Despite Adding 6.2 GW Of New Capacity, US Wind Energy Dropped By 2.1%

Three years ago, in the wake of Winter Storm Uri, the alt-energy lobby and their many allies in the media made sure not to blame wind energy for the Texas blackouts. [emphasis, links added]

The American Clean Power Association (2021 revenue: $32.1 million) declared frozen wind turbines “did not cause the Texas power outages” because they were “not the primary cause of the blackouts. Most of the power that went offline was powered by gas or coal.”

NPR parroted that line, claiming, “Blaming wind and solar is a political move.” The Texas Tribune said it was wrong to blame alt-energy after Winter Storm Uri because “wind power was expected to make up only a fraction of what the state had planned for during the winter.”

The outlet also quoted one academic who said that natural gas was “failing in the most spectacular fashion right now.”

Texas Tribune went on to explain, “Only 7% of ERCOT’s forecasted winter capacity, or 6 gigawatts, was expected to come from various wind power sources across the state.”

In other words, there was no reason to expect the 33 GW of wind capacity that Texas had to deliver because, you know, no one expected wind energy to produce much power.

Expectations? Mr. October? Playoff Jamal? Who needs them?

But what happens when you build massive amounts of wind energy capacity and it doesn’t deliver — not for a day or a week, but for six months, or even an entire year?

That question is germane because on Wednesday the Energy Information Administration published a report showing that U.S. wind energy production declined by 2.1% last year.

Even more shocking: that decline occurred even though the wind sector added 6.2 GW of new capacity!

A hat tip to fellow Substack writer Roger Pielke Jr., who pithily noted on Twitter yesterday, “Imagine if the U.S. built 6.2 GW new capacity in nuclear power plants and after starting them up, overall U.S. electricity generation went down. That’d be a problem, right?”

Imagine if the US built 6.2 GW new capacity in nuclear power plants and after starting them up, overall US electricity generation went down

That'd be a problem, right? https://t.co/6Z7SF8nqyF

— The Honest Broker (@RogerPielkeJr) April 30, 2024

Um, yes. It would.

The EIA made that point in its usual dry language: “Generation from wind turbines decreased for the first time since the mid-1990s in 2023 despite the addition of 6.2 GW of new wind capacity last year,” the agency reported.

The EIA also explained that the capacity factor for America’s wind energy fleet, also known as the average utilization rate, “fell to an eight-year low of 33.5%.” That compares to a 35.9% capacity factor in 2022, which was an all-time high.

The report continued, “[Lower than normal wind speeds] affected wind generation in 2023, especially during the first half of the year when wind generation dropped by 14% compared with the same period in 2022.”

Read that again. For half of last year, wind generation was down by a whopping 14% due to lower wind speeds.

Imagine if that wind drought continued for an entire year. That’s certainly possible.

Recall that last summer, the North American Electric Reliability Corporation warned that U.S. generation capacity is “increasingly characterized as one that is sensitive to extreme, widespread, and long-duration temperatures as well as wind and solar droughts.”

According to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, corporate investment in wind energy between 2004 and 2022 totaled some $278 billion.

In addition, according to data from the Treasury Department, the U.S. government spent more than $30 billion on the production tax credit over that same period.

Thus, over the last two decades, the U.S. has spent more than $300 billion building 150 GW of wind capacity that has gobbled up massive amounts of land, garnered enormous (and bitter) opposition from rural Americans, and hasn’t gotten more efficient over time.

Wednesday’s EIA report is a stark reminder that all of that generation capacity is subject to the vagaries of the wind.

Imagine if the U.S. had spent that same $300 billion on a weather-resilient form of generation, like, say, nuclear power. That’s relevant because Unit 4 at Plant Vogtle in Georgia came online on Monday.

With that same $300 billion, the U.S. could have built 20, 30, or maybe even 40 GW of new nuclear reactors with a 92% capacity factor that wouldn’t rely on the whims of the wind.

In addition, those dozens of reactors would have required a tiny fraction of the land now covered by thousands of viewshed-destroying, bat-and-bird-killing wind turbines.

If climate change means we will face more extreme weather in the years ahead — hotter, colder, and/or more severe temperatures for extended periods — it’s Total Bonkers Crazytown^TM to make our electric grid dependent on the weather.

But by lavishing staggering amounts of money on wind and solar energy, and in many cases mandating wind and solar, that’s precisely what we are doing.

Read more at Substack