It all looks good until you consider capacity and then throw in reliability of supply. In UK the utilisation of wind created power has been around 20%, that is 100GW installed delivers around 20GW of usable power. Plus of course when a wind doldrum occurs (which can last days) you need other source.
Where did you get that 20% number from?
Power Engineering International publication. It's a reflection of the WT can generate more power than is currently needed, so they are switched off. We really need storage capacity means that can capture and store energy for when peak demands occur and/or wind isn't blowing hard enough.
Yes I know the concept, thanks. It's just that all the resources I read put it way higher than 20%. But anyway, the number itself doesn't really matter, it's whether the income from production can justify the cost of investment. Which it can.
I've subsequently seen another report related to US that indicates utilisation for their wind energy system at 35%. Not sure if that is utilisation, or amount it contributes to total US energy requirement. We need for sure to find ways to run wind systems at peak efficiency and utilise it all.
Utilisation of 35% is on the high side for onshore wind and on the low side for offshore wind. The USA has hardly any offshore wind, but lots of onshore wind in open terrain, so this number makes sense.
The UK on the other hand has much more offshore wind so one would expect higher utilisation. In terms of contribution, in 2024, wind provided just over 10% of USA's electricity and 28% of the UK's.
It would be impossible to achieve 100% utilisation unless you could find a place where the wind consistently blew at the optimum speed for the turbine, 24/7. Those places don't exist. However, if you can build a profitable turbine based on 30% utilisation, why not do so?
Because it keeps power prices high.
Why would it keep power prices high?
Lower utilisation means increased per unit cost. Plus in UK there is a "renewable" tax to subsidise the construction and operation of renewable sources.
It's exactly like coal fired. Capacity needed to cope with peak demand which might only occur twice a day. Difference was you could easily ease them back and save coal for later. Or oil. Or gas.
And no. I'm not pro coal/oil/gas. Simply commenting that we aren't efficiently using renewable energy capacity like we should be. Pump storage schemes are good, but not easy builds and expensive. Elon's battery storage solution has promise but not sure scale is adequate. Both good peak loppers tho.
😫 Onshore CFs are over 20% and offshore over 40%
Really Wind is Very reliable - providing 40%+ of all UK energy And it's designed for that factor, hence nuclear and growing batteries All covered so don't worry