By Robert Bradley Jr.
“It is entirely possible that the total costs to build, maintain and replace units every 20+ years (at end of service) would be prohibitive compared to other sources of energy. Beyond these cost considerations, sources indicate that the turbine blades cannot be recycled and are piling up in landfills. Fossil fuels will also still be needed to maintain the lubrication of these units, and what about potential for spillage?” (Jeff Wyles, below)
The old joke comes to mind: Q: When is an environmentalist not an environmentalist? A: When it comes to wind power.
Make that double for offshore wind, and wild-eyed California politicians are having trouble hiding the problems. Consider a recent op-ed, Rethink Floating Wind Turbine Power Off Our California Coastline?,” an environmental feature of California newspaper MendoFever (February 12, 2024). Jeff Wyles (Ph.D.: Biology) wrote:
On January 24, 2024, Democrat Congressman Jared Huffman gave a speech in Humboldt County applauding the securing of $426 million federal grant dollars [U.S. Department of Transportation] for the establishment of floating wind farming turbines off the Humboldt County coastline. Local leaders, commissions, private and public businesses, and the indigenous community seemed to be onboard.
And, indeed there appears to be millions of dollars allocated to pacify any criticisms of the development. Foremost among these approvals are claims that the project will generate thousands of jobs for the region. Additional monies would also be earmarked for build out of new recreational facilities along the coastline.
Similar, even larger, offshore wind power projects are in the works for Morro Bay and the Diablo Canyon areas further down the California coast.
So what does this mean? Wyles continues:
Does this mean that our precious Mendocino coast will also soon be considered for this type of offshore wind power development by the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) that licenses the leasing of these ocean areas for such projects? And, if so, shouldn’t we question why counties in similar wind power grant affected zones in Oregon are getting significant pushback from the public?
The dissent has been so much in Brookings, Gold Beach and Coos Bay, Oregon, that these projects have at least been temporarily cancelled due to public discontent and mistrust of the projects. Specifically, Monica Samayoa in the Oregon Capital Chronicle (January 4, 2024) reports that the county commissioners of Coos, Curry and Douglas counties have all passed proclamations against these offshore wind turbines. Albeit true that we all want cleaner air and more efficient and less polluting sources of electrical generation for an expanding population, but is it worth the cost to our environment and local economies?
To witness, all abalone harvesting off of our California coast has recently been prohibited indefinitely. The fragile balance between the abalone, sea urchins, star fish, kelp beds, and fisheries is well documented. Currently the resource is so damaged that it may take years to recover. That said, the government just awarded upwards of $60 million dollars this past year to rehab the salmon habitat to restore that resource.
Even though that sounds like a lot of money, is it even enough to save the stream habitat statewide and improve it such that it will be commercially viable long-term here in California? Once vibrant fishing streams like the Klamath River in Northern California are seriously in danger of total salmon depletion and extinction. Local efforts like the fish weirs on Caspar Creek are helpful, but is enough being done to increase the number fingerlings that make it back out to the ocean? Commercial fishing operations by foreign countries with processing plants in situ just over the border in international waters also must be having a negative impact on the natural resource.
Now, when floating wind powered turbines are thrown into the mix, what is the potential harm of these developments on our oceans? Proponents of wind power argue that it will help combat global climate change. Maybe at some level this is true, but what about the local weather changes when these wind turbines alter the normal wind cycles, usual wind directions, and intensities along our coastlines? Another significant factor is the upwelling of nutrients and a myriad of organisms from the ocean floor caused by the action of these wind turbines.
Baleen whales, porpoises, dolphins, and millions of birds and fish species and other marine life are dependent upon these resources to maintain healthy ecosystems. When you disrupt those natural processes and equations, the balance of nature is destroyed and efforts to get it back to equilibrium and normality may be difficult if not impossible. Few studies have been adequately done to assess the overall biological impacts of these wind turbine technologies on marine biology and specifically ocean biomes and ecosystems.
Instead, these grants, which are part of the recently approved federal infrastructure bill, are advertised as engineering marvels of “clean electricity” at supposedly cheap prices that will make everyone happy and not harm the environment. Internet resources in places like Wyoming claim that only 214,000-368,000 birds are annually killed by wind powered turbines. However, these inland studies were done on songbirds and passerines. What about areas here along the Mendocino coast where we also have many pelagic species of birds and are a major part of the Pacific Flyway? Pelicans, geese, cormorants, seagulls, puffins, common murres, bald eagles, and a host of shore bird species are vulnerable to being ultimately killed by these turbines.
Marine mammals are also sensitive and negatively impacted by them. Particularly along our coastline Gray and Humpback whale migrations are at risk whether these wind turbines are located here or further up or down the Pacific coastline. Thousands of tourists come to our area every year and these natural resources are a boost to our local economy.
East coast fishermen recently have been battling the establishment of wind powered generators along their coastline. Many claim that these wind turbines will effectively ruin the oceanic fisheries along the east coast of the United States. Environmentalists have also argued that multiple deaths by beaching of cetaceans may be due to sounds emanating from construction sites of permanent wind turbine installations.
Others have debunked that idea, but who actually knows the truth? Here on the West coast, the Coos Bay fishermen are dependent upon the crab and shrimp harvests, and they are saying that the floating wind turbines which would be situated in their fishing grounds would make it virtually impossible for them to continue a successful fisheries industry. The original offshore licensing area for these developments in Oregon comprised over 1,000,000 acres, but has been pared down currently to 200,000 acres.
Who knows what the BOEM will eventually do in light of the Oregon county commissioner proclamations against it. Perhaps it will end up in court as a conflict between the federal government and state’s rights.
Then Wyles gets to cost, the economics of the offshore version of what onshore is uneconomic. He asks some other hard questions too.
Finally, one wonders about the cost/benefit ratio of establishing these proposed wind turbines off the coast of California, Oregon and Washington. From the internet it appears that the typical wind turbine is 2-3 Megawatts (MW) and costs about $2-4 million dollars each to construct. One might also ask where are these turbines made? Many of the components are manufactured undoubtedly in China and the Humboldt County operation appears to also have at least an engineering and analytical component from Norway. Maybe we need to know how many of these wind turbines would be made right here in the USA and create jobs for our own people. Operation and maintenance (O&M) costs range from about $42,000-$48,000 each as of a few years ago.
Available data on the internet suggests that one of these MW wind turbine units can power about 940 homes for a month. But, since these turbines are wind determinant, they are not running continuously and when wind speeds get too high, they must also be turned off to prevent damage to the generators. Our coastline is also subject to tsunamis and king tides, so how many of these turbines will become damaged or destroyed and have to be taken out of service?
Additionally, internet sources suggest that PG&E estimates are $1billion to $4.5 billion to connect the electrical generation from these turbines to the grid. Presumably that would be to inland connections in Humboldt County or by cabling along the ocean floor to hubs in the proposed Morro Bay and Diablo Canyon. Sources also say that large commercial battery storage of this generated energy along the coast is not yet technologically advanced enough to be a feasible alternative.
One also must question the ultimate expanse of such an infrastructure rollout. Currently, it appears that as few as 100 units in the Humboldt district and another 300-400 in the Morro Bay Diablo Canyon areas are estimated to be installed. That said, my preliminary ballpark calculations (with a continuous high level of efficiency of the turbine units) could only provide a range of 0.7% to 3.0% of the needs of California households (under the current grants) and that would exclude any commercial usage.
And, not mentioned, what will the eventual actual cost be per kilowatt hour for this source of electricity passed on to consumers? It is entirely possible that the total costs to build, maintain and replace units every 20+ years (at end of service) would be prohibitive compared to other sources of energy. Beyond these cost considerations, sources indicate that the turbine blades cannot be recycled and are piling up in landfills. Fossil fuels will also still be needed to maintain the lubrication of these units, and what about potential for spillage?
Jeff Wyles’s modest conclusion:
Maybe it is time for our Mendocino County Board of Supervisors, our local commissioners, indigenous leaders and the Noyo Center for Marine Science to take up this issue and take a stand (one way or another) on this topic.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Just say no.
This should be good headlines. “Floating wind turbine breaks loose from moorings in storm and takes down the interconnect. Estimate 3 months to repair”.
Now let’s remember what these «3 months» could actually become under a terminal case of metastasized entitled bureaucracy. Even if some very, very high ranked people actually want to move the thing along.
The Anderson Memorial Bridge in Cambridge took only 11 months to build in 1912. In the early 2010s it needed some maintenance. Which exposed one more important difference betwen USA-1912 and USA-2012. About 5 years into attempts to repair, this was so obviously not moving anywhere close to completion no matter what, that even a former president of Harvard and advisor to Most Holy Obama could only complain about this in Washington Compost.
All of this environmental devastation would be entirely unnecessary with about two decent-sized nuclear power plants.
And with a few more all of the installed wind and solar would become redundant. The renewables investors would fight tooth and nail to prevent that from happening.
Hold the wind turbines as it seems they’re not required-
Climate activists protest electric cars at New York motor show (msn.com)
That’s the problem with the feeling you can change the weather. There’s always someone with more of the feels they can change it better.
THis morning, Biden’s transportation secretary compared people who don’t want to buy EVs to those who wanted to stick with landlines once cell phones were available.
To get people from place to place, sometimes long distances, and keep them warm in the winter, EVs are worse than ICEs.
Reality is more like people who want to go back to public phones after decades of using cell phones!
“On January 24, 2024, Democrat Congressman Jared Huffman gave a speech in Humboldt County applauding the securing of $426 million federal grant dollars [U.S. Department of Transportation] for the establishment of floating wind farming turbines off the Humboldt County coastline”
Why is the Department of Transportation giving grants for windmills? All of our highways, bridges, tunnels and so on are in such great shape that the Department of Transportation couldn’t find a way to spend money on transportation so they piss it away on wind power?
Get the government out of the energy business. The government is corrupt and inept.
It’s a feature of fascism to control manufacturing and production. In order to manufacture anything, you must have raw materials, energy, transportation and labor. Pretty sure our governments spend a lot of time figuring out ways to control that everywhere.
Story Tip
https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2024/04/02/i-sold-my-electric-car-and-went-back-to-a-diesel-id-had-enough/
The real answer, obviously, is “when he/she/it is a Watermelon”. Though even that is but another outbreak of the Gramscian infestation.
Even the engineers at the very beginning of the industrial revolution were not so pig-headed to suggest there were no environmental impacts to their work. But what is it with pig-headed alarmists who resist green, obvious and efficient generator solutions (especially gas and nuclear) because there are environmental and climate change issues with any and all of them but apparently in their heads wind turbines, photovoltaic and EV batteries have absolutely no down sides to them.They are complete and utter pig headed idiots doing much much more damage to the planet than ever did fossil fuel and its many beneficial side shoots.
Chopping down mature forests for wind turbines makes sense to them that is how insane they are. For goodness sake vote them out of office and stick them somewhere else, preferably in a secure environment, at first opportunity.
“Albeit true that we all want cleaner air and more efficient and less polluting sources of electrical generation for an expanding population, but is it worth the cost to our environment and local economies?”
Envuronmental logic…
If one only reads headlines, assumes the headlines are complete, accurate, and truthful, there is only one obvious conclusion formed from those readings. The climate is code red and on a precipice AND humans can control the climate if only we have the will to do so.
I grew up in an era where children outgrew fairy tales. That seems not to be the case today.
If one only reads headlines, assumes the headlines are complete, accurate, and truthful
Most people do, but most headlines aren’t. I think the propagandists count on this.
Most people get their news, if any, from TV news shows. These “cover” most stories by the near-equivalent of just reading the headlines.
In a typical 30-minute show, there are over 5 minutes of commercials. They also advertise _themselves_ for 5 minutes, e.g., repeatedly listing the stories they’re _going to_ “cover”. There’s about 5 minutes of sports. There’s the weather. That leaves no more than 12 minutes of actual news. If they read the headlines fast enough, they might have 5 minutes to go “in depth” on one story – where “in depth” means the equivalent of less than one column on the front page of any major newspaper.
But that’s not why the public is panicked and ignorant about the climate. Nearly all of the news media are themselves panicked and ignorant about the climate. Most of them majored in journalism because they couldn’t do math, have no understanding of science, and are unaware they are repeating lies – but consider spreading that “news” as a holy quest.
For many, if not most, so called environmentalists, the goal has always been to collapse capitalism so that government can take over. The environment is just the excuse they are using.
There is only one reason to build floating windmills miles away in the ocean. Environmentalists do not want to look at them where they live, which is on the coasts.
Two things I have noticed about the local chapters of environmental organizations are these:
First, they are focussed on where they live specifically. In other words, a national organization, with national fund-raising has become their local enforcement. They are fine sacrificing everyone else’s environment. We don’t have whales to save around here, but the Sierra Club and Aububon Society either cannot or won’t recognize severe threads to birds that are the focus of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (1940) or Migratory Bird Treaty Act (1912). In fact, one environmentally cockeyed biologist around here has told wind enthusiasts that without their destructive efforts all the birds will soon be extinct anyway — music to developers’ ears.
Second, they have spent decades fighting against oil, gas, and coal. Their hatred of fossil fuels has become an irrational obsession such that they cannot see environmental harm from any of their preferred solutions — wind/solar.
Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine
Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and “academia/think tanks”, in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!
.
Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.
.
Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:
.
1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and
2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.
.
Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)
.
Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in European specialized ships, then unloaded at a new, $500-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging/barge-loading area, then barged to European specialized erection ships for erection of the floating turbines. The financing will be mostly by European pension funds.
.
About 300 Maine people would have jobs during the erection phase
The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships
About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs, using European spare parts, during the 20-y electricity production phase.
https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill-create-jobs-advance-clean-energy-and-fight-climate-change-through
.
The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies
.
The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government
.
The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024
The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.
The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment
.
Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.
Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 17.913 c/kWh
.
NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 – 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
.
Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh
Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh
Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh
.
Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Grid Expansion on Shore: A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England HV grid, which will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.
Floating Offshore Wind in Norway
Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company
Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.
On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.
The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.
The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL
That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher
The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites
The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies
In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.
Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.
If Norwegian units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of the additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus
A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet.
The cables would need some type of flexible support system
The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.
.
https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/article/14195647/floating-wind-turbines-to-power-north-sea-gullfaks-snorre-platforms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine
.
“Proponents of wind power argue that it will help combat global climate change. Maybe at some level this is true”
No, absolutely not true. The energy cost to construct, install, operate, and dismantle these floating behemoths far exceeds the useful output of the wind turbines. When operation energy costs are included, there is simply no way these things are not just elaborate perpetual motion frauds.
So the 300′ fans require 1,450 tons of coal with iron ore to make the steel for the tower and rebar for the pad. How much crude for the plastic 35 ton blades?
Now much Natural Gas to dehydrate gypsum and pour cement for the pad?
(my company was a tech partner to build the blades for Enron and the Tehachapi wind farm)
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/backlash-against-wind-solar-projects-real-global-growing
story tip