Guest “Not even wrong!” by David Middleton
Offshore wind farm proposed for Gulf of Mexico near Galveston could power 2.3 million homes
Two proposed wind farms off the Texas and Louisiana coasts would join offshore oil drilling rigs in the gulf as the Biden administration tries to boost the country’s clean energy supply.BY MITCHELL FERMAN JULY 22, 2022
HOUSTON — The Gulf of Mexico’s first offshore wind farms will be developed off the coasts of Texas and Louisiana, the Biden administration announced Wednesday, and together they’re projected to produce enough energy to power around 3 million homes.
The wind farms likely will not be up and running for years, energy analysts and the state’s grid operator said, but the announcement from the U.S. Interior Department is the first step in ramping up offshore wind energy in the United States, which has lagged behind that of Europe and China. The only two operating offshore wind energy farms in the U.S. are off the coasts of Rhode Island and Virginia, which together produce 42 megawatts of electricity — enough to power fewer than 2,500 homes.
One of the new wind projects announced Wednesday will be developed 24 nautical miles off the coast of Galveston, covering a total of 546,645 acres — bigger than the city of Houston — with the potential to power 2.3 million homes, according to the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management. The other project will be developed near Port Arthur, about 56 nautical miles off the coast of Lake Charles, Louisiana, covering 188,023 acres with the potential to power 799,000 homes.
[…]
Texas Tribune
The reporting of this story is so bad that it’s not even wrong! No Gulf of Mexico (GOM) offshore wind farms or actual projects have been announced by anybody. The Department of the Interior announced that it was beginning the process of identifying leasing areas in the GOM, most suitable for the development of offshore wind resources. They will then hold lease sales in those areas. After which the high bidders (if there are any) will begin the process of designing, permitting and building offshore wind farms.
Department of the Interior Announces Next Steps for Offshore Wind Energy in Gulf of Mexico
7/20/2022
Date: Wednesday, July 20, 2022
Contact: Interior_Press@ios.doi.govNEW ORLEANS — In response to the President’s call to advance offshore wind development and accelerate the transition to a clean energy economy, the Department of the Interior today announced next steps to bring the opportunity of offshore wind energy to the Gulf of Mexico.
The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) works under its renewable energy competitive leasing process to identify the offshore locations that appear most suitable for development, taking into consideration potential impacts to resources and ocean users. BOEM is seeking public input on the identification of two potential wind energy areas (WEAs) in the Gulf of Mexico (GOM) Outer Continental Shelf (OCS).
“President Biden has called on us to address the climate crisis and Interior is taking that challenge to heart. The promise of renewable energy is undeniable, as is the momentum for a clean energy transition,” said Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland. “Today’s announcement in the Gulf of Mexico is one of many commitments we are making to spur innovation, create good-paying jobs, and collaborate with states, Tribes and communities to ensure that we are doing everything we can to care for our Earth.”
Over the past year, the Biden-Harris administration has launched the American offshore wind industry by approving and celebrating the groundbreaking of the nation’s first two commercial-scale, offshore wind projects in federal waters. By 2025, the Interior Department plans to potentially hold up to five additional offshore lease sales and complete the review of at least 16 plans to construct and operate commercial, offshore wind energy facilities, which would represent more than 22 gigawatts of clean energy for the nation.
“BOEM used the most current scientific data to analyze 30 million acres in the Call Area to find the best spaces for wind energy development. We are invested in working in partnership with states and communities to find areas that avoid or minimize conflicts with other ocean uses and marine life in the Gulf of Mexico,” said BOEM Director Amanda Lefton. “We are committed to a transparent, inclusive and data-driven process that ensures all ocean users flourish in the Gulf.”
The first draft WEA is located approximately 24 nautical miles (nm) off the coast of Galveston, TX. The area for review totals 546,645 acres and has the potential to power 2.3 million homes with clean wind energy. The second draft WEA is located approximately 56 nm off the coast of Lake Charles, LA. The area for review totals 188,023 acres and has the potential to power 799,000 homes.
The two draft WEAs represent a subset of the original 30-million acre Gulf of Mexico Call Area that the Department of the Interior announced for public comment in October 2021. The draft WEAs were reduced to avoid potential impacts on other ocean uses and resources, such as commercial and recreational fishing, maritime navigation, military activities, marine protected species, avian species, and existing infrastructure.
Public comments on the draft WEAs will be accepted for 30 days beginning July 20, 2022.
In addition to the draft WEAs, BOEM has prepared a draft environmental assessment (EA) covering the entire call area to consider the potential impacts from site characterization (e.g., marine mammal surveys) and site assessment (e.g., installation of meteorological buoys) activities expected to take place following lease issuance. The EA analysis will inform potential lease stipulations necessary to address identified environmental impacts associated with offshore wind leasing activities. Public comments on the draft EA will also be accepted for 30 days beginning July 20, 2022.
During the comment period, BOEM will hold two virtual public meetings where the public can learn more about the environmental review process. There will also be an opportunity for participants to ask questions and provide comments on the draft EA.
Information about how to register for the public meetings, and instructions for how to submit questions and comments can be on BOEM’s Gulf of Mexico Renewable Energy webpage.
###
U.S. Department of the Interior
How do journalists get this stupid?
One of the new wind projects announced Wednesday will be developed 24 nautical miles off the coast of Galveston, covering a total of 546,645 acres — bigger than the city of Houston — with the potential to power 2.3 million homes, according to the U.S. Interior Department’s Bureau of Ocean Energy Management.
Texas Tribune
The wind “project” covering 546,645 acres 24 NM offshore of Galveston is not a project. It’s the entire leasing area (Wind Energy Area, WEA) being proposed.
The first draft WEA is located approximately 24 nautical miles (nm) off the coast of Galveston, TX. The area for review totals 546,645 acres and has the potential to power 2.3 million homes with clean wind energy.
U.S. Department of the Interior
Assuming the entire WEA was leased and developed to the maximum density of wind turbines, all of these imaginary projects, combined, could have the potential to power 2.3 million homes, when the wind is blowing at the optimal speed.
While there seems to be some wind power potential in the GOM… It’s not outstanding.
Areas with annual average wind speeds of 7 meters per second (m/s) and greater at 90-m height are generally considered to be suitable for offshore development.
NREL
The average annual windspeed at 90-m in the proposed WEA’s is generally 7.5 to 8.0 m/s. Most of Texas’ wind power generation is located in West Texas, where the 90-m winds average 8.0 to >9.0 m/s. According to NREL’s current analysis, the GOM would seem to have wind power potential. Oddly enough, just a couple of years ago, the GOM was not considered to be a serious wind power candidate.
DECEMBER 3, 2021
The Gulf of Mexico is poised for a wind energy boom. ‘The only question is when.’This story by ESI Journalism Fellow Tristan Baurick was originally published in the Times-Picayune | New Orleans Advocate, where it appears with additional photos and resources.
[…]
The Gulf of Mexico has long seemed an unlikely candidate for offshore wind development. Its winds are relatively weak until they reach hurricane strength, at which point they could be overpowering. While wind energy developers have swarmed across the East Coast in recent years, the Gulf has been largely ignored.
That is, until now. A recent federal study has recast the Gulf as a potential wind powerhouse. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory determined the Gulf has the potential to generate almost 510,000 megawatts of offshore wind energy per year. That’s twice the current energy needs of all five Gulf states, and larger than the potential offshore wind capacity of the Pacific Coast and Great Lakes combined.
In June, the U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, the federal agency that oversees offshore oil, gas and wind permitting, initiated a process that will open the Gulf to wind lease sales by 2025. Offshore wind companies from Singapore, Germany and Portugal and large oil companies such as Shell are already showing interest in building turbines off the Louisiana and Texas coasts.
[…]
The Gulf makes up for its relatively weak winds with other attributes. Its shallow waters reduce the need for tall, expensive turbines, and its warm temperatures and smaller wave heights are expected to make construction and maintenance relatively easy and inexpensive, according to the study.
What truly sets the Gulf apart is its primed and ready workforce. Many of the skills needed in the offshore oil and gas industry are directly transferable to building and servicing wind farms.
“We have the most attractive full scope of abilities for offshore wind in the world,” Martin said. “It’s part of the DNA here to work offshore.”
Louisiana companies rooted in the oil and gas industry helped build the U.S.’s first offshore wind farm, a five-turbine pilot project that began operating off the coast of Rhode Island in 2016. The Block Island Wind Farm enlisted steel fabricators in Houma, ship operators from Galliano and engineers from Mandeville.
As the state’s oil and gas sector shrinks, many more companies that serviced oil rigs could find work in the offshore wind industry.
[…]
Hurricanes and birds
Offshore wind in the Gulf isn’t without challenges.
“The biggest question is hurricanes,” Celata said. The Gulf’s long and active hurricane season presents hazards unfamiliar to offshore wind developers in New England or the North Sea.
But with the fast pace of innovations in the industry, Celata is confident solutions are in the offing.
[…]
Engineers designed oil and gas structures that withstood Hurricane Katrina and other potent storms, so there’s no reason they can’t do the same for wind turbines, said Sara Ghazizadeh, of Keystone Engineering, the firm that designed the Block Island farm’s foundations.
“Hurricanes aren’t a challenge we can’t overcome,” she said. “By the time we need [turbines] in the Gulf, we’ll have it figured out.”
[…]
Birds are another big question. More than 2 billion birds cross the Gulf each year on a migratory pathway that follows the Mississippi River.
There’s no question some birds would be killed by spinning blades, said Erik Johnson, director of bird conservation science with the National Audubon Society’s Delta office covering Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. But climate change is harming far more birds than wind turbines ever will, he said.
“The bottom line is we have to get off oil and gas,” he said. Emissions from burning fossil fuels are at the heart of dramatic climate shifts that rob birds of habitat and harm their ability to breed, migrate and find food. “With more offshore wind, there will be a net benefit for birds.”
There are worse threats to birds. House cats, for example, are blamed for killing about 2.4 billion birds each year.
[…]
MIT Climate Portal
How many of the 2.4 billion birds allegedly killed by house cats were eagles, hawks, falcons or other large migratory birds? I’d bet that wind power has a far better kill ratio than house cats when it comes to birds of prey.
Growing interest
Despite the Gulf’s challenges, offshore wind developers are already circling the Gulf in search of opportunities.
Nine companies responded to the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s request for interest in possible wind energy leasing in the Gulf. Five are from Europe…
[…]
MIT Climate Portal
So… The GOM makes up for its relatively lackluster windspeeds with existing shore-based infrastructure and skilled manpower… We’ll figure out hurricanes later. All of nine companies responded to BOEM’s Request for Interest in Commercial Leasing for Wind Power Development on the Gulf of Mexico Outer Continental Shelf (OCS)… At least five of the companies were European… Making America Last Already (MALA)!
How big is 546,645 acres?
Here is a map of the two proposed WEA’s:
Here is a map of current oil & gas leases in the GOM:
Here are the WEA’s overlaid on the oil & gas lease map:
Is “the potential to power 2.3 million homes” bigger than an Olympic swimming pool?
The offshore Galveston WEA supposedly could power 2.3 million homes… It would have been more useful to state the capacity potential in Gigawatts (GW).
How much electricity does an American home use?
In 2020, the average annual electricity consumption for a U.S. residential utility customer was 10,715 kilowatthours (kWh), an average of about 893 kWh per month. Louisiana had the highest annual electricity consumption at 14,407 kWh per residential customer, and Hawaii had the lowest at 6,446 kWh per residential customer.
EIA
- 2,300,000 homes x 10,715 kWh/home = 24,644,500,000 kWh/yr = 24,644.5 GWh/yr
- 24,644,500,000 kWh/yr ÷ (24 hr/d x 365 d/yr) = 2,813,299 kW = 2,813.3 MW
Assuming a 40% capacity factor (probably optimistic), that works out to about 7 GW of installed capacity with a 546,645 acre footprint. ERCOT currently has about 92 GW of installed capacity, including 35.7 GW of seasonally problematic wind power. Power Magazine estimated that the two WEA’s, combined, could accommodate about twice that capacity.
Combined, the draft WEAs cover 734,668 acres, and BOEM suggests they have the potential to power 3.1 million homes. The Department of Interior (DOI) agency that manages development of U.S. Outer Continental Shelf energy and mineral resources did not provide a power capacity estimation. However, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) estimates that 1 MW of electricity can power about 200 Texas homes during periods of peak demand. While unconfirmed by BOEM, that suggests the draft WEAs could host a combined 15.5 GW of capacity.
Power Magazine
If I use the Department of Energy’s Offshore Wind Potential Tables, I get a maximum theoretical capacity of 11 GW in the offshore Galveston WEA. However, this is a gross installed capacity number. It doesn’t take into account “environmental or human use considerations.”
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory has produced these estimates of the gross (not reduced by environmental or human use considerations) offshore wind potential expressed in “installed capacity.” This is the potential megawatts (MW) of rated capacity that could be installed at offshore areas with mean annual wind speeds of 7 m/s and greater at a 90-m height, assuming 5 MW of installed capacity per square kilometer of water. The offshore wind potential tables present the resource broken down by annual wind speed, water depth, and distance from shore.
NREL
So… My 7 GW estimate appears to be reasonable, if not overly optimistic.
While 546,645 acres doesn’t seem very big compared to GOM oil & gas leases, it is very big for 7 or even 15 GW of installed capacity.
This report considers the various direct and indirect land requirements for coal, natural gas, nuclear, hydro, wind, and solar electricity generation in the United States in 2015. For each source, it approximates the land used during resource production, by energy plants, for transport and transmission, and to store waste materials. Both one-time and continuous land-use requirements are considered. Land is measured in acres and the final assessment is given in acres per megawatt.
Specifically, this report finds that coal, natural gas, and nuclear power all feature the smallest physical footprint of about 12 acres per megawatt produced. Solar and wind are much more land intensive technologies using 43.5 and 70.6 acres per megawatt, respectively. Hydroelectricity generated by large dams has a significantly larger footprint than any other generation technology using 315.2 acres per megawatt.
While this report does not attempt to comprehensively quantify land requirements across the entire production and distribution chain, it does cover major land components and offers a valuable starting point to further compare various energy sources and facilitates a deeper conversation surrounding the necessary trade-offs when crafting energy policy.
Stevens et al., 2017
Based on the electricity consumption of an average U.S. home, the offshore Galveston WEA would produce 2,813.3 MW from 546,645 acres.
- 546,645 acres ÷ 2,813.3 MW = 194 acres/MW
Even if my estimated 7 GW is too low… 15 GW would still be 90 acres per GW.
Currently active GOM federal oil & gas leases cover 10,352,543 acres. As of April 2022, the average daily production from GOM federal leases was 1.763 million barrels of oil per day (bbl/d) and 2.218 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day (Bcf/d). Let’s convert everything to Btu/d. Yes… I know it’s not a truly apples to apples comparison… But it will be as fun as unit conversions can get!
Offshore Galveston WEA
- 2,300,000 homes x 10,715 kWh/home = 24,644,500,000 kWh/yr
- 24,644,500,000 kWh/yr ÷ 365 d/yr = 67,519,178 kWh/d
- 67,519,178 kWh/d x 3,412 Btu/kWh = 230,384,888,301 Btu/d
Over 230 billion Btu per day! Wow!
- 230,384,888,301 Btu/d ÷ 546,645 acres = 421,452 Btu/ac*d
Over 400,000 Btu per acre each and every day!
Offshore Oil & Gas
- 1,763,000 bbl/d x 5,691,000 Btu/bbl = 10,033,233,000,000 Btu/d
- 2,218,000 mcf/d x 1,000,000 Btu/mcf = 2,218,000,000,000 Btu/d
Over 12 trillion Btu per day…
- 12,251,233,000,000 Btu/d ÷ 10,352,543 acres = 1,183,403 Btu/ac*d
Nearly 1.2 million Btu per acre per day. It’s actually a lot more than that, because only about 40% of the active leases are currently producing oil & gas and the actual surface footprints of the production facilities are a lot smaller than the leased acreage.
Even if I doubled my wind power output estimate, it would still be significantly less than energy oil & gas. And that’s comparing the speculative output of windfarms, that won’t be producing anything, for years, if ever, to actual energy production… Energy production that the current maladministration is doing everything in their power to destroy.
Yes… I do realize that a lot of energy is consumed in the process of converting fuels to electricity. Since, oil is primarily used for transportation and industrial purposes, direct comparisons with wind power are not particularly useful, except to make wind look puny. But, we can directly compare it to natural gas. It typically requires 7.40 cubic feet (scf) of natural gas to generate 1 kWh of electricity.
- 2,218,000 mcf/d x 1,000,000 Btu/mcf = 2,218,000,000,000 Btu/d
- 1,000,000 Btu/mcf –> 1,000 Btu/scf
- 1,000 Btu/scf ÷ 7.40 scf/kWh = 135 kWheq/mcf
Dividing the energy output of natural gas yields the energy equivalent of electricity generation.
- GOM Natural Gas: 2,218,000,000,000 Btu/d ÷ 7.40 ~ 299,729,729,730 Btu/d
- Offshore Galveston WEA: 230,384,888,301 Btu/d
- 299,729,729,730 Btu/d > 230,384,888,301 Btu/d
The numbers are closer than I thought they would be… But then there’s the cost. The levelized cost of electricity from offshore is more than three times that of natural gas combined cycle, Even if you assume the tax credits are free, it’s still more than double the cost.
$136.51/MWh is 13.651¢/kWh… That generation cost is higher than the average residential rate in Texas (13.15¢/kWh). Even if you deduct the tax credit from the cost, it’s still more than twice the cost of combined cycle natural gas, onshore wind and solar PV. It’s even more expensive than coal & nuclear, the most reliable and resilient generation sources. And don’t let the announcement of apparently affordable power purchase agreements fool you.
This report analyzes the power purchase agreements (PPAs) between Massachusetts electric
distribution companies (EDCs) and Vineyard Wind LLC filed on July 31, 2018. The analysis is
intended to derive insights for estimating cost of U.S. offshore wind systems and to inform
broader cost modeling activities. The documented first-year price for delivery of offshore wind
generation and renewable energy certificates under the Vineyard Wind/EDC PPA is
$74/megawatt-hour (MWh) (2022$) for facility 1 (400 megawatts [MW]) and $65/MWh (2023$)
for facility 2 (400 MW). This first-year PPA price, however, does not reflect the entire 20-year
PPA price schedule or the complete set of expected revenue sources and tax benefits available to the Vineyard Wind LLC project.[…]
An extensive accounting of the PPA price schedule and expected revenue sources inclusive of those that are exogenous to the reported PPA is conducted in this study to estimate the project’s levelized revenue of energy (LROE). This allows for a more equivalent comparison of the reported PPA pricing with bottom-up modeled (unsubsidized) levelized cost of energy (LCOE) estimates. The reader should note that this analysis solely reflects the opinions of the authors and was conducted independently of the ongoing evaluation by the Massachusetts Department of Energy Resources of the PPA between Vineyard Wind LLC and Massachusetts electric distribution companies as filed on July 31, 2018. The analysis and conclusions described herein do not reflect actual cost data, which are confidential to Vineyard Wind and its partners.
The total calculated LROE from the Vineyard LLC/EDC PPA is estimated to be $98/MWh (2018$). This LROE estimate for the first commercial-scale offshore wind project in the United States appears to be within the range of LROE estimated for offshore wind projects recently tendered in Northern Europe with a start of commercial operation by the early 2020s. This suggests that the expected cost and risk premium for the initial set of U.S. offshore wind projects might be less pronounced than anticipated by many industry observers and analysts.
[…]
Beiter et al., 2019
Now can someone explain to me why offshore wind should be in the GOM? Granted, the WEA’s are in areas where oil & gas production is mostly a thing of the past. It will be good for the workboat industry… But will more wind power be good for the Texas grid (ERCOT)? Particularly since it will cost far more than the seasonally reliable wind power we already have in the grid.
References
Beiter, Philipp, Paul Spitsen, Walter Musial, and Eric Lantz. 2019. The Vineyard Wind
Power Purchase Agreement: Insights for Estimating Costs of U.S. Offshore Wind Projects.
Golden, CO: National Renewable Energy Laboratory. NREL/TP-5000-72981.
https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy19osti/72981.pdf.
Stevens, Landon. Footprint of Energy: Land Use of U.S. Electricity Production. 2017. Strata Policy, Utah State University. Logan UT. 2017.
There is already too much wind on the Texas ERCOT system. Having a source that drops to 3% of rated capacity regularly is a definite downside for the grid reliability.
UK and Germany and Eire seem to mange fine.
Offshore wind availability is forecastable to above 90% probability a day ahead in the UK and other sources brought in as it falls off, switched off as it rises
…but what happens when the “other sources” are no longer available?
“Enquiring minds want to know.”
griff doesn’t do tough questions.
Griff doesn’t do any questions. He’s a one-shot drive-by then gone.
griff:
“UK and Germany and Eire seem to mange fine…”
WTF??
Are you insane ?
Have you checked British and EU electricity prices recently?
The there’s this little item:
Griff doesn’t pay his power bills; his parents do.
You waste so many people’s time griff, really you do.
Which other sources are these?
How much energy is wasted keeping them running?
Where on earth did you get this “above 90% probability a day ahead” accuracy of wind forecasting from? The Forbes and Zampelli paper challenges the accuracy of current day ahead forecasting and shows mean absolute errors are often in the range between 10 and 18%. Hardly “above 90% probability” is it.
…. and finally, “mange fine” ? I hope your information is more accurate than your spelling.
Mange, the parasitic skin disease that causes hair loss, skin damage, bleeding, and untreated may result in blindness and death. So, mange fine seems appropriate.
griff still believes that as long as the averages work out, everything is fine.
griff is still trying to claim that they are able to forecast winds, minute by minute 24 hours in advance.
Anything short of minute by minute is useless for forecasting how much power will be available.
“is forecastable to above 90% probability”
Anyone who has ever sailed in the LA-TX areas of the GOM knows that whenever you want to go somewhere there is either no wind and you drift about with your biggest genny slatting against the rigging or a thunderstorm crashes through and you hang on for dear life under a storm jib or bare poles. I guess that averages out to some velocity.
Griff,
I know you do not care. I do want it on record to illustrate how evil “your” “ideas” are because they are causing people to die, in real time.
If electricity is not available in the 99.95% range it puts it outside of the 2015 outage hours.This is approximately five hours per year on the top end.
Let me explain the down steam effects:
During the 2021 Texas power grid “collapse” I was working at the Proton Therapy Cancer treatment center on Royal Ln in Irving, TX. This facility houses a C230 cyclotron.
The RF system has a heat rejection of 300 kW/hr and beamline and main magnet 700 kW/hr. The main magnet requires about ~750A to generate its magnetic field. We would spend roughly two hours per attempt multiple times during the day when electricity returned to our grid. Several times we had gotten the system to operational status the grid operator shut the grid off. No patients could be treated. Proton therapy has to happen over a four day period or its efficacy is greatly reduced. Furthermore, the patients can only be administered a cumulative total of 2mR of activity. These treatment gaps caused several patients’ treatment plans to move from curative to pallative.
The 800-ft high wind turbines, at 25 miles offshore, will be highly visible, especially at night with the strobe lights
FORTY MILES, AS IN SCOTLAND AND DENMARK, WOULD BE REQUIRED
The LCOEs of wind and solar in Table 1b are total bull manure, because wind and solar cannot even exist on the grid without an adequate capacity, MW, of quick-responding power plants, such as CCGTs, to counteract the output variations of wind and solar, 24/7/365
More likely open cycle turbines, or CCGTs operated as open cycle. Actually obtaining the benefits of CCGT requires the unit to operate with fairly steady ouput. Big swings, as when compensating for wind power drops and jumps, leave the latter stages of a CCGT in the dust.
Supplementary firing to the CCGT heat recovery boiler will stabilize overall output of the CCGT.
The “swings” are not that great on a grid-wide basis, if annual wind percent is about 15% to 20%, as was determined from the Irish grid operating data BEFORE it had large capacity connections to the UK and France.
The CCGTs, instead of operating at about 50% on an annual basis, without wind, operated at about 41% on an annual basis, with that level of wind.
This is no longer the case, because of the increased connections, i.e., the “variations” are made to disappear in the noise of the data of the much larger UK and French grids..
The lie is kept alive wind and solar can exist if there are enough connections.
However, if 50% annual wind on the grid, all hell would break loose, because a very large capacity of CCGTs would be required to counteract output variations.
If CCGT plants, counteract the variable, intermittent wind and solar on the grid, they would operate at varying outputs (less efficient), and lower-than-normal outputs (less efficient), and have more-frequent start/stops (less efficient), similar to a car in urban traffic.
Less efficient means: 1) more Btu/kWh, 2) more CO2/kWh, and 3) more wear and tear/kWh
Gas turbine operation becomes unstable, and significantly less efficient, at about 40% of design capacity.
As a rule, operators avoid operating their plants below 50%.
Hence, the practical ramping range is from 50% to 100% of design capacity.
Birds getting chopped up is “a net benefit for birds.”. There you have it folks, and we should expand the “net benefit” to chopping up CAGW fanatics. I’m in. Good assembly of facts, David, as usual.
“There’s no question some birds would be killed by spinning blades, said Erik Johnson, director of bird conservation science with the National Audubon Society’s Delta office covering Louisiana, Mississippi and Arkansas. But climate change is harming far more birds than wind turbines ever will, he said.”
Where is data to support that statement? Climate change killing birds?
References?
He’s a climate scientist, he don’t need no stinkin data.
But he isn’t a climate scientist, is a bird conservationist, supposed to be focused on the welfare of the birds and even he has drunk so much brainwashing climate emergency Kool Ade that he readily those real birds under the bus (and into the blades) for the sake of imaginary risks to birds from slightly warmer temperatures over the next century, if that even happens.
It’s really mind-blowing how even hardcore traditional environmentalists and conservationists, who would normally oppose any human caused development for the sake of the biosphere, so easily ignore real environmental damage caused by so-called renewable energy sources.
He LIED!
Well if the turbines are properly sited, there won’t be.
which is perfectly possible
Which is it griff, are you going to build enough windmills to power a continent, or are you going to place off limits all the places needed by birds?
You can’t do both.
“Wind turbines are among the fastest-growing threats to our nation’s birds,” said Dr. Michael Hutchins” of ABC Birds.
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/30000-wind-turbines-located-in-critical-bird-habitats/?__twitter_impression=true
“But climate change is harming far more birds than wind turbines ever will, he said.”
Since when, in a court of law, is the excuse that “Well, other people were doing the same criminal act, only worse than me” ever accepted as a reason to dismiss culpability?
Birds always migrate to a more hospitable climate. Just like the snowbirds traveling to Florida.
Yeah, but you don’t have people randomly firing rockets into the air to hit a proportion of the jets carrying snowbirds.
Dead birds are almost never found near offshore wind farms. Meanwhile, he didn’t say birds were being killed by climate change, just harmed. And in lefty speak, even the most mild inconvenience is ‘harm’, so slight changes in temperature affect almost all birds, so there you go,
That’s one of the advantages of building offshore. The evidence sinks.
Yes, birds killed by an off-shore turbines drop into the water. They sink, float away or get eaten. No evidence is left to count.
They think painting 1 blade tip black will help, but by how much?
It’s not just a few when we build 25x more, build so big the birds can’t dodge, so many different migration paths, so many natural habitats we can’t avoid.
Keeping a grid matching demand doesn’t care for hourly average & far less about weekly/monthly/yearly averages. Every 10ms has to match demand otherwise inertia, battery or curtailment has to be enough to cover over/unders. Pumped hydro, BESS & other sources can help but can’t handle the amount of intermittents they want to build. The cost to have more capacity sit idle for longer periods increases as you increase solar+wind. 4hrs or even 72hrs don’t cover month to month and year to year variation of generation & demand.
I’ve yet to see some cost/benefit analyses that justify construction of FF facilities to duplicate unreliables output.
Your “slight changes in temperature affect almost all birds” needs some support.
Especially for the large “migratory” class of birds, highlighted by the Arctic Tern that travels from Greenland in the North to the Weddell Sea in the South and back every year . . . by far the longest migration known in the animal kingdom.
“At least 4,000 species of bird are regular migrants, about 40 percent of the total number of birds in the world.”
— source: https://www.audubon.org/news/9-awesome-facts-about-bird-migration
Then too, in the US alone the day time-versus-night time (diurnal) temperature variation can range from 4 °F up to as much as 45 °F; see the attached figure.
AFIK “almost all birds” are NOT affected by these relatively large changes in temperature . . . much higher in magnitude than the 2 °C change (per 100 years) that is so alarming to AGW/CAGW proponents.
Planned Poultryhood
Those wind turbines should improve fishing in the GOM. With all the bird meat providing the fish with a constant source of food, the fish population should boom.
Added benefits are that daily bird and bat cleanup teams are not required
The uneaten parts of the birds, such as feathers, will wash onto the beach, so some clean-up will be required
550,000 acres?
With a field that big, depending on the wind direction there will be significant wind shadowing for whatever wind mills are down wind.
You can also count on a decrease in the afternoon sea breezes. Tough luck for those who paid a premium price for shore line condos.
Wind ‘shadowing’, as you call it, is potentially a huge factor that will affect weather patterns worldwide. Studies of such impacts are in their infancy, but I will be on the lookout for what the research will show. I think results will astound many.
That is called anthropogenic climate change… that wind turbines cause. Hey, I am sounding the alarm!
Thank You, Bruce.
MIT Technology Review
‘Wide-scale US wind power could cause significant warming’https://www.technologyreview.com/2018/10/04/139905/wide-scale-us-wind-power-could-cause-significant-warming/
less air velocity … less evaporation … less evaporation … less rain.
What ‘endangered or threatened species’ depend on just the perfect amount of rain or ground saturation within 50 miles of the Gulf shore?
What food sources of ‘endangered or threatened species’ are impacted by a change in precipitation?
(Where Mr. regulator, in the environmental assessment, did the applicant include this analysis and data?)
Don’t worry Don. The NIMBYs will soon catch up with the big wind landscape destroyers. Ideology-driven people never give up.
There is a net sum of energy in wind. removing it without knowing what that does to the entire earth’s climate system which is global is criminal from a environmental point of view. It has not been proven safe, which is the new gold standard for green thinking.
If I am not mistaken, environmental effect from wind turbines on land-based wind turbines in Texas has already been noticed and studied.
Yeah, the shore-based picture of industrial windmills would incense most of the old-time environmental types I dealt with in planning and siting HV transmission lines. But ideology trumps practicality: The Left never sleeps.
Deb and Amanda are on the job! I’m sure all will go swimmingly.
They are only pretending to be journalists. Just like Messrs. Mann and Dessler are only pretending to be scientists.
Parroting the government does not require being smart. Ask any parrot.
Please don’t insult parrots by comparing their intelligence to that of politicians.
My neighbor’s Mynah Bird would say (in her voice) “come on in” to people coming to the screen door. Embarrassing at times, but she was well-built and it was entertaining to a young boy such as myself. It worked out pretty good a number of times.
I never cease to marvel how those who have no knowledge of any kind of engineering are always so confident that if only we try hard enough, engineers can overcome any challenge.
All we need is sufficient will and an unlimited bank account.
The Magic Battery will solve all problems…
And batteries can charge other batteries. Its a miracle.
And lifting concrete blocks up high and letting them down again.
And drowning everything in any available valley to make reservoirs for pumped storage.
So beautiful and climate friendly!
How many AA’s will that take?
42.
Like the Japanese engineer noted: “To an amateur, there are many possibilities. To a professional, there are only a few.”
A good example of such thinking here:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2022/07/28/britain-will-soon-have-glut-cheap-power-world-leading-batteries/
Magical thinking. Methinks they have seen too many Harry Potter movies. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoyed all the Potter movies; but then I also knew they were fiction.
That works for this engineer!
The EIA has, for years now, had on shore wind and CCGT at about parity (in the 2022 table, $40.23 versus $39.94. This is an outright lie, based on several EIA ‘errors’ like their calculation having both with 30 year capital lives—when wind is at best 20 while CCGT is at worst 40.
Some years ago I did a post over at Judith’s correcting all the obvious EIA ‘errors’, using the ERCOT grid for the actual versus EIA assumed (low) additional transmission cost. Still findable at Climate Etc searching ‘True cost of wind’. Turned out that correctly calculated, onshore wind is about 2.5x CCGT, NOT parity. And EIA says off shore wind is ‘only’ 3.4x on shore wind. That makes the off shore GoM wind potential misreported here ‘only’ 8.5x more expensive than CCGT.
There will be NO bids for these possible off shore GoM wind leases no matter what Biden and his carefully chosen fools think or do. That dog simply does not hunt.
Sure there will be lease takers….if they guarantee massive subsidies, tax breaks, which the citizens of TX will bear, no the citizens of the USA.
8.5x is very hard to paper over no matter how hard they might try.
Rud, you’ve worked for the government. You know they try harder.
How do your calculations from “some years ago” account for this: https://ycharts.com/indicators/henry_hub_natural_gas_spot_price ??
They don’t. But since fuel was the least of the three major LCOE factors (capital amortization, maintenance, ‘fuel’, it does not matter much. You should have read the EIA revised calculations before commenting.
Nice try. You fail. Read more, comment less is a hopeful suggestion.
“much” is such a precise term in an economic analysis LMAO
…
LCOE matters little if there is no natural gas (such as in Europe)
That can only happen in the USA by malignant action by politicians.
It only happened in Europe due to malignant action by politicians.
“LCOE matters little if there is no natural gas (such as in Europe)”
It is nice that you are seeing (a part of) the big picture.
What happens to LCOE when there is no energy produced because there is no wind & no natural gas backup?
The only reason why there is little natural gas in Europe is because the politicians want it that way,
But they screwed-up in not understanding the voter’s reaction to huge price increases and shivering in the dark. Again, the politicians didn’t think it through; they believed the unreliables smooth talking.
But if you insist, I could redo and post here based on EIA 2022 and current natgas prices. Would not change anything. What part of the originally posted 2022 EIA parity canard did you not originally understand? That part I would emphasize, referencing you.
How about spot prices for electricity? Unreliables are subsidized and forced upon consumers. The heavily distorted market then uses auctions and spot prices, instead of predictable stable prices.
Here is the lie that is at the heart of the entire “renewables” scam:
Emissions from burning fossil fuels are at the heart of dramatic climate shifts
Erik Johnson
Audubon Not for the Birds Society
“Dramatic Climate Shifts”!!! He actually believes that!
Canada is still cold.
Indonesia still has awesome coral reefs.
Colder Australia too, when they don’t pollute them.
Sahara is shrinking very slowly.
The world has gotten greener by 3-4% per decade.
What dramatic climate shifts?
Australia is showing the world a glimpse of an unsustainable future power grid.
The latest electricity market report for Q2 2022 is released today. It has alarming detail on the collapse of coal and substitution of gas that is subject to international price pressure.
AEMO QED highlights (at least) Eight Factors contributing to extreme price outcomes in Q2 2022 – WattClarity
When wind and solar get all the money and hype, it makes it difficult to maintain “dirty” coal generators. Until demonising of CO2 is dead and buried, there will not be a new coal fired power station in Australia. The east coast grid in Australia is on the brink and charge for so-called “renewable” energy is underpinning record inflation.
Texas should be watching the Australian experience with the greatest of interest. They are not far behind in destroying their reliable power grid.
Rick, when I was an electrical power engineering student it was pointed out that one of the advantages of FF generation was the fact that oil, gas and coal-fired generation could be readily switched between them, depending on market prices (fungibility). Taking away the oil and coal options leaves one subject to the whims of the gas market. Stupid.
People only need to look at their electricity bills and taxes to know adding wind and solar increase costs. Add that to reliability decreasing in direct proportion to the amount of renewables being added and you wonder how much it will take beyond the minuscule renewables installed today before they say enough is enough.
But those with short memories and low IQ believe that wall of incessant lies from government and greens that renewable power will bring down costs.
There will be new Woodward and Bernsteins. Massive government failures attract ambitious reporters.
Wind and solar are added to the bills, but rarely are they spelled out blatantly enough for the average consumer to realize it.
1) Does this area ever get longer lulls of low/no wind that last for several
days?
2) If we flew too low over saltwater, we had to get our plane washed.
How much damage does saltwater do to wind turbines & their platforms?
In looking at a US wind map @ 80m, it seems there are much better
spots for wind.
Yes, but at 24 miles: “Out of sight, out of mind.”
Your calculations have left out a very significant factor. When the oil/gas underneath an acre of land is depleted, that is it, you get no more. The energy from the wind over an acre of land will never deplete.
Do wind turbines exist in a magical area where they don’t wear out? I will
want to move there ASAP! Maybe they have unicorns there to ride, too!
You can repair and maintain a turbine. Can’t do that with a depleted oil well.
Prove that these costs and the cost of production and the ancillary costs of spinning back-up, etc. are outweighed by the value of the energy produced. Only then will you have succeeded in being persuasive.
1) We don’t know what the “average” is since we don’t have enough operational experience to provide an accurate answer.
.
2) Probably the same as for the maintenance of steam fired turbines, be them coal, gas or nuclear.
.
Nothing to prove to you….ERCOT has invested in the least expensive sources available. Follow the money.
Bad/incorrect information all.
Can’t see how it is just ignorance, have to put them down as lies.
And ERCOT doesn’t pay for reliability in its energy only market.
ERCOT, the state/market depends on the promise of higher prices to incentivize generation…. is that better, or worse, than a ‘pay for reserve’ scenario?
Have you ever seen the map that shows the ‘instantaneous’ (kind of a spot market) price on the ERCOT system, especially when the ‘margin’ starts to erode?
Worse. To explain that to you would require you to get multiple degrees and spend 30+ years in the wholesale market operations of electrical generation and transmission. It is not simple.
A number of us tried in the late 1970s and then again in 2000 to explain the intricacies to the CA PUC and CA Energy Commission, all to no avail. You see the results.
We’ve been building windmills for 40 to 50 years. We have lots of data.
Probably? Is that really the best you got?
Why not study the actual data that is available.
If you think there are no practical differences between a wind turbine and a steam turbine, you really should just be quite and learn from those who do.
The only thing wind turbines have in common with steam turbines is they both rotate. Everything else is different.
Many of Europe’s wind turbines are coming to the end of their operational life over the next few years, Some may be refurbished but the majority will need to be replaced. Typical turbine life is 20 years.
Less when subjected to constant salt water and occasional hurricanes.
Interesting: Wind construction has to ramp up to replace all existing FF and nuclear generation. Then it has to ramp up to cover unreliability (assuming batteries come online that need charging). Finally, it has to ramp up to replace retiring units. Good luck, future.
“2) Probably the same as for the maintenance of steam fired turbines, be them coal, gas or nuclear.”
No way. The turbines are very high in the air, making them dangerous and expensive to get to for maintenance, repair and replacement. They will never be maintained properly.
No money in such maintenance. Working or not the wind profiteers get paid.
Actually you may be able to by using enhanced recovery techniques that weren’t available when the wells were drilled. Few if any wells are of the Maxwell House “Good to the last drop” variety.
Enhanced recovery will delay the date the well is abandoned. It will still run dry.
But Chicago will eventually be under a mile of ice, so we should move out when we see a snowflake?
Many, many years in the future.
In the meantime wind is still a failure.
FF resources will not run out within any realistic planning period (especially coal and its derivatives). Nobody bets money on 50+ year planning horizons. And governments are notorious for picking losing technologies and, additionally, can’t respond to changing circumstances because of ossified politics. Get real: Communism’s failure is the perfect lesson in government planning.
Greg, your comments imply you have never been around large project planning and financing endeavors.
I’m guessing that you have never owned a car, or anything else. There is a limit to how many times something can be repaired. As time goes on, maintenance gets expensive, sometimes very expensive.
The problems of wind are so severe, that even when it works, it doesn’t.
You guess wrongly.
In that case, the conclusion remaining is that you are incredibly obtuse and completely immune to the real world.
And that, of course, is why Excel Energy abandoned a twenty year old wind farm not 15 miles from where I live.
i suppose they’re simply too lazy to rebuild them.
I used to have a car that was so unreliable and expensive to keep repairing that my friends told me I should take the radiator cap off, and drive another car under it.
What Bacon doesn’t seem to realize is that while the wind may keep blowing, that doesn’t mean that the energy is free. It costs a lot of money to manufacture, install, maintain, and eventually replace a turbine. If the amortization time is greater than the replacement time, then it either becomes a money loser, or too expensive to use compared to alternatives.
It seems that some people latch onto an idea and won’t let go of it even if shown that it not economically feasible.
In another post he made the claim that a wind turbine and a steam turbine should both last the same amount of time.
He has already demonstrated he know nothing about either.
Plus the original subsidies that attracted big buck guys like Warren Buffett run out, even with the best of Leftist governments. Spain alone should be cautionary tale enough.
Government fads are profitable while they last. But the people in the loop (like Pelosi’s husband) get out early. Regular investors and taxpayers are left holding the bag.
FJB and the rest of the Leftist crowd.
I see in the news regularly that a wind farm is being “repowered” after 15-20 years of operation. That means full replacement.
We use cheap coal, gas and oil until development and deployment of package nuclear plants. Grid-scale wind and solar are a dead end waste of resources. Since there is no climate emergency or crisis, we have plenty of time to develop and deploy nuclear without disrupting society.
“. . . until development and deployment of package nuclear plants.”
Are you referring, perhaps, to the small fission reactors carried aboard nuclear-powered submarines?
Such technology was first proven in the field on the USS Nautilus in 1955 . . . you know, more than 65 years ago.
Or are you referring to something more science-fictiony, like a home-generator-size nuclear plant to provide electricity? If so,why?
Ever heard of fracking?
And they will certainly have to, after hurricanes tear off all the blades.
We have enough gas left for several hundred years.
In several hundred years, wind mills will still not be reliable sources of power.
“In several hundred years” …. You can’t predict the next five.
Greg, why don’t you do all of us a favor & retire early from
trying to be a blog troll. You make griffo sound like a genius!
I’ll leave it to you to figure out why this comment is almost as stupid as your first one.
Hint: spending more than 5 minutes doing that is a waste of time! Move on to something else!
Then how can you advocate going to a new energy source for which you can’t even give us an estimated life-time? You have to have some confidence that individual turbines will last at least 20 or 30 years.
Most oil/gas companies strive to keep 20 to 30 years of proven reserves. Proven reserves are just a fraction of all oil/gas still left in the system.
Why don’t you give up trying to pretend you know what you are talking about.
You are playing with grown ups here and we are on to you.
What do we do when the wind doesn’t blow?
The wind is always blowing somewhere. That’s what transmission lines are for.
re: “That’s what transmission lines are for.”
Have you ever priced-out what those cost per mile? THEN there is the switch yard equipment each line terminates in – reclosers, SF6 breakers, transformers, CTs and PTs …
Most long distance transmission of electricity is DC, so include the cost and inefficiencies of the AC to DC and DC to AC equipment.
Do you understand the amount of copper and steel needed for a single transmission line?
A sphincter says what?
A sphincter says: “Please taper the end so I don’t slam shut.”
Transmission lines have losses that increase with distance, and the cost of towers, lines, and maintenance are proportional to the length of the lines. I get the impression that you don’t think with numbers very well. You are a hand waver.
Bwahahahahaahahahahaha, that’s funny. Hey all we need is vacuum pumps and extension cords.
The wind often doesn’t blow at all for huge fractions of the planet. How many thousands of miles of HVDC lines do you plan on laying down so that the wind in Australia is available in Europe? Did you remember to calculate in the losses involved in transporting electricity over those kinds of distances?
BTW, Rud did not include the cost of transmission lines in his comparison above.
What was it Mark Twain said about a fool opening his mouth in order to remove all doubt?
ROFL about the most stupid statement ever made … try working the cost of that :-).
Covering the land with transmission lines just to chase KWh’s here and there? Oh, that sounds environmentally friendly!
Better to drill an extra hole in the ground to bring up reliable energy, than go all stupid-Rube-Goldberg trying to make wind and solar work – you’re being scammed by Bid Wind and Solar Inc.
It doesn’t make sense to destroy the environment to save it!
Have you ever tried siting a transmission line, particularly in the east? Enviros, neighborhoods, and localites fight them tooth and nail. It’s not pretty or easy.
Been there, done that. Got the scars. Try being in a small town in Northern Idaho with only a walk-bridge between you and your escape vehicle with a “pitchfork and torch” type of crowd.
Holy jesus.
It’s official. You’ve officially entered “The Land of Magical Thinking™.”
No. It isn’t.
The following chart (chart 3) was included in this BBC report. Wind’s contribution to total electricity output (53,020 Megawatts) on 21 December 2010 was, according to the BBC, 0.04%. This insight is a useful answer to those who say “the wind is always blowing somewhere” in defence of wind-power. In Britain on very cold days it effectively is not. ***
(http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/electricitycosts2012.pdf at 15)
As for leaving out costs, you may want to consider the cost of battery
storage. In the first example, David Wojick said 200 GWhs of
storage was needed each GW continuous production- 8 days- for a 5-day
dark period for solar. This would cost $50B/GW just for battery storage.
(+$10B for the panels = $60B) It can’t be too much different for wind.
Gregory calculated the cost of replacing the 3k TWh produced annually
in the US by reliable 24/7 solar with solar & wind. His result was up
to 730 GWhs of backup, for each GW of continuous production- 30 days-
~3-4 times as much as David said for solar alone. The main reason it
was so high was seasonality which peaked in May/June- after winter,
which uses a lot of energy. Gregory also found storage costs dropped
dramatically as he KEPT more of the old reliables in the mix. The more
he kept, the less storage cost. This the 800-lb gorilla in the room
Greens, for very obvious reasons, never mention.
https://www.cfact.org/2022/06/16/breakthrough-in-u-s-grid-storage-estimating/
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/01/12/the-cost-of-net-zero-electrification-of-the-u-s-a-blog-post/
Don’t worry. The Leftist hand-wave “Demand Side Management” and nonexistent “Dispatchable Renewables” to get rid of all problems. The first screws consumers and the second relies on fairy dust. FJB and all Leftists.
What will happen to the climate and wind if all the potential wind were to be harnessed? Wind may be suitable as an ad hoc source of energy for small scale, but there are serious issues about trying to use it for everything.
Wind is in part generated by the temperature difference between the poles and the equator. Since CO2 is supposed to warm the poles faster than the equator, then according to the sacred models, the average amount of wind energy available should be dropping.
If we use all the oil and gas, we’ll burn coal. Simples.
And in a thousand years, when the coal starts running low, we can use nuclear.
And in a hundred thousand years if we start running low on radioactive elements to feed those reactors, maybe fusion will be ready.
Net-gain fusion will still be 20 years away 🙂
If that is the case, then why are many of the old original land based oil wells that were abandoned over a century ago in the USA filling up again?
Line for all the New Green Grifters forms to the Left. No surprise there.
*** Chapter 2
Incorporating the additional costs, and taking our two chosen Mott MacDonald cases as illustrations, the cost of onshore wind would become quite uneconomic and offshore wind even more absurdly expensive. Charts 4a and 4b show the effective generating costs including the additional costs. (p. 17) ***
Executive Summary (p. ii)
… Wind-power is therefore expensive (chapter 2)
and
ineffective in cutting CO2 emissions (chapter 3).
If it were not for the renewables targets set by the Renewables Directive, wind-power would not even be entertained as a cost-effective way of generating electricity and/or cutting emissions.
(http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/electricitycosts2012.pdf ; cited here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/01/10/theres-a-reason-the-modern-age-moved-on-from-windmills/)
And, no, wind tech has not advanced to coming even close to being cost-effective. Without taxpayer subsidies it is STILL negative ROI.
(See, e.g., … when ALL applicable wind-related costs are accurately calculated) wind energy is MUCH more expensive than any conventional source we have.
Source: “Twenty-Five Industrial Wind Energy Deceptions,” John Droz, Jr., September 4, 2018 https://www.masterresource.org/droz-john-awed/25-industrial-wind-energy-deceptions/ )
Dangit, David Middleton! You covered all of the holes in this scheme that I was going to comment on.
Thanks a lot (honest compliment) and thanks a lot (yeah, the sarcastic one).
I don’t know. Didn’t WUWT just have an article that talked about the problems with the undersea electric cables that would be required?
I think I wrote it… But it was about offshore Massachusetts.
The article was about zombie crabs and lobsters. It was electrifying!
Groan.
I am totally in favor of this projects concept. With one absolute provision. That it be funded entirely by private investment. No government sibsidies allowed. Go for it!
With a performance guarantee, william. Have them pay for any spinning reserve needed to meet their contracted output, say 40% or so of nameplate.
Nope, they must guarantee a dispatchable output and either build their own backup or contract with some provider for that backup, at whatever cost they can negotiate.
??? I thought that’s what I wrote.
Ah well. I’ll strive for greater clarity in my future comments.
I thought so, too. 🙂
How is climate change killing birds? Our birds have survived ice ages, the holocene optimum and other climate shocks that would make our current very slow warming nothing in comparison. Wind turbines over a major migratory pathway would kill millions of birds. This is absolute lunacy! These are supposed to “environmentalists” and they are OK with killing birds. Forget about the Cats. Cats are really bad too, so that makes it already to take more birds too? This biggest threat to birds and wildlife is green energy.
What about butterflies? Where are the environmental studies when you need one?
You have to pay close attention to the weasel phrasing. The statement was that climate change “harms” more birds than windmills ever will. Any change at all could be considered harm, so every single bird is effected by slight temperature fluctuations, while a limited number of birds will be killed by windmills.
Please visit the guy who feeds about 18 feral cats in my neighborhood (I have, to no avail). Complain to animal control, they trap the cats, neuter them and release them back into the neighborhood to join the newly born fertile batches. Our government inaction. FJB and all Leftists.
re: “The bottom line is we have to get off oil and gas,”
1) This is a mania.
2) It has gone too far already.
What you mean “we,” Whiteman.
I’m looking forward to the first major hurricane that hits the area to see how many of the wind mill survive
They’ll be designed to withstand hurricanes, if they’re built. Surviving hurricanes isn’t the tough part. Repairing damage and getting back on production is what’s difficult.
Actually a slow moving Cat 5 hurricane with the wind roaring at high speed along with the associated heavy rain would do incredible damage. These aren’t oil platforms, but basically a pole sticking in the air with huge blades that will present torque on the whole system. And this area has its fair share of these storms.
Wind driven rain into the generator section will be an issue along with the blades themselves. The wind farms off Europe experience heavy storms, but the energy is the square of the wind velocity and GOM hurricanes can be impressive. Camille had sustained winds of 190mph with higher gusts.
The designs of offshore wind and oil production platforms actually have a lot of similarities.
No doubt, there will be a lot of hurricane damage… But there will probably be few total losses.
When a GOM production platform gets totalled by a hurricane, it’s usually not because it was destroyed or damaged beyond repair. It’s usually because the remaining proved reserves are too small to justify the repair costs.
There’s a bounty of platform equipment rusting at the bottom of the gulf.
Not really. When a platform is abandoned, everything has to be removed from the seafloor within five years.
Some platforms have been “reefed,” but that requires more work than cutting it up for salvage and scrap.
Thankfully, wind energy maintenance crews will all be flying electric helicopters by the time this field gets built. LOL
They’ll get out there the same way we do… Crew/work boats and helicopters. It’ll be the same boat and helicopter companies that we use.
I’m using “we” collectively. With modern technology, I can “sit” wells on my PC and laptop.
I remember the days we transmitted wireline logs in real-time using VHF radio. What a difference 50 years make.
My first job out of U of M was as a engineer for Gulf States Utilities, Special Projects division. We had a small wind turbine on the beach at Sabine Pass, roughly halfway between Galveston and Lake Charles, only 25 Kilowatts. The best it ever did was 28% of nameplate. Good luck to them
Is there a wind turbine anywhere in the world that has produced its nameplate rating?
“Nameplate rating” is a total misnomer—the reality is the numbers only give maximum output levels needed for safety margins in system design. Completely disconnected with how much energy they might actually deliver.
It is going to be extremely hard to break ground offshore. Are they going to drill in the Gulf of Mexico? I thought that was outlawed by Biden on his first day by decree.
Perfectly OK to dig holes in the sea floor for Wind Power construction. It’s only bad when it’s for something useful like mineral extraction.
I’ve noticed that Leftist U.S. Administrations have problems with proofreading press releases. Come to think of it, our current President and Vice President have problems articulating coherent sentences. Ideology and dementia have consequences, much like elections.
Does the average 5 megawatt offshore wind turbine generate enough energy in one year to equal the energy required to manufacture, assemble, install, and bring it on line to the grid?
Don’t forget the energy used to acquire the energy needed for the above project.
But wait! Its worse! LCOE does not include the Full cost; missing are decommissioning and disposal costs.
Are funds going to be escrowed during the useful electricity-producing life of the turbine for use during decommissioning and disposal, kind of like as is done with nuclear?
The tired house cat rebuttal to wind turbines over bird kills just means we need laws to stop house cats being allowed to roam – which are and have been seriously considered in some countries. House cats are a disaster for wildlife.
When we are supposedly in an extinction crisis, how does citing one contributing factor to bird decline justify introducing yet another, even if it does obviously target birds higher up the pecking order.
What do those 2.3 million homes do when the a hurricane shuts down power for a week or so? How fast can damaged wind mills be replaced?
There have been long running bird/turbine studies in the area offshore between Norway and Denmark, a major migration route, which show that casualties are in the order of 1 in 230,000 – and that would be lower under modern planning standards.
In the UK offshore wind requires a 1 year independent bird survey and windfarms are rejected where there’s an impact on migrating, wintering or feeding birds.
but keep up the false narrative if it makes you happy…
Liar.
Link, please.
The only way to accurately count offshore wind bird deaths is to have high speed / high resolution cameras with IR capability recording each section of the blade path 24/7 for an entire year, or have a floating platform around the windmill large enough to to keep all mortally wounded birds out of the water (a radius at least twice the peak height of the blades). Neither method has ever been attempted, making the casualty studies entirely fictional.
DeepWater Wind offshore Block Island, founded by Enron Energy Services’ Chris Wissemann, consists of five WTGs commissioned in 2016, is mostly shut down. WTGs have stress fractures,
And, the public is left on the hook for 60% of the $350m cost for the WTG array, ($227m); and for $117m for subsea cables RI regulator has ordered developer (now Orsted), to redesign & reinstall. NGrid has announced they will charge ratepayers to address failed cables (by very costly subsea directional drilling). It’s important to note that developers have only 10% “skin in the game”, so risks, economic & environment, are shifted to the public.
BOEM’s reprehensible response to OSW tech failure, is to hit the gas. Cable failure, represents 80% of OSW insurance claims.
‘How do journalists get this stupid?’
Years of practice.
‘After which the high bidders (if there are any)’
That will depend of the amount of public cash they are given as otherwise it makes no economic sense.
“How do journalists get this stupid?” A quote from a famous football coach during a post game interview “If I ever need a brain transplant, I would ask for one from a reporter because I’d know that it has never been used”.
“How many of the 2.4 billion birds allegedly killed by house cats were eagles, hawks, falcons or other large migratory birds? I’d bet that wind power has a far better kill ratio than house cats when it comes to birds of prey”. The better question is how many house cats are killed by eagles, hawks, falcons, etc. My bet is on the birds, not the house cats. Just another example of the moronic arguments put up by true believers.
It would be more helpful to compare a 100 or 1000MW intermittent wind farm to a traditional 24/7/365 generator with all added costs of each included.
Intermittent generation should then have adjacent batteries or gas combustion turbines with on site fuel to bring it up to the full time traditional generator. The amount or backup capacity and energy for intermittent sources should be what matches similar size reliable/stable sources. The backup would be shown for the needs of regional transmission system and the local distribution. The backup required should also be shown on two locational and time scales for at least an expected momentary or hourly basis and the local-expected/forecasted maximum peak capacity needed.
All-in cost of transmission, generation, and distribution should be added each supply.
It can be a lot of forecasting and engineering details, but a more true comparison can be made…and simplified then for media, politicians and customers.
Just by example a load at the generator buss can be 0.4 % of the average load in the distribution system. But the distribution system at the customer buss will vary by many times the average.
Doesn’t the Texas electric grid have enough wind farm troubles?
Besides, we already know that political claims like “could power 2.3 million homes“, are based on optimistic us of nameplate capacity, not the actual outputs.
Of course, I’ve only fished in those areas off Galveston. My memory of the offshore wind is that it is highly variable.
Waterspouts and hurricane impacts are concerning.
No, Per MW.
Hurricanes? Don’t worry we can figure out what to do. If not we’ll just build new and charge that to the utility customers.
42MW is the “nameplate capacity”, not the actual amount of electricity produced in a reliable and dispatchable way.
Wikipedia pages for the Block Island Wind Farm (BIWF) and Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind(CVOW) pilot project :
URL 1 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_Island_Wind_Farm
URL 2 : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastal_Virginia_Offshore_Wind
After a few false starts my Internet search engine “coughed up” links to the EIA’s “plant level data” webpages (I used the “Net generation : … : wind : all primemovers : monthly (megawatthours)” datasets) :
URL 3 : https://www.eia.gov/opendata/v1/qb.php?category=2309273
URL 4 : https://www.eia.gov/opendata/v1/qb.php?category=4457290
NB : With my computer setup I can only “attach” one local image file per post, I’ll start with the monthly “generated GWh” one …
For comparison with the original “marketing blurb” in the Block Island wind farm’s Wikipedia page (which promised “Annual net output : 125 GW·h” …), a graph of “12-month (trailing) sums of actual electricity generation” …
And finally a graph of “capacity factors”.
PS : Anyone know if the “dip” in July and August last year was an “extreme weather anomaly” or deliberate “feathering / disconnections” for some obscure (COVID related ???) reason ?
Misaligned 12-month start point for CVOF, apologies.
Your cost table excluded “10% for the Big Guy”.