Guest “You can’t fix stupid” by David Middleton
H/T “rhs” for this Fox News article:
UK could force oil, gas platform companies to convert rigs to green energy or face shut down: reports
North Sea Transition Authority targets 2030 deadline to design platforms for green energy solution
Published March 28, 2024
Oil and gas rigs in United Kingdom waters of the North Sea could be forced to convert over to green energy or low-carbon fuels, or either face closure or getting banned from opening new platforms, in an effort to reduce emissions, according to reports.
The Telegraph reported there are currently over 280 oil and gas platforms in UK waters, which produce about 3% of the total CO2 emitted by the country per year.
The same rigs, though, produce nearly half of the UK’s energy.
[…]
Fox News
Why can’t the media use the words “platforms” and “rigs” correctly?
These are “rigs”:
A drilling rig drills wells. It is moved onto a location to drill wells. Drilling rigs then move on to the next project. The notion of powering drilling rigs with “green energy” is exceptionally stupid. (See The Solar-Powered Oil Field… An Adjustocene Fable). Offshore drilling rigs are usually powered by diesel engines. Here’s the Transocean Deepwater Invictus for an example:
Power & Machinery
Main Power 6 x HHI HiMSEN H32/40V V-type diesel engines rated 7,000 kW,720 rpm, each driving 1 x 8,125 kVA AC generator
Emergency Power One Caterpillar 3516B V-type diesel engine rated 1,780 kW, 1,800rpm driving 1 x AC generator
Power Distribution 3 x Siemens NXPlus C Plus, 11 kV Switchboards with AKA Advanced Generator Protection
Transocean
When oil & gas discoveries are made, production platforms are installed.
These are “platforms”:
Since production platforms are generally fixed structures (unless moved by hurricanes or subsea mudslides), they can be hooked up to the onshore power grid, however it is far more cost effective to power them with diesel and/or natural gas powered generators. The natural gas often comes from the production stream. The notion of powering production platforms with “green energy” is still fairly stupid, but actually possible.
The Green Hostage Crisis
Nearly half of the UK’s energy production comes from North Sea oil & gas platforms. Forced electrification of the platforms could result in a 3% reduction in the UK’s CO2 emissions. Holding 50% of your energy production hostage for a 3% reduction in CO2 emissions… Ron White would say:
Keeping the Lights On: UK Regulators Meet With North Sea Producers on Brownfield Electrification
The North Sea Transition Authority has previously said failure to invest in platform electrification could threaten future production rights.
February 21, 2024
By Trent Jacobs
UK regulators met recently in Aberdeen with oil and gas producers and technology suppliers to discuss strategies to enhance the electrification of the nation’s offshore platforms.
Power generation accounted for almost 80% of UK offshore oil and gas emissions in 2022—or about 2 mtpa. On the whole, the upstream industry represents a 3% share of all UK greenhouse gas emissions, according to the North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA).
The authority has previously voiced concerns that the domestic industry must intensify its efforts to achieve the government’s goal of halving emissions from oil and gas production by 2030.
“Platform electrification is a key step on the road to net zero. The North Sea has long been a testbed for pioneering technologies and right now we need innovative solutions to crack the significant challenge of electrification, cut emissions, and accelerate the transition,” Bill Cattanach, the head of supply chain for NSTA, said in a statement.
[…]
Despite a consistent reduction in total emissions by the UK industry since 2020 and a nearly 50% reduction in flaring over the past 4 years, the NSTA has stressed the urgent need for action. Last year, it warned all UK North Sea operators that future production rights might be contingent on their commitment to field electrification.
[…]
Journal of Petroleum Technology Part One
How does the North Sea Transition Authority envision oil field electrification?
Piece of cake… On paper.
What happens when governments make economically illiterate demands?
Wood Mackenzie presented analysis at last year’s SPE Offshore Europe conference suggesting that with 80% of UK North Sea resources already extracted there is likely less than 600 million BOE remaining—leaving little to no economic case for electrification projects at many sites.
Additionally, a report from Offshore Energies UK (OEUK) predicted that up to 180 of the nearly 280 offshore platforms in the UK North Sea will cease production by the end of the decade due to natural declines. The trade group’s study further noted that 20 fields ceased production last year, while only two new fields were brought online.
Journal of Petroleum Technology Part Deux
Who else thinks that the NSTA would actually prefer to see the premature abandonment of North Sea oil and gas fields, rather than the electrification thereof?
What electrification demand is next?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The Great Horse Manure Crisis of 1894 was never resolved because of externalities that weren’t considered like automobiles, subways, paved roads, storm sewers…
The “Climate Crisis” is on the same 10 feet of horse manure track…..
Because like horses we stop the widespread use of fossil fuels?
IF FF usage ever stops, it will only be because something Better has been created. Industrial scale Wind and Solar Ain’t It…they CAN’T power a modern society
You are in for a suprise.
We’ve been trying wind and solar for over 3 decades. Every attempt so far has been a complete failure.
Trillions already wasted over the last decade, taking us from I believe it was 84% of energy from fossil fuels to 83% energy from fossil fuels.
Just send more money and that part of a complicated mathematical formula that says “and then a miracle happens” is sure to appear.
You know, like Socialism. This time it’ll be different.
So surprise us already…
I hope it’s not Dylan Mulvaney under the table.
…or in a cake!
we’re waiting
Surprise huh…where are you going with that finger???
You can pick your nose … or
You can pick your friends … but
You can’t pick your friends nose
Kindly keep your surprises and your fingers to yourself
And most how is a 19th century tech that produces Part Time energy supposed to power a 21st century modern society that needs energy 24/7/365? Wind only works about 40% of the year and Solar only works from 10am – 2pm local during summer at temperate latitudes and closer to 2 hrs daily during winter.
And both require either Massive, Mining Intensive Batteries prone to explosive immolation OR reliable FF (Gas) generation
Not to mention windmills and solar panels don’t last that long and all energy inputs and materials used to make those worse-than-useless things (and to replace them over and over with great frequency) come from fossil fuels.
We (as in the world) never stopped relying on working equines (horses, donkeys, mules).
https://www.fao.org/agroecology/database/detail/en/c/1473377/
As of 2022, there were about 116 million working equines in the world.
We never transitioned from traditional biomass to fossil fuels. On a per capita basis, we consume almost as much “traditional biomass” for energy as we did when we started burning coal. We have just piled new forms of energy on top of older ones. Now, we have changed the way we consume energy sources. In the 1800’s the biomass came from whale oil and clear-cutting forests. Whereas, today’s biomass is less harmful to whales and forests.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/10/25/solar-set-to-be-dominant-power-source-by-when/
An interesting aside for you David, along the equine line…
Much of what we know of WW2 Wermacht is a result of Goebbels spin doctoring…
https://medium.com/adams-notebook/germanys-world-war-2-horses-7b4acbef48fb
Great scene in the last episode of Band of Brothers…
https://youtu.be/LyZK8k4gzyg?t=35
I see the donkey population suddenly jumped up starting about 2011. Must have included MPs after that.
and democrats
There are a few lazy horses, and a few alpacas, in my neighborhood that at least don’t do any work whatsoever. I think they would be happier to do more than eat, sleep and shit, at least that’s the impression I get when they watch me pass by on my mountain bike.
Perhaps eliminating FF vehicles makes transportation more Equidable
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yC0sYZLqu_o (Heavy Horses (2003 Remaster)
Iron-clad feather-feet pounding the dust
An October’s day, towards evening
Sweat embossed veins standing proud to the plough
Salt on a deep chest seasoning
Last of the line at an honest day’s toil
Turning the deep sod under
Flint at the fetlock, chasing the bone
Flies at the nostrils plunder.
The Suffolk, the Clydesdale, the Percheron vie
With the Shire on his feathers floating
Hauling soft timber into the dusk
To bed on a warm straw coating.
Heavy Horses, move the land under me
Behind the plough gliding — slipping and sliding free
Now you’re down to the few
And there’s no work to do
The tractor’s on its way.
WINNIPEG, Manitoba (Reuters) – Trans Mountain will finish building the final segment of its Canadian oil pipeline expansion in April, according to a construction schedule the corporation filed on Monday with a regulator.
The Canadian government-owned C$34-billion ($25.07 billion)pipeline expansion will nearly triple the flow of crude from Alberta to Canada’s Pacific Coast to 890,000 barrels per day!
FIrst it’s trans women, now it’s trans mountains. When will it stop!!!!
Trans-portation
The cost went over budget by a factor of 5 or 3 depending on who is telling the story. Most of the over-run money went into settling land claims, and legal battles fighting eco groups. In a magnanimous gesture (and extremely stupid), the federal government decided up front to sponsor the legal bills of any indigenous claimant groups. Yup, when someone makes a court claim on you, offer to pay for their lawyer as a gesture of good will…
The money was not wasted. (/s) Many indigenous groups have new hockey rinks, wind farms, and paved roads in exchange for a buried pipe through land they don’t live on, or even live within 20 miles of, that some smart lawyer claims is historic tribal sacred ground . Many Cdn. law firm partners who absorbed about 30% of the over-run are now putting their profits into investments in the US economy, since it has become apparent that the Cdn federal gov’t has taken control of resource industries and manufacturing via eco-regulating, high tax with tax subsidies of their choosing…and only federal cabinet is allowed to decide if any project bigger than a convenience store (and needing donations to the Trudeau Foundation Charity Trust) can proceed. This is the same cabinet that “gave away” Canadian value added industries to US and Mexico in the last trade agreement and now complain the that the “productivity of Canadian workers sucks so we’re bringing in 10% immigrants”.
An election is coming, but the aphrodisiac of power is strong with all the political parties as they all believe the solution is big gov’t and big hand-outs….
Why would anyone want to do that?
Fossil fuels provide the energy that lets people live, and CO2 is beneficial to the planet with no harmful side effects.
Great analogy! Just like the Horse Manure Crisis where horse manure won’t go away until horses go away, the CO2 “crisis” will never be solved by switching from petrochemical fuel to “green” electricity. Until 100% of electricity comes from “green” sources, switching offshore oil production power from diesel to on shore electricity simple requires more petroleum powered electricity generation, but at a much higher cost.
Just shut’em down. All that lost tax revenue will help pay for fake electricity!
They aren’t very big. They could make a show about f it and install a wind turbine on the platform.
Then they even might claim Hybrid Status 😉 😉 😘
In all seriousness though they could have small nuclear installed like Naval Ships have.
If only there was a working Thorium option, but alas Thorium doesn’t yet exist
Stick a few of these in – Greens will think they’re far offshore
Signal: Norway opens world’s first wind-powered offshore oil platform
https://www.energymonitor.ai/news/norway-worlds-first-wind-powered-offshore-oil-platform/
But why? What is the point? If this is to save 3% of the UK emissions, which are themselves only a bit over 1% of global, why do it at all?
Its characteristic of the green tendency to promote policies which, if they believed what they claim, they would regard as nonsensical.
In fact, while you are answering that one, explain why the UK should go to net zero at all?
The platform is “powered by the world’s biggest floating offshore wind farm”… the 88MW windfarm “cost over $660m and [took] five years to complete.” It gets even dumber than this:
https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/08/23/norway-worlds-biggest-floating-wind-farm-will-power-oil-and-gas-platforms
Build the world’s biggest offshore windfarm to provide 35% of the electricity needed to run 5 offshore oil platforms… That were already being powered by gas or diesel powered engines, which will still provide 65% of the power. As Ron White said:
When will YOU stop using FF? Hypocrite.
The least they could have done is kayaked out to the platform. FF powered helicopters are for sissies (not really).
The way they talk about “battery back up” and storage…they know that batteries exist, as in a flash light, so they make the leap to think that there are big enough batteries to do the jobs they envision, like powering cities and oil rigs. They are technically illiterate.
Would you really put large scale installs of lithium batteries offshore in the North Sea on an oil or gas drilling platform? Of all the nutty ideas…! And to gain what, exactly?
People who work on these platforms are justifiably very careful about ignition sources.
April is International Green Energy Month….don’t forget to fly your Green Energy Flag….have a parade and celebrate Greeeeeeeen!
I intend to burn a bit of wood in the stove through much of the Green Energy Month. My stove has a catalytic burner and the wood comes from trees on my property that I cut and age. The growth of wood is relentless, that is – renewable. Actually, the volume increases faster than I can return the CO2 to the atmosphere.
Color me green! 🙂
I think it would be a good idea for everyone pushing the idea of converting all North Sea Platforms (in all their variations) into green energy should ride out one of the famous North Sea storms and see what security fossil fuels powering generators can provide. It would be a terrifying experience, maybe even educational.
Wind turbines can’t operate during a storm, much less one of the famous North Sea storms.
Solar wouldn’t work at those times either.
Nice writeup, interesting subject. First thing that comes to mind is–if it’s not
broke don’t fix it. The level of engineering on these outfits is very mature.
The greens have a thing about “fossil energy” they can’t
seem to get over. I’ve had some conversations with a few hard core greens
over climate & energy and without doubt they are obsessed.
BUT at the same time unwilling to give up their FF usage and their comfortable lives provided by FF, I know people like that, FLAMING HYPOCRITES!! But when they are told they are hypocrites they go in to contortions trying to justify their own FF use. Hilarious.
Both silly and unnecessary for their green goals. The North sea is circling the drain economically, for the usual boring old depletive reasons. If the UK greeners merely enlightened their citizenry as to how short they are with funding their share of the Trumpian YUGE asset retirement obligations they’ve already incurred, and got the islanders to force lock boxing of lbs. for to fund those voluntarily assumed obligations (as the Norwegians did), then the whole metallic house of cards would implode.
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/regulatory-information/decommissioning-and-repurposing/cost-estimate/#:~:text=The%20North%20Sea%20Transition%20Authority,Shelf%20is%20%C2%A340%20billion.
“The North Sea Transition Authority (NSTA) published its Decommissioning Cost and Performance Report on 9 August 2023, showing that the cost estimate for decommissioning remaining oil and gas infrastructure on the UK Continental Shelf is £40 billion.”
Oh, here’s another one. I had no idea that things had gotten that bad. I need to keep up.
https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/uk-tax-sweetener-wont-stop-plummeting-north-sea-oil-gas-output-2023-06-09/
End of life offshore lease rent seeking is common, the world over. Mr. Middleton seems to have spent much of his pro life in the GOM. So he should have been made aware of/been part of many bids to reduce royalties, reduce asset retirement obligations, or other gimmees. They certainly were, and are, a central part of the California offshore scene…
https://vigilantnews.com/post/donald-trump-scores-yet-another-major-victory/
A Q pub telling us what we already know. That Predecessor got bailed out once again. Relevance?
40 billion paid for by the oil companies.
Hey BOB, who is going to pay to take down all the bird choppers and solar fields in the UK once the cronies have carried all their money away? How about in the US???
You never answer that question. Why not BOOB?, because you know it will be the UK and US taxpayers.
Make a Superfund to do the wind and solar? How will that work when all the wind and solar will be bankrupt???
Such a sorry !diot, BOOB!!
“40 billion paid for by the oil companies.”
Not paid, owed. Except for the Norwegians, oil and gas producers the world over will treat these freely assumed clean ups the way that the coal, gold, copper did (and still do). They will be either not done at all, done low bid, communized upon the rest of us, or some combo. As a former FSU oilfield veteran, I have already seen plenty of oilfield trash cans that will sit and seep for many, many, decades.
“Hey BOB, who is going to pay to take down all the bird choppers and solar fields in the UK once the cronies have carried all their money away? How about in the US???”
The producers. Why? Self interest. Unlike extractive sites, renewable sites don’t deplete. The producers are going to be there pretty much into perpetuity. So, the sites will not only be maintained, but improved. FYI, land owners don’t collect rents on extractive sites. But they do with renewable sites. Lots of farms an ranches thereby saved.
“Make a Superfund to do the wind and solar?”
See above. And FYI, wind and solar waste is orders of magnitude more inert than oilfield waste. I’ve made many time my share of the latter, and know.
As for the faux “bird chopper” urban myth, it’s either you or MIT. Tough choice…
https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/do-wind-turbines-kill-birds#:~:text=Other%20sources%20of%20electricity%20are,electricity%20from%20fossil%20fuel%20projects.
Story tip – Biden’s Next EV Mandate Is Out and It’s Going to Break America – PJ Media
This will put every trucking company out-of-business.
I’ve been in the oil industry for more than 50 years now, involved in the early exploration and development of Thistle, Beatrice (converted to electric power from shore in the 1980s) and Clyde fields. The actual NSTA announcement is worth reading carefully and in full at:
https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/news-publications/oga-plan-sharpens-focus-on-emissions-reduction/
It doesn’t contain any retrospective requirements which will result in a damaging loss of production. While representing a raising of standards towards those of Norway (where several fields are already powered from onshore), it may, marginally, affect the economics of certain developments. There will be trade-offs in terms of offshore facilities design and manning levels.
The biggest irony of all is where will this electricity come from? The UK electricity grid ……… powered (mostly) by hydrocarbons. So, unless we’re not careful, all we’re doing is displacing offshore emissions to onshore and therefore the reductions will be nowhere nearly as great as claimed by the NSTA!
As quoted above, “you can’t fix stupid”!
There is also the fact that much of the new UK investment comes from tie backs to the existing infrastructure. These projects would not be feasible if there was extensive additional electrification involved.
The Greta cartoon is very funny!
Would electrification of these machines really reduce CO2 emissions? About 1/3 of UK energy is produced by gas and coal plus about 11% imported from unstated sources. The thermodynamic efficiency of coal and gas electricity plants is about 1/3 with about 2/3 of the thermal energy rejected to water or the atmosphere. Add to that the losses from energy transmission and processing to the power provided from shore, the need to use some of the off-board electricity for space heating (instead of engine waste heat as in your ICE car) and it’s not readily obvious that switching from on-board diesel power to off- board grid power saves any CO2 emission. Has anybody done the calcs? Probably not the Government.
‘Why can’t the media use the words “platforms” and “rigs” correctly?’
Worse than that, David – how many times have you seen a media photo of a ‘pumpjack’ referred to as an oil rig or a drilling rig?
“…The notion of powering drilling rigs with “green energy” is exceptionally stupid…
…The notion of powering production platforms with “green energy” is still fairly stupid, but actually possible…”
You know that, I know that and everyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that. But, it won’t stop ineptocrats decreeing that it must be done, by teatime, to combat gullible warming. And this is not just because inbred British ineptocrats are a unique breed of stupid, they’re just trying to keep up with the Jones, or perhaps more correctly the Jonases, over the sea in Norgrey.
Right now ineptocrats and useful idiots are gushing because a group of platforms are plugged into a floating wind ‘farm’ (although they all kept their open cycle gas turbines aboard to keep the lights on when it gets too windy or too calm). But now the talk is of eRigs that if used in areas where there are already wind destabalized platforms, could make use of industrial scale extension cords left on the seabed so a rig could be towed onto location, plugged into the subsea flex, and run on ruinable energy. At least some of the time.
The next great leap are rigs powered by hydrogen fuel cells; one ‘unintended bonus’ is that because fuel cells run so hot, they’ll be able to ‘harvest efficiencies’ on heating the accomodation. And the price tag is no barrier, because apparently
oilenergy companies will be happy to pay a ‘green premium’ for the net zer-OH rigs because, you know, they can woo investors with their carbon neutrality; and they’ll keep telling themselves that long after everyone else realizes they’re going broke.Meanwhile, in Russia, they conceptualize submersible reactors to power subsea field developments beneath the ice in the Arctic Ocean.
https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/Russian-designs-for-underwater-nuclear-power-plant
If the UK wants to be stupid that’s their prerogative. It is incredibly stupid to not want North Sea gas and oil. If it were in my power I would stop the UK from receiving any more. Shut the wells down down or sell to someone who really wants the gas and oil.
Not to worry. China will be happy to extract whatever oil the UK leaves untouched, unencumbered by the mass stupidity of “western” governments.
If building an offshore grid achieves two aims, I am all for it
1 – keep oil and gas exploration and production growing
2 – provide a route for the North-South wind power to go down, and thus avoid a 400kV OHL on 70m tall pylons right outside my house!
Any wind power used to power platforms takes away from useful wind development optimised at locations where the power could be used by the country and reduce hydrocarbons there. The capability is pretty much maxed out as it is.
Plus other issues like complicating field layouts, additional inefficient cable crossings. Lots of tie in work for short work scopes that are not as efficient as working on a larger wind farm project.
It’s exactly the sort of scheme that appeals to politicians and civil servants, but not to the companies and engineers, other than to curry favour with the former.
There will be a few goldilocks opportunities where oil and wind coexist, but just like everywhere else, you still need to build most of the back up redundancy for when the wind is low and the grid is stretched, so I really struggle to see the efficiencies. Like everythiing else, the last few % savings are the most complicated and expensive, and these seem to be ideal cases for the very last.
Don’t be fooled, if it make sense operationally and economically, it would not need any mandates.
Remember when politicians actually tried to help their constituents and tried to improve their country’s economy. Ah, those were the days. Now, it seems, the main goal of politicians is to hurt their constituents and wreck their economies. And they’ve gotten pretty good at it, unfortunately.
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
.
Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.
Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.
With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.
Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies
The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.
The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid
The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE “analyses”, are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems
Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.
Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.
The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.
W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies
W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.
1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365
4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,
5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced
6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.