Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
DoDo:
At last year's rate of expansion, it would take something like 75 years for wind to give half of consumption
How do you figure that?

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 09:25:31 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Total US consumption is was 4,119 TWh in 2008. (Wind was 55.4 TWh.) Last year 10 GW were added, if we can assume an average capacity factor of 30% (this being the US), they should be good for 26.3 TWh, or an annual increase of market share by around 0.66 percentage points. 48.7/0.66 = 73.8.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 09:52:33 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The relevant figure is 26.3TWh/55.4TWh = 47% increase each year (or, x1.5 per year). The model of growth should be logistic and not linear (see Marchetti's curves by Luis de Sousa).

In other words, if in 2009 the installation was 10GW, in 2010 one should expect 15GW, in 2011 22.5GW, and so on, and the rate should slow down only when penetration is a substantial fraction of the total...

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 10:29:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]
You can expect logistic growth if market conditions are stable. But the development of the US market is anything but regular, more like stop-and-go. This year it should be another massive drop.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.
by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 10:53:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
But that's also an argument against your extrapolation.

I guess you can always do a moving average.

By laying out pros and cons we risk inducing people to join the debate, and losing control of a process that only we fully understand. - Alan Greenspan

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 12:16:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]
My 'extrapolation' was merely intended to give a picture of what last year's growth rate means relative to total consumption, i.e. that it is not insignificant but even greater growth would be desirable.

Regarding real long-term trends, I would agree that a logistic curve fits both emergence/maturing and phaseout best, but Marchetti curves seem too simplicistic. In Luís's diary, the oil shocks are named as explanation for deviation; on one hand, methinks a lot more reasons can throw development off the Marchetti track (rule changes being one, see wind power in Denmark), on the other hand, I rather doubt that all significant energy modes will peak at the same market penetration level (50%).

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 03:35:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Not really conductive to any advanced monotonous trend fitting:



*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Fri Jul 2nd, 2010 at 11:00:16 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series