By Steve Goreham
Several eastern US states are planning major investments in offshore wind. Wind turbines are touted as clean, green, and economically sound. But experience from around the world shows that offshore wind systems are both expensive and at high risk for early system degradation.
The governors of Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey, Maryland, and Virginia have signed executive orders or passed laws to procure offshore wind systems valued at billions of dollars. Officials are eager to win leadership in what is perceived to be a new growth industry. The US Department of Energy has funded over $200 million in offshore wind research since 2011.
Massachusetts Governor Charlie Baker signed a law in 2016 requiring utilities to purchase 1,600 megawatts of electricity from offshore wind systems over the next 10 years. The law requires that wind systems be “cost effective to electric ratepayers.” But history shows that costs are likely to be far above the New England wholesale market price of 5 cents per kilowatt-hour.
Massachusetts paid solar generators a subsidy of 25 cents per kilowatt-hour during the state’s solar build-out in 2013. Rhode Island’s Block Island wind system, the first offshore system in the United States, now receives over 27 cents per kW-hr, with an annual guaranteed rate increase of an additional 3.5 cents per kW-hr. New England residents must enjoy paying renewable generators more than six times the market price for electricity.
In May of last year, Maryland’s Public Service Commission (PSC) approved electricity-rate increases to fund two wind projects east of the Ocean City shoreline. Maryland’s residents will pay an additional $2 billion over 20 years in increased electricity rates to support the projects. The Maryland PSC claims the systems will create jobs and spur economic growth, but analysis shows that rate payers will pay $200,000 for each of the estimated 9,700 jobs created.
Also in 2017, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo announced approval of the South Fork Wind Farm off the coast of Long Island, stating “This project will not only provide a new reliable source of clean energy, but will also create high-paying jobs, continue our efforts to combat climate change and help preserve our environment for current and future generations of New Yorkers.”
But are offshore wind systems reliable? Ocean-located turbines face one of the harshest environments on Earth. Turbines are battered by wind and waves, struck by lightning, and need to endure salt spray that is very corrosive to man-made structures.
In February, it was reported that Danish wind operator Ørsted must repair more than 600 wind turbines due to early blade failure. The blades are to be disassembled and brought to shore for repair after only five years of operation, at a cost on the order of $100 million.
Then in March, it was announced that wind turbines at the 175-turbine London Array, the world’s largest offshore wind system, would also need major repairs after only five years of use. Few offshore systems have made it to the end their specified 25-year lifetimes without a major overhaul.
Wind turbines sited off the eastern US coast must survive brutal weather compared to offshore turbines in Europe. From March 1 to March 22 of this year, four powerful extratropical cyclones, called nor’easters, battered our east coast from Virginia to Maine. These storms produced ocean storm surges, large snowfalls, wind gusts of up to 100 miles per hour, and even 20 tornados.
Specifications call for wind systems to withstand gusts up to 156 miles per hour, but this isn’t good enough for some of our Atlantic hurricanes. Last September, hurricane Maria struck Puerto Rico with Category 4-strength winds and destroyed many of the wind turbines on the island.
Strong hurricanes occasionally collide with our eastern coastal states. The Great New England Hurricane of 1938 brought Category 3 winds to New York, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. The Great Atlantic Hurricane of 1944 delivered Category 2 winds along the coast from North Carolina to Maine. Hurricane Carol in 1954 and Hurricane Gloria in 1985 brought Category 3 winds to the shores of the wind system-promoting states.
Finally, the Norfolk and Long Island Hurricane of 1821 passed through most of the proposed wind turbine sites with up to Category 4 wind strength. The expensive wind systems planned by Atlantic States could all be destroyed by a single well-placed hurricane.
Offshore wind turbines are expensive, prone to early degradation, and in the case of the US East Coast, at risk in the path of strong hurricanes. State officials should reconsider their plans for offshore wind systems.
Originally published in The Daily Caller, republished here at the request of the author.
Steve Goreham is a speaker on the environment, business, and public policy and author of the book Outside the Green Box: Rethinking Sustainable Development.
The Obama legacy of economic and environmental stupidity continues….
Will Justin Tru-d’oh(!) try to picket these across Lake Winnipeg and Hudson Bay next?
E$xtensive damage to offshore turbines was dome by Hurrican Seenoevil in 2020. “The insurance bill makes this a very expensive hurricane’ Said Green E. B’Stard. “That’s the cost of global warming”.
State officials should reconsider their plans for offshore wind systems.
Politicians never reconsider their brilliant ideas. The cost is not on them it’s on the consumer
It’s not like they are going to be spending their own money.
yeah, it’s amazing what wasteful hair-brained ideas get the green light when its OPM that’s being spent.
The recent winter storm in New England showed that wind couldn’t be relied upon.
Wind output was down 12% from December’s output, during the period of the storm, as shown in this DOE chart.
Wind Power Fraud: Wind Industry’s Greatest ‘Capacity’ is for Total Delusion
https://stopthesethings.com/2018/05/16/wind-power-fraud-wind-industrys-greatest-capacity-is-for-total-delusion/
Many more stories under Wind Power Fraud at that site.
ES, no need to show it, thinking would have been enough.
It seems as though the swivel-eyed eco-loons will keep tilting at wind factories, in order that the subsidies can continue to be milked. The culprits ought to be tarred and feathered.
Are we still allowed to ride them out of town on a rail?
Musk’s evacu-tube – let alone his Boring Holes – seem not to have quite the same emotional impression!
Auto
Just saying, of course.
Elon is plainly a visionary in his milking of BIG subsidies.
But he allows Virtue-signalling greenie watermelons, even in ‘Sarf Lunnon’, to show they ‘Care’ – by driving a Tesla Wheeled Incendiary.
Auto
Well, the good news about Maryland windmills is that they will get blown down before the salt corrosion will cause them to be rebuilt or recycled – and all on the Federal Disaster dime. See, MD government is smarter than it seems having a built-in free repair/replace/upgrade path.
There was an old slogan in the early 80s that’s appropriate now: Maryland. Oh what a state I’m in!
and here we go again – windmills – paranoid brains at work.
They are a hasty, ill-conceived, poorly thought out panic response to what we all know is an entirely imaginary problem in the first place
(Air temp in my garden dropped to 1.2 degC at 05:00 this morning, soil temp was/is 14 degC. So where is this GHGE?)
Windmills = an engineering disaster. No engineer is his right mind would hang a huuuuuge vibrating & rotating weight off a single ended shaft. How many bearings support the crankshaft in my/yours/everyone’s Dirty Diesel? 2 for each cylinder.
Yet wind shear is constantly bending the shaft and wrecking the bearings
Windmills should have 2 legs supporting the shaft (bearing at each end) and the blades rotating between the legs.
Then they’re made from plastic resin. In a outdoor environment chock full of UV radiation. Madness
Is there really no way of engineering the things from metals?
Airplane designers manage somehow.
So we see that even normally clear headed and tell-it-as-it-is practical engineers on these things have been sent into Panic Mode.
Then they should *never* have been connected into a fixed voltage and fixed frequency grid. They should have their own mini-grid and be used to grind rocks (corn?) and compress gas. As happens to 30% of all electricity used in the UK. You do not need computer grade electric to crush rocks or drive compressors making liquid oxygen.
Get them to make Dry Ice and give it away at supermarkets. Folks could then have fridges/freezers (air-cons?) that are simply insulated boxes. Wouldn’t the ozone layer recover nicely then?
There goes yet another epic panic to another imaginary problem.
At what cost?
All down the line we see and get one panic response after another.
Is there anything on this Earth that we humans are now *not* scared sihtless of? Anything?
That’s the *really* scary thing – everybody seems to be frightened of everything, even the weather and each other
Dry ice? OH MY GOD!
Do you even know what dry ice is? It’s solid CO2!
First of all, we’re already doomed because the CFCs are so stable that they will last for millions of years catalyzing ozone depletion, and now you plan to emit gigatons of deadly carbon dioxide.
This kind of talk needs to be criminalized!
what is this CO2 you speak of..? alls I know is carbon is bad coz TheGore told me. I is educated scientist – I did the universities and got the degrees in sport science. You must be crazy person because u disagree with consensuses.
– Wingnut McLambchop
(\/sarc)
Off-Shore Wind-Turbines are certainly a leader in the competition for “Greatest Money Waster of the Year” After a few years the rusting hulks of the storm-destroyed towers will be seen, abandoned and polluting the Ocean.
But they will be good fishing spots. 🙂 Fish love our derelect misadventures, especially shipwrecks.
And some off-shore oil/gas structures, too, are [and will be] used as fishing grounds.
Excellent!
Auto
All great arguments but absolutely no cloud to change the set policies. And so we win on arguments but loose the war.
I thought it had become obvious from past experience that unreliables increase electricity costs, but I guess it’s not obvious to some people.
They have such high hopes and it will end badly.
Any requirement for de-commissioning plans?
Block Island agreed to the wind farm in order to get a connection to the mainland grid for the first time. Previously all power was on-island diesel, and not very reliable. The prospect of consistent power (and not necessarily wind power) was worth more to the residents than the blight of the wind farm, only visible to about one third of the island. Connection to the mainland, of course, was necessary to get wind generated power to the mainland grid. Block Islanders are probably counting on the grid connection outliving the wind farm by a century or more!
Exactly right. And who wants to bet that over the proposed lifetime of the project, the net effect will be current flowing TO Block Island?
Offshore windmills could certainly become a huge source of high tech jobs. Almost as productive as breaking windows to insure high employment for glaziers.
This bit always cracks me up: “Officials are eager to win leadership in what is perceived to be a new growth industry.” Ya kiddin me. That’s like Avis saying that they in a leadership position in the automotive industry. They are not, they are consumers which is true for wind farm operators.
Here is data which few know about the turbine projects that are planned off the MD and Delaware shores.
As many as 200 turbines are planned in three phases, a close as 12.5 miles from shore. 8MW turbines are over 700 feet tall, taller than the Washington Monument.
There has been no consideration of the potential negative impact on coastal tourism, the coastal economy, home values, rental rates, business, and the general beach environment.
The turbines will increase power bills by $177,000,000 per year, for the 20 year life of the project, or 3,5 billion in total.
The turbines will create 60 permanent jobs (not the 9,700 promised) at a cost of $3,500,000 annually for 20 years each.
The turbine companies will be paid 13.7 cents per kWh, which is 400% more than what residents now pay for energy generation from conventional sources.
And here is the kicker…..the consultant hired by the State of MD to review the proposals found there would be no regional environmental benefit to these projects, that CO2 emissions in the region will actually increase due to the wind projects since the wind power will replace low CO2 emitting natural gas fired energy.
This is an abomination that must be stopped. There are three ways to go, the Federal Level (coast guard concern for navigation safety, lots of shipping in this area, National Park Service, concern for viewshed of Assateague National Park), legal opposition (there are grounds) and push back by citizens who are largely un aware of what is about to happen to them or what the truth is about the poor economic/environmental benefits of these projects, they simply have been misled.
Those pictures of wind turbines so close to the ocean surface show shortsightedness. Don’t they know sea level is rising so fast that in just a few years the blades will be thrashing water? 🙂
Of course wind power would never survive without subsidies – it is a terrific waste of resources. However, I do question this from the article: “Few offshore systems have made it to the end their specified 25-year lifetimes without a major overhaul.”
I doubt there are any 25 year-old offshore systems in existence.
27 years: http://www.southbaltic-offshore.eu/regions-denmark.html
“In 2010, the Danish Megavind technology platform presented a new vision and strategy for offshore wind. The aim is to drive down the cost of energy from offshore wind farms, and for offshore wind power to become fully competitive with newly built coal-fired power by 2020. Three main achievements are needed between 2010 and 2020. Firstly, newly built offshore wind farms must be able to produce roughly 25% more electricity per installed MW. Secondly, the costs per installed MW must be reduced by approximately 40%. And thirdly, the cost of operation and maintenance per installed MW must be reduced by about 50%. Cost reductions at this scale are also considered necessary to maintain public and political support for large-scale implementation of offshore wind in Europe and globally. Ultimately, delivering the solutions will maintain Denmark as a globally leading hub in wind power.”
Anybody claiming wind power is currently competitive with fossil fuels is either ignorant or lying. The Danes were talking about a SIMULTANEOUS 25% increase in efficiency, a 40% capital cost reduction and a 50% reduction in O&M costs. Just to BECOME competitive!
But, even there have been NO offshore wind systems operating even 15-20 years, is not the statement true: “Few offshore wind systems have made it to their end of the specified 25 year lifetimes” ? 8<) /lawyer excuses.
How many endangered birds must this global warming hysteria kill?
Amongst all the negative articles here, WUWT, on wind energy in general and offshore wind energy in particular, we have this bit of reality from Berkeley Laboratories.
A new “holistic” analysis from Berkeley Lab details grid conditions under a high-renewable energy scenario. If Solar and Wind Hit 50% of Generation, US Wholesale Energy Prices Could Fall 25% or More, per the Berkeley Lab study. That’s approximately $17 per MWh below today’s pricing.
https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/energy-prices-if-wind-and-solar-hit-50-percent-of-generation#gs.1rzr6XA
So, who is right? The nay-sayers at WUWT, or the reality from those investors and policy-makers who make these things happen?
Every year that passes brings better and better economics for wind turbines. Land-based wind farms in the US are profitable without subsidies at $43 per MWh, and offshore in Taiwan was just announced at $100 per MWh, unsubsidized. Larger turbines mean fewer turbines so less costly maintenance, and much larger turbines are in the works. GE, for example, just announced a 12 MW turbine that is almost 50 percent larger in output than the largest thus far installed.
The cost reduction that onshore wind turbines demonstrated over the past 20 years will be repeated in the offshore arena. Nothing can compete with electricity from wind. So say many reputable outfits, such as Lazard (worldwide financial advisory and asset management services firm), in a study titled “Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy Analysis – Version 11.0”
https://www.lazard.com/media/450337/lazard-levelized-cost-of-energy-version-110.pdf
Lazard got a few things wrong in their analysis; mostly on nuclear power; see my comments on this at “Renewable Energy Better Than All Else – Unsubsidized”
http://sowellslawblog.blogspot.com/2017/11/renewable-energy-better-than-all-else.html
Another reputable firm, Morgan Stanley, also states that wind energy is the lowest-cost form of electricity production.
Everything looks rosy if you: 1) can drop load whenever you want; 2) don’t price in load-following services; 3) don’t price in frequency support; 4) don’t calculate costs net of subsidies; 5) etc.
In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they are not.
We have a highly publicised experiment here in Australia where South Australia, the state that has embraced wind, has consistently the highest spot price for power and, some say, the highest retail price in the world. OTOH Queensland which has no wind mills has the lowest in the four state grid. Qld has also consistently exported 1 GW in a 22 GW grid to the power starved south.
Tasmania which calls itself “the battery of Australia” because of it’s hydro generation is isolated a second time for months because of failure of the DCHV link. The more wind generation the more we depend on these transmission lines so they need to be duplicated. This cost should be accounted for when calculating levelised cost of generation. So too should the cost of spinning dispatchable reserve but they ain’t.
To watch our experiment in real time goto:
https://reneweconomy.com.au/nem-watch/
I forgot to mention that you can monitor spot price here:
https://aemo.com.au/Electricity/National-Electricity-Market-NEM/Data-dashboard
Why don’t we just apply the laws about investments and publicly traded group to state “investments”?
The promoters would have to provide honest and complete information.
Hell, ON-Shore wind systems on the Eastern seaboard of the US are expensive and high risk. A classic water pumping windmill in Florida gets shredded by even a category 1 hurricane and they’re 60x sturdier than large wind generators.
But warming and more energy in the atmosphere will make weather less extreme around green investments (sixth principle of postmo thermodynamic).