By Steve Goreham
Originally published by The Washington Times
The US Department of the Interior announced the first offshore wind energy lease sale earlier this month. Interior plans a July auction of 164,750 acres off the southern coasts of Rhode Island and Massachusetts for commercial wind farms. But why are federal and state governments promoting expensive offshore wind energy?
The auction is a continuation of the “Smart from the Start” program for expediting offshore wind begun by former Energy Secretary Steven Chu and former Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar in 2011. Sally Jewell, the new Secretary of the Interior, has embraced the program, stating, “This is history in the making as we mark yet another major milestone in the President’s all-of-the-above energy strategy. Today we are moving closer to tapping into the enormous potential offered by offshore wind to create jobs, increase our sustainability, and strengthen our nation’s competitiveness in this new energy frontier.”
Several governors joined the chorus for offshore wind. Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick supports the program, “The U.S. Department of Energy projects 20,000 jobs by 2020 in offshore wind. Why not host those jobs here in Massachusetts?” Maryland governor Martin O’Malley agreed, “Offshore wind is a potential win-win-win for Maryland. Today’s vote positions our State for greater job creation and opportunity, while moving us forward toward securing a more sustainable energy future.”
Governors also voicing strong support are Paul LePage of Maine, Pat McCrory of North Carolina, Bob McDonnell of Virginia, and even Ted Strickland of Ohio, who would place wind turbines in Lake Erie. In 2010, governors from ten states, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia, signed a Memorandum of Understanding to establish the Atlantic Offshore Wind Energy Consortium to promote offshore wind development.
Unfortunately, offshore wind is enormously expensive. The US Department of Energy (DOE) estimates the levelized cost of wind-generated electricity at more than double the cost of coal-fired electricity and more than three times the cost of power from natural gas. For example, the proposed Cape Wind project off the coast of southeast Massachusetts will initially deliver electricity at 18.7 cents per kilowatt-hour with a built-in increase of 3.5 percent per year over a fifteen-year contract. This is more than triple the wholesale cost of electricity in New England.
Offshore wind is only possible because of generous subsidies, tax breaks, and mandates from government. Today, 38 states offer property tax incentives, 28 states offer sales tax incentives, and 24 states offer tax credits for renewable energy sources. Twenty-nine states have Renewable Portfolio Standards laws requiring utilities to buy an increasing share of electricity from renewable sources, including all ten states in the Offshore Wind Energy Consortium.
At the start of the year, the US government extended the Wind Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC), providing 2.2 cents per kilowatt-hour for electricity generated from wind. The PTC will cost taxpayers $12 billion this year. Look for the DOE to offer loan guarantees to offshore wind developers. Altogether, government incentives pay 30 to 50 percent of the cost of a wind installation.
The consumer pays twice for offshore wind. First, consumer taxes fund wind energy subsidies and tax breaks. Second, states like Massachusetts force utilities to buy high-cost offshore wind electricity, which then increase electricity rates so the consumer pays again.
At the same time, we’re in the midst of a hydrocarbon revolution. Advances in hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling will provide more than 100 years of natural gas at current usage rates. With electricity from natural gas at less than one-third the price of offshore wind, why the support for offshore wind from our political leaders?
Electricity from your wall outlet is standard voltage and current. No one can tell the difference between electricity from hydrocarbon sources or “green” sources such as wind. Would governors Patrick and O’Malley repurchase their current car at three times the price?
Wind energy backers claim that if the government subsidizes wind systems, the cost will come down. But that idea is false. Wind turbines are not new technology. After 25 years of installations, about 185,000 wind turbine towers were operating across the world at the end of 2011. Wind technology is already well down the cost learning curve.
In fact, data from the DOE shows that the installed cost of US wind systems has been rising, not falling. Installed costs have risen 65 percent over the last six years, from $1,300 per kilowatt in 2004 to over $2,100 per kilowatt in 2010.
Underlying the push for offshore wind is the ideology of Climatism, the belief that man-made greenhouse gases are destroying Earth’s climate. But anyone who believes that building offshore wind turbines will stop the oceans from rising, make the hurricanes less severe, and save polar bears needs to reconsider. Suppose we invest in cost-effective electricity sources, rather than offshore wind?
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Start the following rumor: The ever increasing number of windmills will impede the wind so that the entire globe will be under a stationary high, causing extreme heating where it’s summer and extreme cooling where it’s winter!
Joe Public says:
June 8, 2013 at 1:12 am
“Think of all that free power they’ll generate during a hurricane!”
Unless there is technology other than that used on land, during a hurricane (winds greater than 74 miles per hour) the power produced will be zero, zip, nothing, none! Below bold is mine.
“They reach their peak of production at 31 mph and shut down at constant wind speeds above 56 mph.” from here
http://www.pse.com/inyourcommunity/kittitas/Pages/Wild-Horse.aspx
noaaprogrammer said on June 8, 2013 at 10:18 am:
I got a similar one. The more windmills put up, the more energy is leeched from Coriolis effect winds, the faster the planet slows down as it loses momentum faster. You think it gets hot on bright summer days now? Wait until “day” is thirty hours long, you’d roast!
Which like many believable rumors, does have a tiny sliver of truth. 😉
Did someone say JOBS? LOL.
Boeing won’t be going where they use windmills to power airplane production lines.
“I notice that South Carolina is building four new nuclear power plants (lifespans 60 years plus,.. .” [Arthur #### at 6:35AM today]
Maybe….. that is why the Boeing Corporation has moved several production lines to SC. That and SC’s refusal to let unions force their citizens to join them.
If it were not for relatively cheap hydropower, Boeing would have left the union-strangled, Socialist State of Washington a long time ago.
Perhaps, a new Ben and Jerry’s ice cream factory will open up, employing a few people. They’ll charge $20.00 a pint and all the Cult of Climatology members will drive up to their stores in their Holy Cars and buy it because it is HOLY ice cream. Yeah, lots of jobs from windmills. Giggle.
From the Interior Dept PR
The Wind Energy Area offshore Rhode Island and Massachusetts covers about 164,750 acres and is located 9.2 nautical miles south of the Rhode Island coastline. BOEM will auction the area as two leases, referred to as the North Lease Area (Lease OCS-A0486) and the South Lease Area (Lease OCS-A0487). The North Lease Area consists of about 97,500 acres and the South Lease Area covers about 67,250 acres.
According to a report recently released by the Department of Energy National Renewable Energy Laboratory, the North Lease Area has the potential for installed capacity of 1,955 megawatts (MW), and the South Lease Area, 1,440 MW. Together, these areas could support enough electricity to power more than 1 million homes, a significant increase over what BOEM had originally estimated last year. For a map of the Wind Energy Area, click here.
The lease areas will be auctioned simultaneously. Under the procedures, BOEM will consider nonmonetary (i.e., whether a bidder holds a Joint Development Agreement or a Power Purchase Agreement) and monetary (cash bid) factors. The nonmonetary phase of the auction will begin on July 29, 2013, and the monetary phase on July 31, 2013.
BOEM will also host a mock auction for the following companies that have expressed an interest and BOEM has determined will be eligible to participate in the auction:
Deepwater Wind New England, LLC
EDF Renewable Development, Inc.
Energy Management, Inc.
Fishermen’s Energy, LLC
IBERDROLA RENEWABLES, Inc.
Neptune Wind, LLC
Sea Breeze Energy, LLC
U.S. Mainstream Renewable Power (Offshore) Inc.
US Wind Inc.
“After careful review, BOEM has determined that these companies are legally, technically and financially qualified to participate in the upcoming lease sale,” said Director Beaudreau. “They represent pioneers in a new energy frontier as participants in America’s first offshore wind energy auction this July. We congratulate them on their entrepreneurial spirit and look forward to overseeing a fair and competitive leasing process.”
“Nonmonetary factors”? Can you say “the fix is in” I don’t have time to research the stakeholders in this eligible list, but for some reason I suspect they will share at least one thing in common i.e. the direction of their political contributions.
Some people define “boat” as “a hole in the ocean into which you pour money”. I can’t imagine a wind turbine is much cheaper to maintain.
Wind power has been tried, and it works. We pretty much “conquered the world” with wind powered ships. Moved goods and people all over the world – ground a little grain with it, too. When more reliable methods (fossil fuels) became available, wind power was almost universally abandoned. Didn’t require a tax on wind for people to make the change. What would make us change back? Certainly not economics! Perhaps fear of the gulag?
Wind farms don’t increase sustainability, they decrease sustainability.
” Allan M says:
June 8, 2013 at 1:38 am
“Smart from the Start.”
Good job I’d finished drinking my morning tea*. Still have a dry keyboard.
* a British perversion.
”
No it isn’t, the perversion is putting milk into it.
Re: Sure ‘Nuffer and Allan M —
Born in the U.S.A., but, while I love the fragrant aroma of coffee, I think it tastes like dirt. Mocha ice cream is as much coffee as I will do. I MUCH prefer tea — every morning! (with Splenda — for sweetness (I need all I can get!) and because the flavor is thereby brought out better)
Ya know, I can understand people enjoying the flavor of lots of stuff I don’t (fake raspberry or banana (ugh) flavoring, for example) but how can anyone’s taste buds actually LIKE the taste of coffee is amazing to me! Well, some people like the taste of liver, too. To each his or her own!
[Notice: the following not for the faint of heart]
When I was little, grandma would put milk into my tea and call it “Cambric Tea.” I still have that once in awhile. I won’t do it around you, ShrNfr (wouldn’t want to gross you out) #[:)].
Bob said @ur momisugly June 8, 2013 at 4:08 am
Firewood works for me; it provides for more than 95% all of my space heating, cooking and hot water needs. When I purchase firewood from a neighbour, it costs me somewhat less than 3¢ AU per kwhr ($100 AU per tonne). What the cost is when I cut firewood from the trees I planted 30 years ago, I do not know; nor do I care. What I do care about is the rapidly increasing cost of electricity!
Richard111 says:
June 8, 2013 at 2:13 am
Tripling the cost of energy improves competitiveness. Got it.
It sure does. Unfortunately it improves it for China.
ShrNfr said @ur momisugly June 8, 2013 at 1:26 pm
And sugar! [sipping on a cup of unadulterated Sikkim Estate Darjeeling tea]
Re: Dave Wendt at 12:14 PM today — “…Can you say “the fix is in”… .”
Yup.
As in “join us or die [business-wise].”
*******************************
Nearly ONE MONTH, now, Mr. Git — you can do it! (and I’m praying for you quitters (or stoppers), too)
(sorry if I disgusted you with my post about tea #[:)] — Yes, my name is Janice Moore and I’m a carboholic.) Darjeeling — mmm. I can almost smell it from here… .
From Dept of Int press release:
Wow, that’s a whole 3395 watts for each home if only 1 million homes. Enough for a coffeemaker, a microwave oven, computer and some lights. Well you won’t be using the microwave continuously, maybe you could use a small window air conditioner too, when the microwave is off.
Or turn all of that off to use your electric stove to cook supper.
Good thing you’re not using an electric water heater, or electric clothes dryer.
Nobody needs electric heating, so don’t ask.
Of course in the real world, you will never see the full nameplate wattage generated, and in general won’t see a third of it over time. In a million homes the residents will gather around a microwave making hot water for instant coffee, grateful for the light as they rub together their cold hands over the rear exhaust vent.
3395 megawatts / 164750 acres = 20.6 kilowatts/acre.
20.6kW/acre / (6.273*10^6 sq inches/acre) = 0.0033 w/ sq in, 3.3 milliwatts/sq in.
This solar panel is used in RV/marine kits. It’s rated 100W, occupies 1300 sq in.
100W / 1300 sq in = 0.0769 W/sq in, 76.9 mW/sq in.
The solar panel has more than 23 times the “power per area” of wind power, by nameplate.
Gee, they might as well knock off some “solar pontoon barges” instead, string them across the ocean. Anchor the strings, they’re built on sealed pontoons so they won’t sink in a storm. They’ll be better than wind, since battery storage can be directly built into the barges, they can supply current at night. In that application, the batteries are ballast.
Maintenance is much simpler, you can get to them easier. If needed they could swap out a “bad” barge for a working one, tow it to the dock for repair.
And getting rid of the installation is very easy, pull in the strings. That could be an option when a powerful storm is coming and you have some days of advance warning, remove it temporarily. Getting the turbines out of the way is much harder, takes a bit longer.
JohnH — “makes things worse in CO2 terms” — and the agonizing irony is that CO2 is beneficial, a priceless planetary resource in short supply. So “CO2 worse” is actually better! The only benefit of the boondoggle.
This what intermittent and unreliable renewables will do to the UK.
MPs want to turn your lights off. A shame no one told you
Within six years you could be expected to reduce your electricity consumption by a quarter
http://tinyurl.com/lqq3osx
“Electricity from your wall outlet is standard voltage and current. No one can tell the difference between electricity from hydrocarbon sources or “green” sources such as wind.”
Green electrons have extra spin.
eric1skeptic said @ur momisugly June 8, 2013 at 4:44 pm
And a certain charm for the gullible 😉
I did do a quick Google rummage through the list of “eligible” bidders for these leases. Most appear to be at best U.S. subsidiaries of British or Euro companies. So not only will we get hosed on the subsidies for this, but most of the financial benefits will be going overseas. At least if we were giving money to our own crony capitalists the bucks they blow supporting their Jolly Green Giant sized carbon footprints might have a chance of trickling down into our economy. As it is the only likely benefit we are apt to see is having the privilege of paying 3-4 times more for our electricity.
BTW, one of the not so noticeable subsidies for wind energy is that the minimum bid price required by the government for offshore wind leases is about a hundredth of what they require in auctions for offshore oil leases, if they ever get around to holding any of those in the near future.
And of course one of the added benefits of selling wind leases is that it pretty much removes the areas involved from any kind of oil or gas exploration. A win-win for them if not for us.
“Jolly Green Giant sized carbon footprints… .” [Dave Wendt]
YO, HO, HO! LOL — nice one.
And grim-but-accurate observations, above, too.
Surely wind turbines take energy from the spin of the Earth. So if we detect an unusual trend in lengthening of LOD then perhaps we need to be removing all wind turbines and skyscrapers.
Regarding: “Offshore wind is a potential win-win-win for Maryland. Today’s vote positions our State for greater job creation and opportunity, while moving us forward toward securing a more sustainable energy future.”
++++++++++++
If this is in fact a real win of any sort, why then does it need tax incentives and subsidies and a forcing of the public to pay higher energy costs to actually MAKE this happen? I call bunk on this sham.
Well janice it is certainly true that Coffee is an aquired taste, unfortuneatly once you acquire it your done forever. My advice to you is stick to your tea and ill drink the Coffee!
So the takeaway from this is that we should be building onshore wind, because the levelized cost of that is now cheaper than coal? Excellent. 😉
<>
What a coincidence. We now have a health care plan like that.