According to a recent article from Politico, New York State has decided not to move forward with three major offshore wind-energy projects. This decision came after General Electric Vernova (GE.N) altered the turbine design, which the state said “materially altered” the original plans.
NYSERDA, the state authority in charge of the deals, announced Friday that no final agreements could be reached with the three projects that received provisional awards in October 2023. Those bids were all linked to major supply chain investments by General Electric and a larger turbine it planned to build that was aimed at boosting the region’s renewable energy portfolio.
“Subsequent to the provisional award announcement, material modifications to projects bid into New York’s third offshore wind solicitation caused technical and commercial complexities between provisional awardees and their partners, resulting in the provisionally awarded parties’ inability to come to terms,” NYSERDA wrote in an announcement.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/19/new-york-offshore-wind-canceled-00153319
This development is a significant setback for New York’s renewable energy goals, as the state aims to achieve 70 percent renewable energy by 2030. The projects were provisionally awarded in October 2023 but failed to reach final contract agreements due to “technical and commercial complexities” that arose after GE Vernova’s change in turbine design.
In February, POLITICO’s E&E News reported that GE didn’t plan to move forward with an 18 megawatt turbine. NYSERDA confirmed that was the main reason no final awards were made. A smaller turbine means a project would need more individual turbine locations to deliver the same power — and the costs would have been higher.
NYSERDA had also tentatively awarded $300 million to GE Vernova and LM Wind Power for investments in nacelle and blade manufacturing at new facilities along the Hudson River near Albany. That money will be made available through a new competitive solicitation, according to the authority.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/19/new-york-offshore-wind-canceled-00153319
The three projects affected are the Attentive Energy One project, developed by TotalEnergies, Rise Light & Power, and Corio Generation; the Community Offshore Wind project, developed by RWE Offshore Renewables and National Grid Ventures; and the Excelsior Wind project, developed by Vineyard Offshore with backing from Copenhagen Infrastructure Partners.
But those would now need to rely on smaller 15.5 MW turbines — which means the developers would have needed to buy more and install more massive underwater foundations to put each turbine atop. As a result, it adds time and labor costs to each project.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/19/new-york-offshore-wind-canceled-00153319
This situation is a major blow to the offshore wind industry and to New York’s renewable energy aspirations. It also highlights the challenges faced by large-scale renewable energy projects in the United States, including high costs and regulatory hurdles.
Environmental advocates are alarmed by the challenges facing the industry. Offshore wind is key to reaching New York’s goal of 70 percent renewable energy sources by 2030, along with other longer-term targets. But there is growing evidence that the mandate will be hard to reach.
“We are very concerned about not meeting the climate goals,” Adrienne Esposito, executive director of the Citizens Campaign for the Environment, said before NYSERDA’s announcement. “All three of these are in a holding pattern and we need a flight plan.”
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/04/19/new-york-offshore-wind-canceled-00153319
For more detailed information, you can refer to the full article on Politico.
“We are very concerned about not meeting the climate goals,”
At last, a climate good news story !
Formatting?
Thanks, Redge. 🙂
To add: Germany’s pm Olaf Scholtz made a (begging) trip to China. On board was Siemens’ president amongst other business leaders. Green tech is almost exclusively reliant on China. Windmills, solar panels, batteries.
It’s ironic that people go on about the ‘dictator’ Putin while supporting ‘green’ (and other not so green) business deals with a chinese one.
But hey, the Greens have many experts. Experts who can make people not see the bleeding opvious.
Those bureaucrat/liberal/leftist net-zero folks, who are so concerned, likely do not have any idea how much those 850-ft-tall monsters will add to their electric bills for DECADES, making New York State totally uncompetitive on domestic and world markets and a poor state for businesses to invest in.
Excerpt from
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offshore-wind-system-developer-abandons-two-major
US Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost
Electricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.
Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y
Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.
Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh
Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.
Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh
All other items, 4 c/kWh
Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 30.273 c/kWh
Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh
Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.
Not included: At a future 30% wind/solar on the grid:
Cost of onshore grid expansion/reinforcement, about 2 c/kWh
Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2.0 c/kWh
In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid
Cost of curtailments, 2.0 c/kWh
Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites
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.
Instead of LCOE, LCOLC (Levellised Cost of Load Coverage) should be used to give a realistic cost.
Wind and solar cannot sustain a grid without vaporware grid scale storage.
Big sad. Renewable wind promises not kept, so promised renewable wind projects cancelled. Golly, whoda think that legally contractual outcome?
I guess the world is going to go off the CO2 cliff because of this.
They tried to save the world from dangerous CO2, but failed because they went down the wrong road erroneously thinking CO2 is dangerous and needs to be controlled, and that windmills and solar can power the world.
So, as one other poster said: “Good news!” The best laid plans of mice and Net Zero green men sometimes go awry.
New York should start looking at building some nuclear power plants. And New York has lots of natural gas under their feet. Those are the alternatives.
New York is not going to get to Net Zero in 2030, and it wouldn’t make any difference to the Earth’s climate anyway.
New York politicians should give up this Delusion.
Not while there is still any industry or native-born residents left in the Empire State, they won’t.
German, UK net-ZERO folks, and all other CO2-reduction/phobia fanatics have wasted many $trillions on hare-brained wind/solar/battery/EV/Heat Pump, etc., schemes
.
They have impoverished tens of millions of people in the process, because they are spreading THE TRUE FAITH, based on their science, to save the world
.
Their elites have made oodles of $billions in the process, FOR DECADES.
You will NEVER hear of a halt for building private planes and yachts!!
.
Excerpts from:
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
Retained Energy in Atmosphere
.
Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat of dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy of WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat of WV at constant pressure
.
1) Worldwide, determine enthalpy of moist air: T = 16 C and H = 0.0025 kg WV/kg dry air (4028 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = (1.006T) + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (16) + 0.0025 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 22.4 kJ/kg dry air
About 16.1 kJ/kg of dry air is retained by air and 6.3 kJ/kg by WV
.
2) Tropics, determine enthalpy of moist air: T = 27 C and H = 0.017 kg WV/kg dry air (27389 ppm)
h = 1.006 (27) + 0.017 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 70.5 kJ/kg dry air
About 27.2 kJ/kg of dry air is retained by air and 43.3 kJ/kg by WV
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
CO2
h CO2 = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
.
Worldwide, determine enthalpy of CO2 = {(423 x 44)/(1000000 x 29 = 0.000642 kg CO2/kg dry air} x
241 kJ/kg CO2) @ur momisugly 289 K = 0.155 kJ/kg dry air.
.
Retained energy, world: (16.1 + 6.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air) x 1000j/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg, atmosphere/10^18 = 1.161 x 10^5 EJ
.
Retained energy, Tropics: (27.2 + 43.3 + 0.155) kJ/kg dry air x 1000J/kJ x 2.049 x 10^18 kg, atmosphere/10^18 = 1,448 x 10^5 EJ.
.
The Tropics is a giant energy storage area, almost all of it by evaporating water.
CO2 plays a 100 x (0.155/70.655) = 0.219% role.
At least 35% of the Tropics energy is transferred, and replenished by the sun, 24/7/365, to areas north and south of the 37 parallels with energy deficits
Humans consumed 604/365 = 1.65 EJ/d, in 2022
WTH is a “climate goal”….
It really is just anti-science gobbledygook !
Wind turbines have absolutely no effect on the global climate, and have unknown, but probably deleterious effects, on the local area weather…
… and for off-shore turdines, probably disruption of sea life.
They are a pestilence, at best !
Can we all just agree that hydrocarbons, pick your molecule, are necessary for life as we know it? And that all of these deadlines are utter nonsense? And shift the rot spending on wind and solar to how to produce hydrocarbons most efficiently and cleanly? And then let nuclear compete in an unsubsidized level table electricity world? No we can’t because….
Take away all subsidies and the RIGHT energy mix will magically appear. NO money will be required from government “rot spending”. It is not in the LEAST bit necessary to determine how to:
Why can’t Western politicians understand that we really don’t need them, and literally everything they do just makes things worse?
Actually I think there appears to be a group of NY politicians who KNOW CAGW is all BS and they are trying to find a way to keep everything from going to crap.
They know they need to keep the lib voters happy voting for THEM so they carry on with “attempts” to reach the magic 2030 goal and moan and groan when these things happen, knowing it is the BEST situation given their earlier votes to “require” net zero.
They are trying to save the stupidly liberal state from their stupidity by playing the game by the liberal rules. Of course the number on liberal rule is the ends justify the means. Rule number 2, it is OK to lie.
They know that graeme, that’s why they spend 99% of their waking hours in gaslighting.
Good joke. Nuclear wouldn’t exist without massive government spending.
Nice straw man switcheroo. All, as in all, government subsidies are government spending, but not all government spending is subsidies. Take all the subsidies away from unreliables and ease the regulatory burdens on nuclear, then compare.
Gents,
MyUsername is a troll. It comes here to wind folks up. It is a skid mark on Hillary’s tent-like under drawers. Ignore it.
See my comment above. The market will decide what the best, most affordable source of electricity will be.
Of course government action IS required for Nuclear to go anywhere. Removing the insane excessive regulations surrounding the use of nuclear power, and eliminating the ability of every tom, dick and harry to sue to stop a nuke plant from being built.
The #1 regulation to remove is the requirement to use very low grade uranium as fuel. Using highly enriched uranium would make it so that a plant with a 80 year lifespan would only need to be refueled 2 or 3 times saving massive expenses for downtime and lost revenue during the refueling shutdowns, in this case of 80 years, 30 to 40 compared to 3 or 4.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/event-status/reactor-status/ps.html
Looking to find a true cycle of shutdowns I found this page on existing US nuke plant outputs. They are binary. Either 100% or 0%. The NuScale SMR model included the ability to vary output to “fit” to unreliable output. A ridiculous business model forced by REGULATION and as a method to get Federal funding. The added expenses associated with unneeded technology for “infinite” safety and variable output have made their design too expensive to build.
Yeah, what Drake said…
Is there anything you know, that is actually true?
A new one: “Turdines”
oops. byslexic typo !
Earlier today ballynally wrote “opvious”.
I blame sun spot cycles.
I meant it as a new word to describe crappy wind machines.
From now on that’s how I’m going to refer to them. Good description!
It may be, by nameplate, 70% of needed capacity … BUT … due to winds dismal 35% capacity factor, it’s actually 70% needed capacity 35% of the time thus equates to merely 23.5% of actual annual needed capacity
And STILL can’t guarantee to be able to deliver power whenever it’s required 24/7/365
Are these wind facilities planed in locations touched by prior hurricanes?
will a hurricane destroy/damage the turbine blades?
how about tornadoes?
and what will both events do to solar “farms”? we’ve seen hail damage solar panels
Perhaps I’m just not reading very well but this article seems to say that a post-proposal turbine change is to use smaller 15.5 MW turbines instead of the original design 18 MW turbines, thus requiring a greater number of turbines to meet total project specifications.
Then it says that the 15.5 MW turbines “means the developers would have needed to buy more and install more massive underwater foundations to put each turbine atop.”
In other words, smaller turbines require more massive foundations. This seems like a reversal of normal engineering requirements. I don’t see how it makes any sense.
LOL.
Using wind generation to provide baseline electrical demand. I must agree with you Andy.
LOL.
I think they mean, “a larger number of massive foundations.” 🙂
All that luvly CO2 from the cement and steel making 🙂
I think the author meant that the foundations were massive for turbines and that more would be required because of more turbines, at least that is how I read it.
Not more-massive, more massive, as in a greater number of massive.
More good news. Stop wasting your money on wind and solar. Fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators. Build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators and remove wind and solar from the grid.
a win-win for everyone but renewable firms and many burro-crats and academics
This big push for renewables is like a…. pandemic! A disease we have to suffer through until it finally passes.
“highlights the challenges faced by large-scale renewable energy projects in the United States, including high costs and regulatory hurdles”
Oh the irony … the regulatory hurdles were put in place to hamstring fossil fuel & mineral development … and now it is hamstringing them … so short-sited !
Surely it must dawn on everybody that these things are made redundant by nuclear power if it is fossil fuels they hate.
They hated nuclear first. Perhaps they thought it was a given that people “knew” that nuclear was not a safe path forward after their successful campaign against it, or they feel that established regulations hamstring nuclear enough to effectively prevent nuclear from gaining traction despite public sentiment.
The big tech players will move to nuclear to supply their big data centres as unreliables cannot provide enough steady electricity those centres need. But there might be an issue. If/when they start investing in nuclear facilities and make a quango w state bodies you better read the small print. I see big time state corruption ahead as nuclear facilities are high upfront cost. Big tech are likely to demand nuclear energy for their facilities first with a quid pro quo, return on investment. I feel this can only be managed on a federal level. The public needs to be protected. As much as i like free enterprice, if it goes against the people’s needs and protection there have to be barriers in place.
What we need is an offshore wind farm wiped out by a hurricane. As a former seafarer I have a great respect for offshore wind phenomena ho ho.
Scotland too
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-18/scotland-retreats-on-out-of-reach-2030-climate-change-target
The Scottish Greens, by way of answer to this, are discussing leaving the government.
They need to have a word with the Global Wind Energy Council who are predicting a 650 GW gap to meet climate targets by 2030 because of problems in wind energy supply chains.
“The supply chains in the wind sector for minerals, components and key enabling infrastructure like ports and platforms are not fit for purpose for a net zero world, where today’s global installed wind fleet must scale up by roughly three times by the end of the decade”
See also GWEC 2023 Offshore Wind Report.
Encouraging actually 🙂
You see it’s a supply chain problem, yet another failure of capitalism. We just need more communism, don’t you see? Let’s go straight to communism instead continuing the charade about there being a climate crisis that requires world communism to solve. It will be so much easier.
Those bids were all linked to major supply chain investments by General Electric and a larger turbine it planned to build
Reads the wind turbine industry is now aware they’ve reached the limits of turbine engineering and they’ll be on the hook for the failures going any bigger. They’ve been on a quest to go ever larger particularly to cut offshore installation cost but the cracks have begun to show with turbine sizing.
“GE didn’t plan to move forward with an 18 megawatt turbine”
how big is an 18 megawatt turbine?
also, are there any wind turbines on top of NYC skyscrapers? if not, why not?
I doubt existing buildings would be able to withstand the stresses of adding a wind turbine. Even a small one.
Extra weight, horizontal stresses and vibration. Not good for tall buildings.
Ruin the view for urban liberals, remember NIMBY.
Per US Wind’s COP for the Maryland offshore projects, 18MW turbine has a hub height of 161m and rotor diameter of 250m.
Although US Wind mentions the 14.7MW GE turbines in the COP, it appears as if the project was sized for the 18MW turbines. With a little bit of luck, the Maryland projects will be cancelled also.
“GE didn’t plan to move forward with an 18 megawatt turbine”
Very wise move GE!
Man, did South Park have it right with Al Gore and ManBearPig…Excelsior!!
Go big or Go home.
LOL.
Regardless of what you may think of the science behind Climate Change,
Climate policy is the scam.