H/T to Charles the Moderator for updating my “No Schist Sherlock” image!
Guest “No Schist Sherlock” by David Middleton
First offshore wind auction in Gulf of Mexico attracts one winning bid
Lease sale results show meager interest in wind energy development in US GoM.
Aug. 29, 2023
Offshore staff
WASHINGTON, DC & NEW ORLEANS – The Biden administration’s first-ever auction of offshore wind development rights in the Gulf of Mexico ended with a single $5.6-million winning bid on Tuesday, reflecting meager demand for the clean energy source in a region known for its oil and gas production.
Germany’s RWE won rights to 102,480 acres (41,472 hectares) off Louisiana for $5.6 million…
[…]
The company said that the lease area has the potential to host up to 2 GW of new capacity…
[…]
RWE said the Louisiana lease was attractive because the state has strong existing coastal port and supply chain infrastructure and a goal to install 5 gigawatts of offshore wind capacity by 2035.
[…]
The Gulf’s lower wind speeds, soft soils and hurricanes are potential challenges to the industry. The Southeast also has low power prices that could make it harder for higher-cost offshore wind generation to compete for electricity contracts.
[…]
Offshore Magazine
Power Density: Offshore Wind Loses
The company said that the lease area has the potential to host up to 2 GW of new capacity…
2 GW on 102,480 acres… 51,240 acres per GW.
Entergy Louisiana’s Lake Charles Power Station is a 994 MW (~1 GW) combined-cycle power plant in Westlake, Calcasieu Parish, near Lake Charles. The power plant occupies an area of about 100 acres.
- Lake Charles Power Station: 100 acres per GW
- Lake Charles Offshore Wind: 51,240 acres per GW
Capacity Factor: Offshore Wind Loses
The Lake Charles Power Station is almost brand new. It went into operation in March 2020. It cost $872 million ($0.87/MW), including transmission and other related costs. Since entering service, it’s operational capacity factor has averaged 62% (30-40% during low demand periods and 75-85% during high demand periods).
The generic capacity factor for offshore wind is estimated to be 44%. Of course, this isn’t driven by demand. It’s literally driven by the wind. In the Gulf of Mexico there are generally two types of wind: 1) light breezes and 2) hurricanes. 44% might not be achievable in the Gulf.
Cost to Consumers: Offshore Wind SUCKS!
The total levelized cost (including subsidies) for offshore wind is estimated to be $105.38/MWh, almost triple that of natural gas combined cycle.
Since commencing operations in March 2020 the Lake Charles Power Station has generated 17,460,512 MWh (March 2020 through May 2023). After three years of service, the capital cost is already down to $50/MWh and it is expected to remain in operation for 27 more years. On the other hand, the levelized capital cost of an offshore wind farm is expected to be over $100/MWh… at the end of its anticipated 30-yr lifespan, assuming it averages a 44% capacity factor.
And people are surprised that the Gulf of Mexico wind power lease sale failed to generate much interest? I wasn’t surprised: The Texas Offshore Wind Fable.
Putting prayer wheels in the path of hurricanes is so very sensible. Almost as reasonable as offshore wind.
Almost as bad as putting solar panels where the sun don’t shine.
Brandon should put them where the sun don’t shine for sure
I wish they would put solar panels where the sub don’t shine
and the windmills
I know there isn’t much business for the company in Europe. Other EU companies are shutting down projects in New England – can’t get a good enough subsidy. I think US with Resident Joe in charge is where EU wind companies come to die.
Indeed. The biggest developer of US offshore projects is Ørsted and their stock just dropped 25% on bad news for those projects. Here’s hoping the offshore wind bubble bursts.
It will, they are engineeringly incompetent – without fossil fuels for their gearbox oils & greases etc, they wouldn’t even be made, never mind work
Lithuania has just held its first auction for offshore wind.
A Wind Europe press release notes
“this auction did not apply the right auction design. First of all the developers had to pay for the right to build the wind farm……….applying uncapped negative bidding leads to extra costs that need to be passed on to the supply chain and consumers who are already struggling”
“Additionally the Government had done no site or environmental surveys which will add about 2 years to the development timeline……..This reduced interest in the auction and only 2 parties bid”
‘Lithuania kicks off offshore wind with first 700MW auction’ 7th August 2023
https://windeurope.org/newsroom
And yet oil and gas leases don’t require any subsidies or pre-work by the government, I guess wind isn’t as great a resource as they make it out to be.
but..but.. Wokeachusetts has a nut zero by ’50 law. What’s it gonna do? Nobody wants wind mills on land and there are few new solar “farms” because the greens are now fighting them in the western part of the state where empty land is- mostly forest. The greens don’t want forests to be cut for solar. Since the state has encouraged tearing down fossil fuel power plants ASAP- I guess we may be the first state to return to the Paleolithic. The greens will love it!
Everyone in Massachusetts will be forced to become a hippie.
Karma!
All of the detriments true. And as the post demonstrates, almost all limited to the GOM.
https://usa.oceana.org/offshore-wind-state-state-analysis/#:~:text=Potential%20for%20offshore%20wind%20is,fossil%20fuel%20based%20electric%20generation.
But GOM operators should build Potemkin installs on their most Hardly Casts A Shadow platforms, now being skeleton crewed. It would be just one more scam to delay making good on their Trumpian YUGE asset retirement obligations, now bonded/lockboxed at pennies on the $.
I honestly have no idea what this post is saying.
It’s best to regard BigOilyBoob’s posts as a kind of Absurdist poetry.
The perfectly vague, all purpose diss. But if you’re referencing too much oilfield tech talk, got me there. Please point out anything specific that you need for me to clarify.
Instead of endeavoring to make yourself understandable, you are just going insult your audience for failing to pierce through your multiple layers of bafflegab.
I don’t understand how you think a straight forward declarative sentence is “vague”. Nor how you think it is a “diss”.
I did point out “specific” things in that I referenced the entire post.
I looked up “GOM” and it is an acronym for “get off me” or “Gambling Online Magazine” — this doesn’t help.
GOM = Gulf of Mexico
Thx David. Per my earlier post, guilty as charged of being jargony. Just aks.
A trait we share.
Ergo the label — Word Salad Bob.
For someone who claims to be part of the oil industry, it’s rather strange that boob doesn’t know that the drilling platforms go away after the drilling is done
Yes, if successful, to be replaced by the production platforms I’m talking about.
Next!
Generally it’s one production platform per field.
Even if “generally” true, and? There are many offshore drilling and production configurations. For example, you can MacGyver lots of production platforms to drill development wells (wells you didn’t envision earlier). Or sometimes you can even to set up a frac spread (you have to figure out deck loading, and they use barges in the Gulf of Mexico)). FPSO’s. TLP’s, jackups, subsea completions/tie backs. Too much tech talk? All you have to remember is that:
What term did we use before McGyver was on TV? Heath Robinson or Rube Goldberg?
We weren’t as prone to ‘verbing nouns’ — or, for that matter “nouning verbs.’ Nouns and verbs were generally used as intended.
If I understand bigoilbob correctly, there’s money to be made by the oil industry – they can collect government subsidies for putting pretend wind turbines on their production platforms.
Sorry, it was a sarcastic post. But if it could be sold, it would be. We once investigated turning an old California platform into a nudist colony to delay it’s asset retirement!
That would have been very interesting!
Story tip – YT video – CCS busted! (Thunderfoot) Carbon Capture: BUSTED!? – YouTube
I only saw the beginning, discussing direct air capture. Is that all being discussed? But no matter – I cant’ argue with any of it. I also can’t diss David Middleton’s employer for trying to exploit the bipartisan, borrow and spend, winner picking 45q program. The money’s out there. DM has essentially been reduced from open advocacy of CCS to defending it on this basis.
There just hasn’t been anything new to write. I’m an advocate for it because I think it’s the only way to defeat the “war on fossil fuels.” If we can become “carbon neutral” oil producers, climate change (as an issue) will become moot.
Over 100 Class VI permits have been submitted to the EPA… With a minimum 2-yr (more likely 4-6 yrs) turnaround time, it will be at least a few years before the first injection wells are drilled.
‘If we can become “carbon neutral” oil producers, climate change (as an issue) will become moot.’
Perhaps. But given the high energy requirements of sequestration, even the least vicious members of the blob’s crocodile float / bask will eventually come back to feed.
It would be heartening to see the industry put up a bigger fight based on the paucity of evidence that human-sourced CO2 emissions are harmful, but am mindful that the industry’s lawyers and p/r flaks run the show on this front. Unfortunately, the same thing could also be said for the ISOs (grid operators) on the electricity side.
It comes to the right conclusion on CCS for wrong reasons.
Correctly computed, the LCOE of CCGT is $58/MWh, that of onshore wind is $146/MWh, or about 2.5x. No less than the EIA says off shore wind is 3x on shore. So offshore wind in LA is about 7.5x the nearby new CCGT. No wonder only a foolish German company would place a bid for offshore wind locations.
That same Germany who are removing windmills to make way for a coal fired power station?!
The Lake Charles bid may be looking at supplying hydrogen to the onshore industrial complex.
“The U.S. Gulf Coast region, the nation’s primary offshore source of oil and gas, has cheap electricity and lacks state mandates for renewable energy procurement, making it an unlikely place to expand one of the most expensive forms of clean energy. That is why players in the nascent U.S. offshore wind industry are looking beyond the grid when the Biden administration holds the first-ever offshore wind auction in the Gulf of Mexico on Tuesday, eyeing the sale instead as a way to fuel a new green hydrogen supply chain for the region’s vast industrial corridor.”
“The Gulf Coast auction would be a break from previous federal offshore wind lease sales, held mainly in the Northeast, where developers have spent billions of dollars on acreage for projects meant to link into lucrative power markets and access state-level subsidies for carbon-free electricity. “When we get to the Gulf, (offshore wind) will start becoming much more disconnected from the grid,” said Cheryl Stahl, principal project manager at risk assessment firm DNV. “The Gulf gets to be sort of a breeding ground for innovative solutions.””
https://www.oedigital.com/news/507569-first-us-gulf-offshore-wind-auction-to-fuel-green-hydrogen-push?utm_source=AOGDigital-ENews-2023-08-28&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=OEGDigital-ENews
Hydrogen generation is very likely part of their motivation.
Hydrogen manufacture is very energy intensive, whether from natural gas or water – wind & solar power won’t mass produce hydrogen
I didn’t say it was a logical motivator… 😎
The Japanese have developed a means of generating hydrogen in large quantities. They call it “Red Hydrogen”. It uses a gas-cooled nuclear reactor to dissociate hydrogen from oxygen using the high temperatures of the reactor and a catalytic process to do so.
This is <a href=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH1DKzG7W_o>a video that explains the process.</a>
It seems the comment system wouldn’t let me edit my previous comment. It keeps complaining that I am commenting to quickly. The link to the aforementioned video is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oH1DKzG7W_o
It’s a software bug.
It appears that the editing function has been essentially disabled.
When will the green Nazis stop messing around with our language and stop thinking that nuclear power has the cooties?
Red hydrogen? Where’s the head-shaking emoji?
Hey, if it’s ok to turn water and wind electricity into dangerous and metal damaging H2 or into poisonous and toxic ammonia – why not combine carbon capture with h2 generation from wind turbines and just make CH4? Surprised Musk doesn’t have a wind turbine doing just that off Boco Chica to make rocket fuel.
Doesn’t make economic or real environmental sense, but it’s miles ahead of the other options.
“a catalytic process“?
The last time the Japanese generated hydrogen in one of their reactors, it blew up.
Green hydrogen? There is no such thing…burning H2 produces Enemy No. 1 – water vapor – GHG No. 1. Stop Water Vapor – Save the Planet!
This fuel to wind to hydrogen to H2O seems like a very complex Escher graphic. Step after step gets one nowhere.
The only hydrogen that makes sense, GHG wise, is H2O. OHO starts as water and ends as water so no increased GHG load from water vapor but is costly to split. However, the only economical Hydrogen comes already attached to a C and burns with no problem. It even produces that Plant Enhancing gas CO2 as a byproduct.
No – they are taking liquid water from the ocean, wasting a lot of energy to turn it into h2, which then leaks out of everywhere, rising high and turning into water vapour.
“is costly to split”…… because it ultimately requires minimg and manufacturing which is not 100% green. H2 is not available in usable quantity w/o a non green process to produce it….hence H2 is not green. H2O covers over 70% of earth’s surface….hence it cannot be reduced as a GHG…..and the Deniers or Ignorers of H2O remain silent. The Haters of GHG must Hate H2O….no getting AROUND IT.
However, the general movement of hydrogen will be towards energy consumers, which means cities. Thus, one can expect that the relative humidity and Heat Index will increase in cities.
Seeing as electrons are identical and the power industry makes no effort to track individual electrons, why can’t a power company say all electricity sold to subsidy states is “carbon-free”?
Offshore Wind Loses
Does it?
Wind turbines can breathe new life into our warming seas
According to our new research, one byproduct of deep-sea wind farming is that the foundations of these floating turbines could help reverse the damaging effects of climate change on such seas.
https://theconversation.com/wind-turbines-can-breathe-new-life-into-our-warming-seas-177873
“”Anthropogenic Mixing of Seasonally Stratified Shelf Seas by Offshore Wind Farm Infrastructure
1 INTRODUCTION
Renewable energy solutions, including offshore wind, are prerequisite for clean growth…””
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2112.12571.pdf
Well that was brief and to the point!!!
They said they’re neither for or against it but a tipping point could be reached with proper funding.
Pure junk. We are not warming the oceans. Also no present project uses floating wind. That technology is under speculative development. Think hurricanes.
The last two years, hurricanes have barrelled across the Gulf into Florida – now I’m no wind turbine structural specialist, but I would wager a sum that nature would win, leaving any wind farm in tatters
This has been going on for a long time. There are plenty of galleons and gold lost to the sea but that didn’t stop the Spanish.
The wind platforms will be just as sturdy as oil & gas platforms, which have been weathering hurricanes for decades. While platforms are frequently damaged, they are rarely destroyed.
They will have to shut down and feather or secure the turbine blades when hurricanes approach, but they should survive… unfortunately.
Oil platroerms do not have 500′ towers with 300′ blades all catching hurricane wind forces. The bending forces are astronomical at the base. These big turbine towers rest on huge 300′ long monopiles, hoping not to shift into a permanent and fatal lean. The soft sea floor soils are mentioned as a problem because they might not hold the monopile rigidly.
New artificial reefs 🙂
They should be designed to handle the extra speed, to make up for when it’s calm.
They should come with batteries or built with pumped hydro available on the same grid, by green freak engineers don’t think that far – no subsidies in it.
There is no way that the bearings could handle the extra speed. The only way with current technology is to shut them down and wait for it to pass.
In recent years, hurricanes have been making quite a mess of onshore wind mills as well.
Forget the Gulf, let’s put an offshore wind farm off Santa Barbara and one of Martha’s Vineyard instead.
Santa Barbara’s a bad site. But since most of the California platforms in the area are down for Plains All American letting their pipeline system corrode/erode out, maybe some of those Potemkin wind installations would help them delay their well plugs and subsea restorations. Hundreds of millions of $ of – freely assumed – spending obligations delayed, giving the players more time to dissolve and slip away….
“delay their well plugs and subsea restorations. ”
Sorry no time for real enviro problems, too busy dealing with climate boiling.
Hopefully a land slide or earthquake will close things up.
right off the shore of Obama’s palace on the Vineyard- I’m sure he won’t object 🙂
maybe another off the shore of Bill Gates palace in Washington state
Joey Biden should order a windmill on the White House grounds – immediately.
I’m surprised they haven’t already – there are thousands of useless small turbines at various public and commercial buildings, put in just to virtue signal – a climate berka or jilbob/veil.
Sticking a few around the White House would probably get the creep enough free pr from rabidly liberal media to get re-elected.
The Martha’s Vineyard project is pile driving as we speak. Just over the horizon.
Another Vineyard project is in financial trouble:
https://www.nbcboston.com/news/local/2nd-wind-developer-moves-to-terminate-its-contracts-off-marthas-vineyard/3124442/
Why do I see more dead whales in GoM’s future if the RWE project goes through? Dead eagles and other birds on land apparently isn’t good enough. Sigh.
If the infrasound from onshore turbines bothers humans, image what damage mega offshore units would do to whales and other sea creatures, especially with water being such a good sound conductor.
However, the dead birds will either sink or be scavenged by fish, so they won’t be visible. “Out of sight, out of mind.”
I’m all for it. More structures to attract tasty fish.
Truly that’s the only good thing – the turbines bases or anchoring moorings should give coral polyps something to attach to.
Boohooing the low&no Gulf bids:
https://www.oedigital.com/news/507656-us-offshore-wind-sector-faces-key-test-after-weak-gulf-auction?utm_source=AOGDigital-ENews-2023-08-31&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=OEGDigital-ENews
This bit is a hoot!
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/hist/n3045tx2a.htm
They really, honestly believe that we have to transition or we’re going to die.
Someone should get it through to them that transitioning is as useful as cutting your nuts off.
As numerous young men are learning from their oh-so-fashionable transformations.
“at the end of its anticipated 30-yr lifespan” 30 year life span LOL, no way that going to happen.
Yes, that seems a little optimistic.
No way an offshore wind farm stays in operation for 30 years. The O&M costs, as the table portrays, will eat the operator alive.
Another factor is obsolescence – what if in ten years 100MW turbines are available – it’s happened in Ireland at least, where still working small units were replaced with larger units to milk as much subsidy as possible.
Story tip
https://electroverse.info/what-they-wont-tell-you-co2-emissions-are-declining/
I’m not a geologist, but I think the caption should read “Schist Sherlock!” Or replace the rock picture with sandstone or granite.
The rock is gneiss.
Gneiss…
Schist…
Very gneiss.
Shouldn’t the schist be brown?
It can be…
It all depends on what
youthe earth ate… 😎I find it all very alluvial.
I hear the first American crew to return to the Moon is going to be made up of geologists. Not exactly sure how many, but more than one.
Story tip
The most ridiculous piece of horse schist ever uttered by Big Wind:
Oil and gas never have an energy payback
https://www.vestas.com/en/sustainability/environment/energy-payback
How stupid is that? Billybob Middleton must be a geologist with no experience in the power industry.
First off, the way I would judge the performance of Lake Charles Power Station is its availability to produce power when needed (AF). AF for nukes is 99% and would expect the same for a Entergy gas plant.
Second I would want to know if there is a use for the natural gas offset by wind and how well the gas plant load follows.
I like to camp on Crystal Beach, GOM, and taking the Galveston free ferry in a big motor home. The concept of power plant foot print is really stupid especially in the GOM.
Furthermore if you send much time in east Texas or Louisiana there is the 100% 24/365 intrusion of truck traffic serving the oil/gas. How big is that footprint.
Billybob Simpleton does not like people being against his industry. Working in the nuclear I understand having lost my job twice.
Maybe I will call him David Fonda Middleton.
Some valid points but reads too angry.
“The Gulf’s lower wind speeds, soft soils and hurricanes are potential challenges to the industry.”
Timing…
From table 1B, it is intersting, to me anyway, that biomass is the most expensive of all the dispatchable generators.
The availability factor for onshore wind is very high at 41%, barely below that of offshore? In the U.K. data gives onshore about 25% availability and average offshore around 36% (some are in the high 40% when new), but that factor decreases steadily as the generators age due to blade erosion.
In Texas, where we have world-class wind resources, there are days when wind turbines in West Texas operate at >70% of capacity. These days generally occur in spring and fall,when demand is lowest.
On hot summer afternoons and bitterly cold winter days and nights, wind turbines struggle to generate 15% of capacity. This is when natural gas has to ramp up to >85% and the media blame thermal power plants when ERCOT issues conservation alerts.
Over the years wind has averaged out to a bit over 40%.
I lived in Houston a number of years ago and had Reliant. I looked on their website at pricing programs and found a program based on Henry Hub gas price. I signed up immediately and Henry Hub got so low I was amazed how low my kWh rate was. Reliant eventually unilaterally canceled the program.
Lived in New Orleans for a number of years.
Fished in the GOM every chance I got. We even spent several days aboard small craft fishing as much as possible.
GOM winds frequently are less than zephyrs. That is, until the daily thunderstorms roll through.
After which, the wind dies back to less than zephyr status. Water surface is smooth as glass.
Sure, it gets windy sometimes, mostly when a front blows through. Other than that, it is windy when storms swing through.
Dingbat renewable energy grant and subsidy hunters want tp spend money on fragile devices that storms can destroy…
Plus, a lot of that GOM water surface they’re trying to sell leases for is deep water. 200 fathoms (1,200 feet) is not far from shore.
And the shallower land where water isn’t deep tend to be well covered by oil/gas platforms.
Sorry but off topic.
The climate alarmists engage in constant crackpottery but more reprehensible in my view when climate realists do the same.
A few months ago there was a post here and I have started to see the same argument in essence elsewhere claiming that average temperatures break some sort of logical law and are the same as averaging zip codes.
I propose a scenario that touches on this. Let’s say you are captain of an interstellar mission that is approaching a new solar system. Your science officer informs you that three planets have been identified and thermal emissions measured for each as follows-
Planet 1 has effective black body temperature (average temperature) of 150 C
Planet 2 is at 15 C
Planet 3 is -150 C
You have to make course corrections now to intersect one of these and are running low on fuel. Would you say-
A) Average temperatures have no meaning so let’s flip coins to determine where to go.
B) Let’s go to 2 because the average surface temperature is attractive.
Of course average temperature has some meaning because it is the effective temperature that determines thermal emissions to the CMB when measured from far away. This is in no way analogous to averaging zip codes.
Completely different question if we are determining this effective temperature adequately with current observational programs.