Update On Offshore Wind Projects Off The Mid-Atlantic and New England

From The MANHATTAN CONTRARIAN

Francis Menton

Offshore wind turbines — those are the magical solution to all our energy problems. The wind is clean and free. And way out in the ocean — where you can barely even see the towers — the wind blows steadily almost all the time. Just put up a few turbines to catch the breezes, and those evil fossil fuels will quickly be banished.

Anyway, that has been the talk for at least three decades. After 30 years of talk, the number of actual functioning wind turbines out in the Atlantic Ocean off the U.S. coast is now exactly seven: five off Block Island (part of Rhode Island), and two off Virginia. Those provide some tiny fraction of 1% of the electricity for the mid-Atlantic states and New England.

But the Biden Administration has much grander plans. According to this May 2021 piece from the Institute for Energy Research, Biden’s “net zero” plans include the construction of “some 30,000 megawatts of new offshore wind capacity by 2030, the equivalent of 1,000 Block Island projects.”

30,000 megawatts. Wow, that’s a lot. Or is it? According to the American Public Power Association, as of February 2023 the U.S. had some 1.3 million megawatts of electricity generation capacity. So the 30,000 MW of new offshore wind would be an increment of something between 2 and 3% to existing nameplate capacity. And since wind turbines only function about 30-40% of the time (optimistically) when averaged over the year, the 30,000 new MW of capacity of offshore wind would really be equivalent to at most 9-12,000 MW of dispatchable generation, so will at best add about 1% to existing capacity, and even that at random times that would require backup to assure reliability.

But is the 30,000 MW of new offshore wind capacity even real? Yes, big subsidy numbers got put into the fraudulently-named “Inflation Reduction Act” of 2022 for the purpose of getting the offshore wind projects built. Lots of offshore wind projects in the mid-Atlantic and New England areas then got put up for bid, and contracts for construction of the turbines were issued. Can we get an update on that? Is anything actually getting built?

For New York, it appears that both in the run-up to, and immediately after enactment of the IRA, the state put a collection of projects up for bid. The agency running this show has the lengthy acronym of NYSERDA (New York State Energy Research and Development Authority). At their website, NYSERDA reports on the status of their efforts. The plan is for some 9,000 MW of offshore wind for New York alone, of which some “4,300 megawatts are under active development.” Here is an excerpt from NYSERDA’s excited narrative on the status on how it’s going:

In July 2022, New York State launched its third competitive solicitation, ORECRFP22-1, to procure at least 2,000 additional megawatts of offshore wind energy for New Yorkers. This solicitation comes on the heels of a record-setting auction by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) for leases in the New York Bight in February 2022. . . . In the State’s second offshore wind procurement, NYSERDA selected two projects for contract negotiation: Empire Wind 2 and Beacon Wind of Equinor Wind US LLC. Together, these projects total nearly 2,500 megawatts, enough to power 1.3 million homes. . . . New York now has five offshore wind projects in active development – the largest offshore wind pipeline in the nation totaling more than 4,300 megawatts. . . .

Here from NYSERDA is a map of where all of these projects will supposedly be built:

The information on that web page was current as of about last March. But since then things have gone rapidly south. ReNews.biz has an update dated September 1:

The developers of four offshore wind farms in New York are seeking average price rises of almost 50% on their offtake agreements. . . . The projects involved are Orsted and Eversource’s 924MW Sunrise Wind project, along with Equinor and bp’s 816MW Empire Wind 1, 1260MW Empire Wind 2 and 1230MW Beacon Wind. Sunrise Wind previously agreed a price of $110.37 per MWh, and is now seeking a $139.99 price instead, a 27% increase, according to NYSERDA. Empire Wind 1 requested increasing its strike price from $118.38 to $159.64, a 35% increase, while Empire Wind 2 asked for its $107.50 original price to be increased to $177.84, a 66% increase. Meanwhile, Beacon Wind wants its $118.00 previously agreed price ramped up to $190.82, 62% more. The three Equinor and bp projects combined have an average price rise of 55%.

Add up the capacity figures there, and it looks like of the 4,300 MW that NYSERDA was bragging about, the developers of at least 3,300 MW are about to back out without massive price increases. By the way, natural gas plants can typically sell electricity to the grid at around $50/MWh, or $0.05/kWh. The prices being talked about here for the offshore wind are in the range of triple to quadruple, and that’s before getting to the costs of extra transmission, let alone energy storage to back up the intermittency.

And up the coast in New England, the exact same thing is happening even as we speak. Robert Bryce has an update on his Substack post from yesterday, October 4. The headline is “Wind Blows.” Here is the lede:

The only thing dumber than onshore wind energy is offshore wind energy. The good news for ratepayers, taxpayers, birds, bats, landscapes, viewsheds, and the critically endangered North Atlantic Right Whale, is that both sectors are getting hammered by market forces that make their projects uneconomic.

And then there is a litany of essentially all the developers paying massive cancellation fees to walk away from what seems like every existing contract for offshore wind development in New England:

On Monday, Avangrid, a subsidiary of the Spanish utility Iberdrola,  announced that it was abandoning the 804-megawatt Park City Wind project offshore Connecticut. . . . In August, Shell and Ocean Winds North America agreed to pay $60 million to cancel contracts to sell power to Massachusetts from the proposed 2,400-megawatt SouthCoast Wind project. In July, Avangrid agreed to pay $48 million to cancel its contract with Massachusetts to sell power from the proposed 1,200-megawatt Commonwealth Wind project. Also in July, Rhode Island Energy announced it was canceling a power purchase agreement with Ørsted and Eversource on the 884-megawatt Revolution Wind project. . . .

Will any of these wildly uneconomic offshore wind projects actually ever get built? Let’s hope not.

5 21 votes
Article Rating
32 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Tom Halla
October 6, 2023 6:20 pm

If one reads the Green Blob, all these problems are somehow the fault of the fossil fuel industry.
Just keep clapping, and Tinkerbell will live!

Rich Davis
Reply to  Tom Halla
October 7, 2023 6:31 am

Yeah, fossil fuel being too expensive is a big problem. You can’t build a multi-function bird shredder/whale killer without fossil fuels. But just wait until we outlaw fossil fuels! Then this problem goes away, right?

rhs
October 6, 2023 6:42 pm

How about this wind powered auction failure in Old England to match the problems in New England:
https://cleantechnica.com/2023/10/03/failure-of-wind-auctions-in-the-uk-a-lesson-for-the-global-offshore-wind-industry/amp/

Reply to  rhs
October 6, 2023 7:35 pm

Does not England have a long history of associations with their own fairies?

David Wojick
Reply to  rhs
October 7, 2023 7:55 am

Same “cost crisis” issue, as the U.K. bid limit was too low. As with the US we now see if the government will go high enough. Also in U.K. the developers were bidding low but not taking up the contract, selling high on open market instead. That loophole was closed on this no bid round and might be the biggest factor.

Reply to  David Wojick
October 7, 2023 4:59 pm

Also a factor: under AR5 there are no subsidies paid any time market prices go negative, which would have lined these wind farms up as first in line to curtail while others would get the full (and much higher) strike price, only offset by the negative price element that is not compensated under CFDs. That will take an increasingly large bite out of expected revenues.

mleskovarsocalrrcom
October 6, 2023 7:43 pm

If ‘they’ haven’t figured out the ROI for wind turbines by now they never will.

David Wojick
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
October 7, 2023 7:56 am

Potential ROI just changed dramatically with the new “cost crisis”.
See my https://www.cfact.org/2023/07/26/offshore-wind-has-a-cost-crisis/

Janice Moore
Reply to  mleskovarsocalrrcom
October 7, 2023 12:24 pm

Without taxpayers paying costs of production and maintenance, wind’s ROI is negative. So, just more negative, now.

John Hultquist
October 6, 2023 8:07 pm

“… agreed to pay $60 million to cancel contracts to sell power to Massachusetts …”

Where does the $60M go?
Let me guess. Not building a gas facility!
Perhaps housing and feeding some folks that recently crossed the southern border.

Reply to  John Hultquist
October 7, 2023 4:06 am

The $$$ will go to pay raises for state workers- who now are extremely over paid. Not all of course, but many.

David Wojick
Reply to  John Hultquist
October 7, 2023 8:02 am

It goes to the utilities that were party to the PPA. But we are talking billions so it is trivial. Before the cost crisis offshore wind cost about $4 billion per 1,000 MW to build and double that including financing. Now it looks more like $6 billion to build and $12 billion overall. $60 million is as nothing. Plus they will rebid at the crisis cost and if accepted get billions more, making the $60 million a great investment.

kvt1100
October 6, 2023 8:59 pm

So wind projects do make money, as long as they are canceled. Sounds like a win-win for everyone but the wind power companies.

David Wojick
Reply to  kvt1100
October 7, 2023 8:03 am

They will rebid the project at a much higher cost so only the present contract gets cancelled, not the project.

Bob
October 6, 2023 11:25 pm

Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Remove all wind and solar from the grid. We will have affordable, reliable energy on demand.

Dave Fair
October 7, 2023 12:01 am

I wonder when State and Federal politicians and Deep State agencies will step in and force increasingly higher-priced offshore energy costs onto taxpayers and ratepayers to subsidize these highly impractical methods to generate electricity. I understand backing out of current purchase price agreements is preliminary to demanding higher priced contracts. I assume regulatory agencies will force regional utilities to eat the increased costs.

Rich Davis
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2023 6:37 am

Of course they will. First drive up the cost of fossil fuels to $1000/barrel and then crow about how wind power is saving trillions.

David Wojick
Reply to  Dave Fair
October 7, 2023 8:05 am

Maybe, maybe not. That is the interesting issue at this point. We are looking at 50% increases.

October 7, 2023 1:51 am

Its really weird, this mania for wind. Electricity generation only accounts for about 25% of the emissions of the US. The UK is probably similar.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

Then, the US does about 5 billion tons a year of CO2 emissions out of a global total of 37+ billion. So its doing about 3% of global emissions from electricity generation. The UK the numbers will be vanishingly small. About 1.2% of global emissions, so about 0.3% of global emissions from its electricity generation.

And yet both countries political classes seem to think that if you can convert power generation to wind, this will somehow affect the global climate? Its completely baffling why anyone in the UK would think that, but the US is not that far different.

But, it gets worse. Even if you somehow thought that moving to wind would have any effect, none of the proposals for doing it ever take account of intermittency and the need for either storage or backup. The only plans appear to be just put in the wind and all will be well.

As to how much wind you would have to put in, even assuming you had the storage? Seems to be about 200GW for the UK, at present usage levels. This is about 8 times the peak usage. You can forget solar, as it delivers nothing from November through February. You have to have enough wind + storage to deliver during those peak usage months.

From Statista, US generation capacity was 1,177 gigawatts in 2021. Wind was about 9.5GW according to Department of Energy.

OK, suppose the 8 times ratio holds for the US. You’d have to have 9,416 GW of wind installed. Not to mention the storage.

Does anyone seriously think this is possible? Or affordable? And why would you do it anyway, if it will have no effect on global emissions?

Its completely mad.

corev
Reply to  michel
October 7, 2023 6:47 am

“Does anyone seriously think this is possible? Or affordable? …
Its completely mad.”

Affordable? How much electricity do they generate at night when the wind stops? How much backup is then needed? Ans. 100% of demand, and if battery are also backup 1200% + battery recharge.

Not possible nor affordable when backups are included.

Gasp! think of the children. /sarc

Dave Andrews
Reply to  michel
October 7, 2023 9:51 am

Michel, you need to talk to IRENA (the International Renewable Energy Agency).

In their latest ‘World Energy Transitions Outlook 2023’ they say to meet the 1.5 C target annual deployment of 1000 GW of unreliables is needed. In 2022 only 30 GW was added whilst global investment in FFs was twice that of unreliable energy.

You could get a nice trip to Abu Dhabi, UAE out of it. Wonder who thought of the irony associated with locating IRENA in an oil rich state? Oil production in UAE was c.2.3m barrels a day in Aug 2023 and 96% of UAE’s c.100 bn barrels of proven oil are in Abu Dhabi 🙂

auto
Reply to  michel
October 7, 2023 2:54 pm

michel,
If all these windmills are NOT being built – or not yet, at least – AND the energy they harness, between chopping up birds, is included in very Important National Energy Security Plans for, say, 2028, but won’t be procured – what are respective governments, system operators, utilities etc. doing about getting the energy we all need? If not Wind – from where?

Oh, and we’re all going electric – heating, transport, industry etc.

My concern is that the Arts Undergraduates are doing Nothing, except talking about insulation, and about ‘demand management’ – translated into English as ‘BLACKOUTS’.

And China is burning 12 million tonnes of coal today.
As every day.

And CO2 – to the nearest one tenth of one percent of the Earth’s atmosphere – is zero.

Auto

Reply to  auto
October 8, 2023 12:15 pm

Quite. And that leads me to the conclusion that in the UK case one of two things will happen.

The first is they will continue to quietly build gas generation without saying anything about it. Do that on a sufficient scale and you might be able to go to heat pumps and EVs. Very big social changes, but it might be possible.

The second is, try and move to heat pumps and EVs without building out gas. The result of this will be blackouts. No matter how much wind they install.

The basic numbers are very simple. There will be north of 100GW peak demand, in the winter, when solar delivers nothing. At the moment the UK has 28GW of wind, which delivers on average 7-8GW. But the variability is between 0.5GW or less and around 17GW. Tens of days of the year its under 0.5GW. For a couple of periods of a week or ten days its below 5GW.

Suppose they install 200GW of wind. Its not going to happen, but suppose it did. Their 200GW will deliver tens of days with less than 3.5GW. And a couple of periods of a week or ten days with below 35GW.

So its pretty much certain that at some points in the year they are going to be confronted with demand of 100GW and supply of under 35GW for a week or ten days. And several tens of days with demand of 100GW and supply of 3.5GW.

You are talking nationwide total blackouts and therefore very slow restarts. It won’t be just a day of blackout and then back to normal in the morning. It will be a phases restart taking at least a week, and it will be happening repeatedly.

Don’t believe me, believe what Butterworth, the CEO of National Gas said:

“If we hadn’t had gas in 2022, there were 260 days when we would have had rolling blackouts, and for 26 of those days we would have had a full blackout.”

But you don’t have a full blackout lasting only one day. It would be a total disaster.

The political class in the UK is however sufficiently obsessed with climate fantasies, and sufficiently innumerate to go for it.

Reply to  michel
October 8, 2023 12:20 pm

I should have added, even if they install 400GW of wind, it won’t materially change the situation. So you have demand of 100GW and supply of 7GW, instead of 3.5GW. Who cares? The grid falls over hard either case. OK, go for 800GW. Now you have demand of 100GW and supply of 15GW. The grid still falls over.

They are not going to be able to even meet current demand from wind in the winter, let alone increased demand from EVs and heat pumps.

corev
Reply to  michel
October 9, 2023 7:35 am

You can’t get there from using Wind & Solar. The build out is unaffordable to solve today’s non-existent electricity problem, but creating such a problem for the future.

Insane.

2hotel9
October 7, 2023 4:09 am

Still plenty of whales and dolphins for Democrats and their climatard minions to kill.

October 7, 2023 4:12 am

Since the oceans are boiling, according to Al Gore, we just need to send some of that boiling water onshore to power plants.

David Wojick
October 7, 2023 5:26 am

The question now is will the States and Utilities subject their citizens and businesses to these higher prices? They well might. China smiles.

John XB
October 7, 2023 6:01 am

It’s not MW that matters, it’s MWh, and these are shy little creatures when it comes to wind. They are most often observed at night when there’s nobody about.

October 7, 2023 8:10 am

Given this season’s spate of Atlantic hurricanes making landfall along the coastline of the northeast US, as far north as Maine, one can only wonder about the long-term (say 20-year) survival rate of offshore wind turbines.

Sure, the wind turbine manufacturers and construction firms can assert the individual wind turbines are designed to withstand winds of 160 mph or more (the lower range of a Category 5 hurricane), but we all know that such “design factors” often fail when confronted with in situ reality.

Janice Moore
Reply to  ToldYouSo
October 7, 2023 12:32 pm

Moreover, a wind turbine is shut down if winds exceed around 45 mph.

October 7, 2023 1:32 pm

IRENA, a European Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renewables-proponent-ignores-the-actual-cost

EXCERPT

Recently, no bidders turned up for a new floating offshore wind project off the coast of Scotland.
The Pro-Wind bureaucrats and Media in the poor state of Maine should pay attention
 
The bids were made under ‘contracts for Difference’ (CfDs) that guarantee future minimum prices to wind turbine producers.
 
If wholesale electricity prices are less than the agreed price, the Treasury pays the difference to the producer.
If wholesale electricity prices are greater than the agreed price, the Treasury receives the difference from the producer
 
The agreed price was around £60/€69 per megawatt hour (MWh) 
Apparently, it is much too low for investors, who want at least 50% more.
 
Item 1
Decreasing Offshore Wind Capital Costs/Installed MW is a Myth
 
The claim  by wind proponents of 1) decreasing prices of wind electricity and 2) wind electricity being competitive with other sources is a myth, as GWPF indicates in the graph below .
 
The graph is based on the levelized cost of energy, LCOE
 
LCOE is a measure of the average cost of electricity generation over the project lifetime.
 
The graph shows, real world LCOE is about 2x the UK CfD offer of £60/£69/MWh.
 
The green belt shows what proponents think wind LCOE should be.
Those proponents are proving, they are disconnected from the real world  
Analyses of recent projects shows real-world LCOEs are about 2x proponent claims.