such as mandated purchases and an exemption from property tax—to encourage wind power in their states. More information on state policies that have affected the adoption of wind power is provided in EIA's Electricity Monthly Update.
Few other renewable fuels make up 10% or more of states' electricity generation. Hydropower—the most common renewable electricity generation fuel in 2015—made up at least 10% of electricity generation in 10 states in 2015, including more than two-thirds of Washington's generation.
Solar-powered electricity generation, including solar thermal, utility-scale photovoltaic, and distributed photovoltaic resources, made up 10% of California's electricity generation in 2015. Rooftop solar panels made up 38% of the District of Columbia's electricity generation in 2015, although the District has few utility-scale generators in its borders and imports most of the electricity consumed by District customers from neighboring states.
Principal contributors: Joy Liu, Paul McArdle
dashster
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2012, 07:39:24
Location: California

Re: Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:22:02

This is the problem with per capita methods of measurement. By area Iowa is lightly populated while Texas is densely populated. Thus 100 MWe in Iowa is per capita a lot more impressive sounding while in reality it doesn't hold a candle to the amount of carbon emissions offset by Texas.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15408
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby Ibon » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 10:38:01

Tanada wrote:This is the problem with per capita methods of measurement. By area Iowa is lightly populated while Texas is densely populated. Thus 100 MWe in Iowa is per capita a lot more impressive sounding while in reality it doesn't hold a candle to the amount of carbon emissions offset by Texas.


The good part of per capita methods of measurement is in a couple of generations after a much needed die-off when our species collectively only has to concern itself with electrical generation and transportation for maybe 1 billion people.
Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 7153
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 13:07:58

Ibon wrote:
Tanada wrote:This is the problem with per capita methods of measurement. By area Iowa is lightly populated while Texas is densely populated. Thus 100 MWe in Iowa is per capita a lot more impressive sounding while in reality it doesn't hold a candle to the amount of carbon emissions offset by Texas.


The good part of per capita methods of measurement is in a couple of generations after a much needed die-off when our species collectively only has to concern itself with electrical generation and transportation for maybe 1 billion people.


Huh? I mean, could you explain what you mean, I do not understand.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4395
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 16:12:21

OK...let's stick with per capita stats:

The Roscoe Wind Farm in Roscoe, Texas, has 634 wind turbines and a total installed capacity of 781.5 MW. At the time of its completion in 2009, it was the largest wind farm in the world. The wind farm is located in Nolan county. With a population of just 15,000 and covering 600,000 acres Nolan county has the largest per capita wind energy output of any comparable area ON THE ENTIRE PLANET.

So there! LOL.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby Hawkcreek » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 17:02:38

Tanada wrote:This is the problem with per capita methods of measurement. By area Iowa is lightly populated while Texas is densely populated. Thus 100 MWe in Iowa is per capita a lot more impressive sounding while in reality it doesn't hold a candle to the amount of carbon emissions offset by Texas.


The grid extends outside Iowa and Texas, however, and that power may be used in more highly populated states.
Maybe a better measure would be ---How much of the available renewable resource, at this location, is being used to help our nation in general?
"It don't make no sense that common sense don't make no sense no more"
John Prine
Hawkcreek
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1468
Joined: Sun 15 Aug 2004, 02:00:00
Location: Washington State

Re: Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Sat 29 Oct 2016, 17:46:53

Hawk - If you weren't aware there are three US grids: east, west...and Texas.

"Texas leads the nation in energy production, primarily from crude oil and natural gas, and is rapidly developing its wind energy resources as well. Texas has the second-largest population and the second-largest economy of any state after California. Texas leads the nation in energy consumption, accounting for more than one-eighth of the U.S. total. The state's industrial sector accounts for the largest share of energy use.

Texas is the largest electricity consumer of any state. Most new generation is fueled by either natural gas or wind. The main Texas electricity grid is operated by ERCOT. The ERCOT grid serves about three-fourths of the state and is largely isolated from the interconnected power systems serving the eastern and western United States.This isolation means the ERCOT grid is not subject to federal oversight and is, for the most part, dependent on its own resources to meet demand.

An interesting side note from 2015:

Blackstone Group LP has won permission to export to Mexico all of the electricity from a power plant it owns in Texas, giving it a leg up in the race to reap benefits from Mexico’s newly opened market. The U.S. Energy Department on Tuesday granted the private-equity firm’s request to sell the plant’s output into Mexico, where large customers pay almost twice as much as their Texas neighbors. While several others have permission to export, Blackstone has the ability to dedicate all of the power from the Frontera plant and has the only permit to import into Mexico’s new electricity market.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby dashster » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 02:10:50

Tanada wrote:This is the problem with per capita methods of measurement. By area Iowa is lightly populated while Texas is densely populated. Thus 100 MWe in Iowa is per capita a lot more impressive sounding while in reality it doesn't hold a candle to the amount of carbon emissions offset by Texas.


Texas may be offsetting the most carbon emissions, but they are also creating a ton of carbon emissions (probably second most next to California). And they seem intent on creating ever more - no limits on population growth in the state. Looking per-capita or as a percentage gives a better picture of how green a state is. It may be more difficult to build up a large population and be green.
dashster
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2012, 07:39:24
Location: California

Re: Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby Subjectivist » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 11:37:45

dashster wrote:
Tanada wrote:This is the problem with per capita methods of measurement. By area Iowa is lightly populated while Texas is densely populated. Thus 100 MWe in Iowa is per capita a lot more impressive sounding while in reality it doesn't hold a candle to the amount of carbon emissions offset by Texas.


Texas may be offsetting the most carbon emissions, but they are also creating a ton of carbon emissions (probably second most next to California). And they seem intent on creating ever more - no limits on population growth in the state. Looking per-capita or as a percentage gives a better picture of how green a state is. It may be more difficult to build up a large population and be green.


Its kind of odd to compare a rural farming state with just one halfway large city with the biggest state in the lower 48 that has several very large metropolitan areas not to mention they drill wells everwhere you look.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
User avatar
Subjectivist
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4395
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 06:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby dashster » Sun 30 Oct 2016, 22:25:28

Subjectivist wrote:
dashster wrote:
Tanada wrote:This is the problem with per capita methods of measurement. By area Iowa is lightly populated while Texas is densely populated. Thus 100 MWe in Iowa is per capita a lot more impressive sounding while in reality it doesn't hold a candle to the amount of carbon emissions offset by Texas.


Texas may be offsetting the most carbon emissions, but they are also creating a ton of carbon emissions (probably second most next to California). And they seem intent on creating ever more - no limits on population growth in the state. Looking per-capita or as a percentage gives a better picture of how green a state is. It may be more difficult to build up a large population and be green.


Its kind of odd to compare a rural farming state with just one halfway large city with the biggest state in the lower 48 that has several very large metropolitan areas not to mention they drill wells everywhere you look.


Being a big state is not a handicap as far as renewable energy, actually a plus. Having a large population could be a handicap, but Texas sees that as part of their solution. They continue to embrace population growth. So they see it something that makes them richer than if they maintained their population. They should be more ready for handling problems like the finite nature of fossil fuels or Climate Change than smaller population states. So in their view, Iowa has the handicap when you compare the two states. And if you have a massive population, you potentially have a lot more money to do things like build renewable energy, and more people to use the output.
dashster
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 384
Joined: Fri 28 Dec 2012, 07:39:24
Location: California

Re: Texas not even in top 10 states for wind energy

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Mon 31 Oct 2016, 13:59:35

Texas - The chicken/egg question: is its population growing because of economic factors or is its population growth making it stronger economically? Texas was home to five of the 11 fastest-growing US cities and five of the eight that added the most people.

A view from the Houston newspaper:

"New figures from the U.S. Census Bureau on showed Texas boasts five of the nation's eleven fastest-growing cities. Little has changed since the days when people in the first states decided they'd had it with city life, left their homes and chalked the letters GTT on the door--"Gone to Texas." Except that now Texas sports some of the nation's biggest cities, and the migrants come from abroad, the West Coast and Midwest more than from the East. The state's cities and suburbs consistently rank among the fastest-growing in the country.

TEXANOMICS - You don't see too many other states that are projecting they are going to grow at that rate and that significantly," he said. The states that routinely compete with Texas' growth rate are much smaller, like North Dakota, so a small addition to population constitutes a big percentage increase. Of course, more Texans mean more taxpayers contributing to public funds. And with the growing population, that money will likely be spent on a stressed infrastructure."

And from the Dallas newspaper:

"By now, Texans may be getting weary of the constant stream of growth superlatives. The state and its major metro areas routinely top lists of the places attracting companies and new residents, both from abroad and from other states. And census population data released this week doesn’t do much to buck that trend: Houston, for instance, was second only to New York City in terms of the raw number of residents it added from July 2014 to July 2015."

Folks move to where the jobs are. And while the Texas unemployment rate isn't that low consider this: from 2000 thru 2015 it's estimated that the poppulation grew from 20.9 million to 27.5 million. That's about a 33% increase. Haven't seen the stat for a while but before the oil price collapse there were years when more then half of all the new jobs in the US were created in Texas. Even a couple odd new employers: two EU companies (a steel and a chemical maker) relocated operations to Texas primarily because of much lower energy costs.

And the state has had all the growing pains one might expect. The good news: it also has revenue to deal with the problems. Such as one of the larger sovereign funds in the world. But eventually resource depletion will eventually bite Texas in the ass. But what's important is that it won't hurt nearly as much as it will for the great majority of the other states.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11219
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 02:00:00
Location: TEXAS


Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests