An Additional Two Gigawatts of Wind Energy in Oklahoma…But It Gets Even Better
From this article: GE Renewable Energy and Invenergy just announced that Oklahoma will soon be home to the largest wind farm in the U.S., the Wind Catcher project, which will have a capacity of 2,000 MW.
The size edges out the current largest wind farm in the country, California’s Alta Wind Energy Center, which has a capacity of 1,550 MW. When completed, Wind Catcher will be the second largest wind farm in the world behind China’s monster Gansu Wind Farm that has a capacity of 6,000 MW and is set to expand to an amazing 20,000 MW by 2020.
As frequent 2GreenEnergy commenter Glenn Doty wrote when he shared this good news on Facebook earlier today, the project includes a 350-mile ultra-high voltage transmission line, and this, in his estimation, is actually cooler than the additional 2 GWs of wind. I totally agree.
At this point in human evolution, this is how we as a civilization are pursuing our goal of sustainable energy: renewable energy mega-projects that come bundled with their own solutions for the integration of the power they produce.
None of the elements of clean energy (or sustainability more generally) stands in a vacuum; they all depend on one another for their success. In this case, a renewable energy project comes along with transmission. Some are accompanied by energy storage. Electric transportation stands ready to sop up excess production of solar during the day. Energy efficiency lowers the overall target, making it evermore feasible to replace fossil fuels. Geothermal, OTEC, hydrokinetics, and biomass jump in to add value in certain unique situations. Smart cities integrate this into the lives of the individual consumer.
No piece of cleantech is an island entirely of itself; every such element is a piece of the content, a part of the main. OK, John Donne’s rolling over in his grave, but I kinda wanted to make that point.
Craig,
You are correct, every new technology must be researched.
The latest from the DoE and the US Energy Information Administration, predict Coal coal production will see a sustained boost over the next two years due to increased use at power plants and a rise in exports.
The cost of coal is expected to rise by less than the cost of natural gas and renewable generation continues to grow,causing the percentage of Coal fired generation to increase from 30% to 34%.
Coal exports rose 60 percent in the first five months of 2017, helping amortize production costs.
Both agencies also predicted steady growth in both wind and solar.
Craig,
It would appear that since you ceased sending out alerts, the number of comments have dropped markedly.
I would really appreciate your reappraisal of coal, and the need to urgently support coal carbon sequestration R&D in view of recent developments’
As in most environmental issues, opinion falls into three distinct camps.
1) The Coal Industry, Global governments, supporters and economists. Best summed up in articles such as;
[ http://www.denverpost.com/2017/04/01/colorado-coal-saved-from-costly-power-plan/%5D
[http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448318/paris-agreement-china-india-set-easy-emissions-goals]
[https://spectator.org/coal-is-1/]
2) Pragmatic Environmentalists. These people who dislike the pollution created by coal, nonetheless recognize coal fired generation will increase as more nations industrialize and renewable power technology proves inadequate to meet rising energy needs,at least the foreseeable future.
These environmentalists support both advanced Nuclear and greater R&D of coal sequestration technology. The agenda for these ‘moderate’, or ‘mainstream’ environmentalists appears :
” Remove or mitigate Coal emissions, not remove coal”.
3) The Renewable Energy industry, idealists, alarmists, and extreme environmentalists. This group, whether for vested interest or political ideology, have adopted a “Ban Coal” position.
This position allows for little ration discussion or realism. Sadly, it also relies on a fantasy that renewable energy can replace coal in the foreseeable future.
As a result this group is virulent in attacking any R&D or deployment of Coal sequestration technology, if for no other reason than for fear it may work.Curiously, most of this group are equally opposed to gas and nuclear options.
—————
I would be genuinely interested to read your views.
I realize in the past you have been very passionate in your dislike of coal and the coal industry. I would imagine this would have intensified by The Coal Industry finding a champion in the White House, whom you also detest.
However, as an environmentalist, can you set all that aside and acknowledge ;
1) Coal is here to stay for the foreseeable future ?
2) Coal will be an important resource for increasing industrialization of Africa, Asia and other developing countries ?
3) R&D and deployment of Coal sequestration and mitigation technologies (no matter how difficult)is better than ineffectually calling for a ban on coal as symbolic gesture ?
I would sincerely like to hear your views. I believe this is the most important discussion environmentalists can undertake at the present time.
I believe it’s by how this discussion is conducted, is how the general public will decide their opinion and support for the entire environmental movement.
If environmentalists can display reason, responsibility and economic prudence, much lost ground can be regained. The most important objective should be to gain more support, acceptance and investment for Clean(er) all energy technology.
If, on the other hand, discussion and debate continues to be stifled, and dissent suppressed by extremists, the general public will increasingly lose faith in the environmental message.
Craig, I’d appreciate your considered opinion.
I continue to send out alerts, though not with the frequency that I once did. If you’re not getting them, please resubscribe.
My position on coal is the subject of a post that I’ll have up soon.