Guest table-turning by David Middleton
I actually wrote the title to this thread before I looked up the facts…
Offshore Wind Power Is Crushing Carbon Capture Dreams
Tina Casey
OCT 17, 2019Fossil fuel stakeholders are leaning on carbon capture to keep coal and other fossil fuels relevant, but the technology has yet to prove itself commercially. Meanwhile, renewables are…
[blah, blah, blah]
Over four years later, the U.S. still has only one utility-scale carbon capture project in operation, located at the Petra Nova coal power plant in Texas.
[blah, blah, blah]
For some perspective on the opportunities for offshore wind growth in the U.S., consider that the nation’s first offshore wind farm, Block Island, began operations in 2016 in the waters of Rhode Island, with only five turbines and a combined capacity of 30 megawatts.
[blah, blah, blah]
Tina writes frequently for TriplePundit and other websites, with a focus on military, government and corporate sustainability, clean tech research and emerging energy technologies. She is a former Deputy Director of Public Affairs of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection, and author of books and articles on recycling and other conservation themes. She is currently Deputy Director of Public Information for the County of Union, New Jersey. Views expressed here are her own and do not necessarily reflect agency policy.
Triple Pundit
Ms. Casey has a BA in philosophy, is a career bureaucrat. and has held several part time jobs with enviro-nitwit websites. Hence, she’s an energy expert.
Whatever offshore wind power may or may not do in the future, is irrelevant to the fact that it’s currently only “crushing” the budgets of energy consumers.
Offshore Wind vs. Carbon Capture: Who’s Crushing Whom?
The US currently has one of each up and running. The energy math is decidedly one-sided.
Block Island Wind Farm
The Block Island Wind Farm generates much less energy than an average single Marcellus gas well.
In it’s first year of operation the Block Island Wind Farm managed a 39% capacity factor.
| MWh | 100% Output | Capacity Factor | |
| Dec-16 | 6,313 | 21,799 | 29% |
| Jan-17 | 8,898 | 21,799 | 41% |
| Feb-17 | 7,801 | 19,690 | 40% |
| Mar-17 | 10,514 | 21,799 | 48% |
| Apr-17 | 6,904 | 21,096 | 33% |
| May-17 | 9,162 | 21,799 | 42% |
| Jun-17 | 9,932 | 21,096 | 47% |
| Jul-17 | 6,724 | 21,799 | 31% |
| Aug-17 | 5,712 | 21,799 | 26% |
| Sep-17 | 5,698 | 21,096 | 27% |
| Oct-17 | 10,195 | 21,799 | 47% |
| Nov-17 | 10,985 | 21,096 | 52% |
| 1-yr Total | 98,838 | 256,668 | 39% |
That’s an average daily rate of 271 MWh/d… That’s 924 million British Thermal Units per day (mmBtu/d).
In light of the journalistic malpractice of assuming that wind and fossil fuels are both interchangeable and mutually incompatible:
- A typical Marcellus natural gas well produces 5,000 mmBtu/d.
- A typical deepwater oil well in the Gulf of Mexico produces 5,000 bbl/d, nearly 30,000 mmBtu/d.
- The Block Island Wind Farm produces 924 mmBtu/d.
Whats that? It’s unfair to directly compare wellhead natural gas production to electricity output from a power plant… OK…
| Natural Gas | Btu/kWh | 7,870 |
| Well Production | Btu/d | 5,000,000,000 |
| Electricity Ouput | kWh/d | 635,324 |
| Electricity Ouput | MWh/d | 635 |
| Electricity Output | Block Islands worth | 2.3 |
A single typical Marcellus gas well yields 2.3 Block Islands worth of electricity-equivalent energy per day.
Petra Nova
Billion Dollar Petra Nova Coal Carbon Capture Project a Financial Success But Unclear If It Can Be Replicated
NRG Energy and JX Nippon’s joint venture Petra Nova project, the world’s largest operating post-combustion carbon dioxide (CO2) capture system, is set to receive another big boost from ongoing bipartisan enthusiasm for “clean coal.” The U.S. budget bill passed by Congress in early February included the FUTURE Act (S.1535) that extends tax credits for carbon capture, utilization, and storage (CCUS) projects and raises the credit from $10 to $35 per ton used for enhanced oil recovery. This certainly raises the prospects for further investment in an expensive and nascent technology.
The Petra Nova system has been operating since January 2017 on the retrofitted coal-fired Unit #8 at W.A. Parish Generating Station southwest of Houston, Texas. The 610 MW unit produces about 25% of the plant’s total output and CO2 emissions. A portion of the emissions, equivalent to that of a 240 MW unit, are routed to the carbon capture system that cools the gas, binds the CO2 with a solvent, vents the remaining nitrogen gas, and then reheats the mixture to break the CO2 bonds. The CO2 is cooled and compressed to a supercritical liquid that then enters an 81-mile pipeline to the West Ranch Oil Field where it is pumped 5,000 feet underground into the Frio Formation and combines with the oil, lowering its density. Extracted oil is processed through a CO2 separator that returns the gas back to the formation. An industry rule of thumb estimates an extra two barrels of oil is extracted for every ton of CO2 injected, which has so far increased production from 300 barrels to more than 4,000 barrels per day and may reach as high as 15,000.
[…]
ScottMadden, Inc.
If carbon emissions truly were an existential threat, almost as severe as the economic threat of the Green New Deal Cultural Revolution, then we need to find a way to economically capture and sequester the maximum volume of carbon dioxide. And there is only one way to do this. Capture carbon emissions from coal and natural gas fired power plants and use it for enhanced recovery projects in old oil fields.
OCTOBER 31, 2017
Petra Nova is one of two carbon capture and sequestration power plants in the world
The Petra Nova facility, a coal-fired power plant located near Houston, Texas, is one of only two operating power plants with carbon capture and storage (CCS) in the world, and it is the only such facility in the United States. The 110 megawatt (MW) Boundary Dam plant in Saskatchewan, Canada, near the border with North Dakota, is the other electric utility facility using a CCS system.[…]
Petra Nova’s post-combustion CO2 capture system began operations in January 2017. The 240-megawatt (MW) carbon capture system that was added to Unit 8 (654 MW capacity) of the existing W.A. Parish pulverized coal-fired generating plant receives about 37% of Unit 8’s emissions, which are diverted through a flue gas slipstream. Petra Nova’s carbon-capture system is designed to capture about 90% of the carbon dioxide ( CO2) emitted from the flue gas slipstream, or about 33% of the total emissions from Unit 8. The post-combustion process is energy intensive and requires a dedicated natural gas unit to accommodate the energy requirements of the carbon-capture process.
The carbon dioxide captured by Petra Nova’s system is then used in enhanced oil recovery at nearby oil fields. Enhanced oil recovery involves injecting water, chemicals, or gases (such as carbon dioxide) into oil reservoirs to increase the ability of oil to flow to a well.
By comparison, Kemper had been designed to capture about 65% of the plant’s CO2 using a pre-combustion system. The capital costs associated with the Kemper project were initially estimated at $2.4 billion, or about $4,100 per kilowatt (kW), but cost overruns led to construction costs in excess of $7.5 billion (nearly $13,000/kW). Petra Nova CCS retrofit costs were reported to be $1 billion, or $4,200/kW, and the project was completed on budget and on time.
Principal contributor: Kenneth Dubin
US EIA
When the capital costs of the Kemper facility became untenable, it was replaced with natural gas-fired units. Had it been an offshore wind farm, it would have just been more heavily subsidized.
PetraNova “has so far increased production from 300 barrels to more than 4,000 barrels per day” in the West Ranch Oil Field “and may reach as high as 15,000” bbl/d. There’s at least one other similar project in the pipeline.
About a year after Petra Nova went into service, I downloaded some of the Texas Railroad Commission production data for one of the producing units in the West Ranch Oil Field.
The U.S. Department of Energy estimates that 85 billion barrels of oil could be recovered from old oil fields through CO2 EOR. While, for most fields, CO2 EOR is uneconomic with oil prices below $85/bbl, if a drastic reduction of CO2 was really a matter of urgency, a little bit of taxpayer money spent on subsidizing carbon capture storage and utilization (CCSU) would have a much greater impact on carbon emissions than all of the taxpayers’ money p!$$ed away on wind and solar boondoggles.
Regarding the future of crushing…
IEEFA August 23, 2019
Eastern U.S. states have plans for 19.3GW of offshore wind capacityStates along the U.S. East Coast are seeking to procure more than 19,300 MW of offshore wind capacity through 2035, according to an analysis from S&P Global Market Intelligence and S&P Global Platts.
Legislation, regulation and, now, approved power purchase agreements are encouraging the development of the new capacity, though only 30 MW of offshore wind resources are operating in the U.S. Grid operators may have to modify their procedures to accommodate the additional resources.
[…]
IEEFA
Assuming that the Petra Nova/West Ranch project reaches its planned goal of 16,000 bbl/d of enhanced crude oil production and assuming all 19.3 GW of offshore wind capacity are actually built and deliver a 40% capacity factor…
- 16,000 bbl/d = 92,800 mmBtu/d
- 19.3 GW @40% = 632,202 mmBtu/d
If all of the legislatively planned projects were built delivered a 40% capacity factor, all of the offshore wind power in the US would yield 7 times the energy as the only currently operating CCSU project in the US. Kind of difficult to view that as “crushing” anything. Particularly since about 350,000 bbl/d of current US oil production is from CO2 EOR. Most of the CO2 is from natural reservoirs. If that was converted to coal fired CCS power plant sources, the math would be a bit different.
- 350,000 bbl/d = 2,030,000 mmBtu/d
- 19.3 GW @40% = 632,202 mmBtu/d
“If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, we’d all get unicorn ponies for Christmas.” Ifs and buts can cut either way.
However, this is the current reality:
- 16,000 bbl/d = 92,800 mmBtu/d
- 30 MW @39% = 924 mmBtu/d
Can you say “crushing”?
“Group releasing Halloween video series on ‘debunked’ climate scares”
https://www.foxnews.com/media/heartland-halloween-video-climate-scares
“In the lead-up to Halloween, the right-leaning Heartland Institute is releasing a series of videos in order to challenge what it says are the “biggest phony climate scares meant to spook kids and adults, alike.””
Why try to capture carbon dioxide gas when it would be much easier to capture carbon in the form of the cellulose from agricultural stover? It’s solid, stable and we produce hundreds of millions of tons of it per year in the US alone.
Because carbon dioxide gas can be used for enhanced oil recovery and cellulose can’t be.
David Middleton October 22, 2019 at 10:58 am
Just a thought, but once oil is all gone can we pump the CO2 back out into green houses?
Or anything else for that matter
michael
We’d know where it is. But it might not still be CO2.
Don’t leave us hanging! What would the CO2 change into, oil? A non-fossil-fuel oil? 😄
Rock.
“leaning on carbon capture to keep coal and other fossil fuels relevant, but the technology has yet to prove itself ” !!!
When has “the technology” ever had to prove itself with green energy power schemes? Before the consumer ever gets his first bill at triple the rate for conventional power, he’s already been gouged through taxes for it. Green economics makes Al Capone’s economics for his “rate payers” seem charitably fair.
Our Carbon Capture Utilization System absorbs CO2 out of the atmosphere and returns to us O2. This happens before we remove over 90% of the CO2 out of the combusted coal exhaust. Our CCU process turns that captured CO2 into good paying full time jobs and money. Our CCU process requires no heat energy from the power plant, leaving the power plant to use that steam energy to make and sell electricity. Our process requires minimal electricity. Some people think our CCU process is too simple. https://youtu.be/RQRQ7S92_lo
This simple process is what keeps the cost of our CCU process low, and it’s great for the agriculture community.
Wait a minute, Dave. What about declines. I mean it really reinforces your arguments if you consider it. .
in the first year a marcellus gas well does 4.3 BCF which is 1300 GWh. Year 2 – 1.5 BCF (450 GWh). Year 3 through 10 I assume a total of 5.8 BCF (1.7 GWh).
That works out to a total of 3.6 GWh of electricity production in 10 years.
The data above shows about 100GWh for a wind turbine in a year or a thousand in a 10 year period.
THis is simplistic in its own way. but it shows the wind turbine doesn’t generate annual power production great than gas well even many many years into its life, if ever.
Furthermore, the average offshore wind development is $4.4mm per MW of capacity. so this Block Island project would be ~$100mm of capital invested to make its 1000 GWh in 10 years.
The Gas well costs $5mm. as in FIVE.
So the gas well ultimately generates almost 4x the power, with 95% lower capital costs.
Where the wind excels is in operating costs. They are effectively zero.
Good points. Any way you slice it, gas kicks @ur momisugly$$ and wind barely breaks even.
I think the operating and maintenance costs of offshore wind are a bit higher than onshore wind. The ocean is kind of rough on man-made structures.
Break like the wind!
I think you mean fuel costs. Surely operating costs covers operators’ salary, maintenance & repairs, all of which will be higher for the wind farm.
When the average single Marcellus gas well peters out, the off shore wind turbine will continue to produce. Tell us, does an average gas well produce gas for 20 years?
Ron M, Does it matter? If we drill 4 wells it still costs less than the one turbine, produces more energy, is more reliable, etc. And not a hazard to navigation, source of ocean pollution, …
Yep.
https://naturalgasnow.org/shale-gas-decline-curves-demystified/
And individual well performance is improving.
https://www.ourenergypolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Marcellus-Shale.pdf
While individual wells will decline very quickly, with their daily dropping below Block Island within about 4 years. On a cumulative basis, after 7 years, the typical Marcellus well will have produced nearly twice as much energy as Block Island.
However, that’s just one well. There are thousands of Marcellus wells and the average well will always be producing more energy than Block Island.
“There are thousands of Marcellus wells and the average well will always be producing more energy than Block Island.”
…
Apples v. Oranges. What is the average cumulative production over the lifetime of a well? How well does this compare with the 20+ life expectancy of the wind turbines. The problem that invalidates your comparison is that Marcellus well production doesn’t last for 20 years.
I think the concept you’re missing is that fracking a single well is much cheaper than a wind turbine, and that one can frack many wells for that cost, so that per unit of energy the CC and fracking win hands down.
https://geology.com/royalty/production-decline.shtml
Note x-axis is in months
From your link:
“This graph shows how the monthly royalty rate and daily natural gas production rate of a hypothetical gas well can decline during the first six years of production.”
An “hypothetical” gas well that “can” decline over time?
All shale plays suffer from the “Red Queen Syndrome” https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-10-10/u-dot-s-dot-shale-oil-boom-may-not-last-as-fracking-wells-lack-staying-power
Abject nonsense from Bloomberg. All oil wells exhibit decline curves, they pressure-deplete or water-out. Decline rates can only be alleviated by more drilling. This is the nature of all oil & gas reservoirs, both conventional and unconventional, it always has been and always will be. All oil & gas fields eventually deplete. This isn’t a new “discovery.”
“Shale” just brings the source rocks into play, vastly increasing the total recoverable resource.
Globally, we’ve only produced about 17% of the total technically recoverable oil resource. The point at which depletion can’t be offset by drilling (The Hubbert Peak) is farther out in the future than the point at which demand will peak.
Rates of decline in shale are highest in shale. So, drilling more wells is equivalent to erecting more wind turbines.
And?
“If carbon emissions truly were an existential threat, almost as severe as the economic threat of the Green New Deal Cultural Revolution,” is the key phrase in the article. “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride”
In this case, they would ride only to the Poorhouse. If we are really causing CO2
concentration to rise, it is greatly to the benefit of all plants and living creatures that consume them.
“……….though only 30 MW of offshore wind resources are operating in the U.S. Grid operators may have to modify their procedures to accommodate the additional resources.”
Yep just chuck 19GW nameplate of wind at the grid and modify a few procedures and their work is done. More rainbows and unicorns wishful thinking.
You claim that there are 7870 Btu/Kwh.
..
Wrong
..
It’s 3412 Btu/Kwh
..
https://www.rapidtables.com/convert/energy/kWh_to_BTU.html
https://www.eia.gov/electricity/annual/html/epa_08_01.html
3,412 Btu/kWh would actually double the electricity equivalent of a Marcellus well.
6,000,000 mmBtu/d @ur momisugly 7,870 Btu/kWh –> 762 MWh/d
6,000,000 mmBtu/d @ur momisugly 3,412 Btu/kWh –> 1,758 MWh/d
Your table is not applicable to Block Island. There is no natural gas on Block Island.
GOOD FRACKING GRIEF!!! This post has nothing to do with Block Island or any other specific location. It’s about the feeble energy production of offshore wind relative to fossil fuels.
Apples v oranges there Mr. Middleton
Your ignorance is only exceeded by your obtuseness.
Another reason your comparison of a Marcellus gas well to the Block Island wind farm is invalid is because the Block Island wind farm replaced diesel generated electricity. They did not get their power from natural gas. The conversion has saved the residents/customers on the island a significant amount of money.
Remote location power is one of the few applications for wind/solar make sense. Far away from pipelines or electrical power lines, intermittent eco energy sources can make sense, as long as they remembered to order the battery backup option!
Correct JimG, and there is no need for batteries on Block Island, because they have the diesel generators that the wind farm replaces for backup.
The comparison is of the energy production of Block Island Wind Farm and a typical Marcellus gas well. It has nothing to do with Block Island.
Do you have anything other than Red Herring fallacies?
Incorrect Middleton. Your BTU calculations neglect the energy required to move the natural gas to Block Island. So you either need a pipe, or an LNG terminal. The metric you need to use is $ per Kwh delivered to the customer’s premises, not BTU.
The post has nothing to do with Block Island or any other specific location. Learn how to read before making any more idiotic comments.
Your post is using the incorrect metric to compare a gas well output to the wind farm. The economics of location have everything to do with a valid comparison. Here is an example of what is done with natural gas when it is not located near Block Island:
Must have something to do with the cost/energy required to deliver it.
Perhaps if you had not started the article with a rebuttal of another author’s idiotic comparison of two completely unrelated things…
Try reading the post.
Already tried reading the post. I wish you had not dignified that nonsense with a response, let alone re-posting it to pick it apart.
“There is no thief like a bad book”. Except perhaps anyone using Other Peoples Money to capture CO2 without a market for it.
Articles like those, published on Real Clear Energy and other websites claiming to be energy-related news sources deserve to be harshly ridiculed.
“Articles like those, published on Real Clear Energy and other websites claiming to be energy-related news sources deserve to be harshly ridiculed.”
The article you referenced was a nutbar mishmash comparison of Apples to Orange Coloured Wallpaper. I wish I had never read it, or could now bleach it out of my mind, but now I’ve read it, twice in your post and once on another site. (it’s gone from ‘Real Clear Energy’, which I’d never heard of.
” Ørsted intends to lead by example. The company is rapidly shedding its coal portfolio and plans to be coal-free by 2023″
(Ok, so the company that’s building the 880 MW wind farm intends to just use the coal plants another four years, because there’s not enough power coming from the windmills, to build windmills, and that’s OK, because they’re windmills? Doesn’t sound like ‘Crushing’.)
It’s still on RCE. You have to access their archive for the date it was posted.
RCE carries a lot of good articles… But there’s usually more climate/renewables crackpot articles than actual energy articles.
Mr. Middleton, you are using the incorrect measure with regards to the energy produced by the Block Island wind farm. Instead of using Btus I suggest you use the price of a kilowatt-hour of power delivered to the customer that lives on Block Island.
..
https://www.blockislandtimes.com/article/island-operating-wind-farm-power/49352
..
Much better metric than Btus mostly because natural gas is not available on Block Island.
$/kWh isn’t a unit of energy. And this is not about Block Island. It’s about the capacity to produce energy.
Block Island Wind Farm has a 20-yr power purchase agreement that starts at $0.24/kWh (twice the national average residential rate) and escalates with inflation. Natural gas combined cycle power plants can deliver electricity to the grid for about $0.04/kWh ($41/MWh).
Again, your calculations don’t include delivery. Subsequently you make another invalid comparison, comparing “average” national grid costs to what customers on Block Island are paying. You should look at the before/after price of electricity on Block Island since the wind farm began operation. $/kwh delivered to the customer is the proper metric to use when comparing the Block Island wind farm to natural gas. If natural gas were less expensive, they would have replaced the diesel with natural gas.
This post has nothing to to with Block Island or any other specific location.
You are comparing the energy produced by a gas well to the wind farm on Block Island. Your calculations neglect the amount of energy required for delivery of the gas to Block Island.
This has nothing to do with Block Island.
The post is about the energy production of offshore wind relative to fossil fuels.
Repeating the same thing over and over doesn’t make your argument relevant. Keep in mind that the wind farm at Block Island is replacing fossil fuel (diesel) based on economics.
You’re not even in the same argument. You keep idiotically repeating the a straw man fallacy.
How about we talk about how much energy is required to move LNG to Hawaii, since like Block Island, they don’t have any natural gas out there?
The claim that your comparison metric is not valid and/or applicable is not a strawman argument. It’s a claim that invalidates all the work you put into this “puff piece.” Your problem is that you have put on blinders to the economics of gas versus wind. Beside the fact that your comparison does not account for the number of BTUs needed to move the gas to Block Island.
If so many readers of your post are not clear on the point you were trying to make, perhaps you did not clearly make it.
Obviously wind power can not provide all the heat currently used in the northern latitudes for residential, let alone commercial and industrial, nor can solar.
But so what? The Drake Landing Solar Community is a real place in Okotoks. They get almost all of a year’s heat from the sun. The houses hage no furnaces, but they all have one gas fireplace, and one electric, because this is Alberta.
With 95% of their heat coming from sunshine, they can afford 20x the price I can, for the tiny amount of gas they occasionally need.
If Boundary Dam is the best we can do with the current CCS technology and a couple billion $ of Sask tax and rate-payer money I’m getting the micro cogen unit the utility offers.
Only one reader was unclear..
This post isn’t about whether or not certain generating sources are better in specific locations. It was a rebuttal of the retarded article claiming that offshore wind was burying carbon capture in the US.
I don’t write for people who don’t read the post and just jump into the comments. I also have zero patience for people with diminished reading and math skills.
The problem with doing carbon capture is the same as with trying to feed your way out of a wolf pack. The more steak you show up with, the more wolves. The more one tries to placate the Warmist Cult, the higher the likelihood Americans will live in a third world country soon. Placating never works. Using the CO2 for oil recovery just substitutes kale for the steak and angers the wolf pack, turning it even more rabid.
cost overruns led to construction costs in excess of $7.5 billion (nearly $13,000/kW).
Großer Gott!
beng135, the wind farm off of Block Island cost $290 million.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_Island_Wind_Farm
https://s2.q4cdn.com/766046337/files/doc_financials/2018/q4/20181101-NFG-IR-Presentation-Q4-FY-18-FINAL.pdf
A typical Marcellus well generates almost twice as much energy in 10 years as the Block Island Wind Farm will generate in 20 years. And you could drill 65 Marcellus wells for $290 million.
Cost per mmBtu:
Block Island Wind Farm $84.99
Marcellus Well $0.74
Where are your cost calculations for transporting the Marcellus gas to Block Island?
PS, your cost for Marcellus gas doesn’t include the costs for the equipment needed to convert the gas to electricity on Block Island. Additionally you didn’t discount the inefficiency in converting a BTU of gas into a kwh of electricity. CCGT is efficient, but not 100%
I addressed this bit of mental retardation in the post.
I think you left some parts out, unless you’re just going to stick fire to the gas well to warm the immediate area. Something ain’t quite together in your figuring:
My gas bill shows the gas cost as $1.568 / GJ, which translates into 0.564 cents per KWH. Yet the cost of electricity on that bill (before transmission and other fees) of 6.8 cents per KWH is 12 TIMES the cost of the natural gas heat equivalent.
So I’m going to say that the average cost of turning processed gas into electricity might be 11 times the cost of the gas at the hub. Which value is probably higher than the value of the unprocessed gas at the wellhead, depending on the value of condensates and heavy ends, and the cost of processing and transportation.
The stuff that comes out of a wind turbine is already electricity, so maybe not SO much of an advantage if it’s already close-ish to market.
I addressed this in the post.
Ron Manley, bottom-line as a retired professional engineer at a public electric-utility, I can easily see that pin-wheels are ancient, obsolete, erratic, unreliable, low-intensity “energy sources” truly useful only in special circumstances. One such special circumstance (with supporting subsidies) may be Texas, which has favorable wind conditions, but most importantly a wealth of dependable FF electric sources nearby/interspaced in the regional grid that can handle/backup those erratic sources. Even in that favorable situation, they’ve prb’ly reached their percentage limit of erratic sources that the grid can tolerate.
Middleton, I suggest you use the Roscoe Wind Farm in Texas to compare wind to natural gas. You don’t have the transportation issues involved with Block Island.
Middleton, since you’re obsessed with off shore wind, how about you compare a natural gas well to the Hornsea One project in Britian?
Your reply is “utterly stupid” Picking the Block Island wind farm, as opposed to Hornsea is proof of your “cherry-pick.”
Once upon a time, Dave Middleton took a trip to Block Island. He carried with him charts and graphs comparing the Block Island wind farm to a typical Marcellus fracked gas well. He went there to convince the residents of Block Island how energy inefficient their off shore wind farm is. He approaches the typical Block Island resident, introduces himself, then begins his spiel about BTUs and KWhs. The Block Island resident tells Dave, “hold on a minute, let me show you something.” He comes back to the front door and shows Dave two electric bills. One is from a few years back when he was paying $0.49 per kwh. He then shows him last month’s bill at $0.25 per kwh. The Block Island resident says, “Mr. Middleton, I don’t care about BTUs, just look at these bills.”
(Your behavior over his post is becoming obsessive and personal, dial it down) SUNMOD
Oh, c’mon, that was funny.
If the post had been titled “CCS surpasses breakeven at EOR site” or “lean gas is SO cheap, it’s practically worthless” or “no opportunities for offshore wind in Saskatchewan” it might have been more obvious.
What’s the matter Middleton, you have to delete posts that show you in a bad light?
(You are under review, now in moderation) SUNMOD
What posts did I delete?
Offshore Wind Getting Crushed by Carbon Capture
David Middleton / 6 days ago October 22, 2019
https://youtu.be/WG7z3DTxx5E
https://www.google.com/search?q=harald+lesch+alpha+centauri+what+is+the+big+crunch&client=ms-android-huawei&authuser=1&prmd=inv&sxsrf=ACYBGNSYyOpakVtqUn0tt-eV-4BkJtX6Jg:1572312953875&lr=lang_en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXqN2YqsDlAhVBi8MKHaPoAegQuAF6BAgLEAI&biw=360&bih=518