Floating Wind Madness in Maine

By David Wojick

The Government of Maine has really big plans for floating wind, a floating net zero fantasy, in fact. Since floating wind power is the next big green thing, it is worth taking a close look at this ruinous vision.

Floating wind is a fad, not an established technology. It has yet to be built at utility scale or tested in a hurricane. The world’s biggest grid-connected system is a tiny 50 MW and just came online off Scotland.

The cost of floating wind is necessarily much greater than fixed wind. A fixed wind tower sits on a simple monopile, while a floating tower sits on a huge complex structure called a floater. We are talking about massive 500-foot towers with 500-ton turbines on top and 300-foot blades catching the wind.

The floater has to be large enough to keep this monster tower from blowing over. Then, it has to be even bigger to contain enough air to be buoyant. It also has to be anchored to the ocean floor in ways that require a lot of different mooring lines.

The small existing floating generator systems cost around three times what fixed wind costs per MW, but the big and hurricane-proof generators might cost even more. Over a hundred designs have been proposed, which shows just how immature Floating wind technology is.

Which brings us to Maine’s floating green dream, a costly nightmare for its people. When it comes to electricity use, Maine is a small state with average generation of just around 1,500 MW. But in an act of madness, they passed a law saying they will buy 3,000 MW of floating wind. Fixed wind is not an option because the Gulf of Maine is too deep.

How do they justify buying so much floating wind? Simple, it is a net zero fantasy. They have a 115-page “Maine Offshore Wind Roadmap” that explains it.

For a start, they shut down all their existing combustion generators, mostly burning either gas or wood. Maine is 90% forest, so there is a lot of wood. Then, they electrify all the other forms of combustion. For example, 60% of homes are heated with fuel oil, so they switch to heat pumps or something that works in really cold weather. Of course, all the cars and trucks are electric.

The projected cost of the 3,000 MW of floating wind is huge. Using the reported three times fixed wind figure, I get a rough estimate of $50 billion for construction and an equal amount for financing and profit, giving a total cost of around $100 billion. It could be a lot more once large-scale and hurricane-proof technology is developed if it ever is.

Apparently, the astronomical cost is no object because it is never mentioned. Not in the law, roadmap, or various technical support documents. Jobs are frequently mentioned, but they are part of the cost. But then, too, there is the much larger cost of the energy transition, without which the floating wind is simply not usable.

Clearly, the floating wind development may never occur, which brings us back to the present day, where things get really crazy. The State of Maine has started the process to build a huge new port specifically to handle this floating wind fantasy. I am not making this up.

With fixed wind, the shore facility is merely a marshaling yard where the pieces are held until barged out to the offshore site for assembly. There are just four big pieces: the monopile, tower, turbine, and blade set.

Floating wind is completely different because the huge floater is built at the port. The tower, turbines, and blade set are mounted on the floater there as well. Then, the whole assembly is towed to the site and anchored to the sea floor using eight or more mooring lines.

So this is really a highly specialized shipyard, a floater factory, not a port. There will have to be one or more dry docks to build the huge floaters in, plus a great deal of specialized equipment, especially cranes. Reportedly, steel floaters for a 15 MW turbine could typically weigh 3500 to 4500 tons, while concrete floaters would be in the range of 17,000 to 22,000 tons.

The final configuration is completely unknown until the floater design is finalized. Note, too, that this shipyard might only be in operation for the few years it takes to build 3,000 MW of floating wind generators.

The presently estimated cost of this shipyard/port is a bit under a billion dollars but it could easily be more depending on the complexity of the design. The cost of a unique new system tends to go way up when the engineering is actually done.

Starting this billion-dollar port project now is just foolish. It is highly likely that the required energy transition will not occur. The electricity will be very expensive, perhaps four to five times the present cost. Plus, we have no idea what the technology will look like, assuming it can be made to work in the tempestuous waters off Maine.

The people of Maine are unlikely to accept these onerous conditions, nor should they. This whole nutty project needs to be reconsidered.

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
4.7 26 votes
Article Rating
101 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
June 19, 2024 10:09 am

From January 16, 2024:

“Coastal communities in Maine left devastated by dual storms”
https://www.nationalfisherman.com/coastal-communities-in-maine-left-devastated-by-dual-storms

Insert here something about those that don’t learn the lessons of history . . .

SteveZ56
June 19, 2024 11:11 am

A wind turbine turns faster and generates more electricity in high wind speeds than with slow wind speeds. But high winds also generate large waves, which would cause a floating wind turbine to lean either downwind (from trough to crest) or upwind (from crest to trough), meaning that the axis of the turbine would not be facing directly upwind, but at some vertical angle to the horizontal, at which it would be less efficient than a turbine facing directly upwind on a horizontal axis.

If the turbine is not anchored to the sea floor, the center of the “floater” would need a large weight attached to the support tower to overcome the tipping moment, similar to the keel on a sailing ship. For a turbine 500 feet tall, this weight would have to be located some 100 to 150 ft below the surface. The the “floater” would need enough waterproof air space to provide enough buoyancy to support the weight of the turbine plus the “keel” weight.

This would be the engineering nightmare for anyone who has built sailing ships.

With all these complications, why not build the wind turbine on top of a hill near the shore, and not have to worry about rogue waves?

Reply to  SteveZ56
June 19, 2024 12:05 pm

Good points, but something you did not mention is the tremendous stress, most of it cyclic, that such wave-induced rocking motion will impart on the bearings supporting the central shaft for the large turbine blades. Such cyclic mechanical loading means either (a) those bearings have to be massively overdesigned and thus more costly than if the turbine did not have expected rocking motion relative to wind direction and gravity, or (b) those bearing will fail prematurely, with associated turbine down-time and cost of repair parts and labor.

Dave Andrews
June 19, 2024 1:35 pm

Idea of the costs of a 450MW Floating Offshore Wind Farm (FOWF)

Onshore environmental survey c. £0.52m
Resource and metocean assessments c. £3m
Site investigations c. £2.1M
Hydrographic surveys c.£0.8m
Engineering and Consultancy c£4m
Project Management Costs c.£20m
Nacelle c.£11m
Rotor c.£6m
Tower c.£3m
Cables c.£140m
Cable protection c. £7.7M
Floating substructure c. £430m
Corrosion Protection c. £22m
Mooring System c.£80m
‘Jewellery’ c.£8.6m
Topside connection c.£3m
HVAC System to shore £20m
Auxiliary Systems Support c. £3.4m
Offshore sub station foundation Support c.£12m
Onshore Substation c £37m
Installation and Commissioning c.£170m
Export connection cable installation c.£20m
Onshore cable installation c.£3m
Anchor and Mooring pre-installation c. £31m
Turbine assembly, pre-commissioning and storage c.£31m
Heavy lifting and moving equipment for assembly and storage of turbines c.£31m
Tow out of assembled turbines c. £24m
Shipping from manufacturing to shipping ports c. £3.9m
Offshore logistics c. £1m
Sea based support vessels c.£0.7m
Onshore logistics c. £0.54m pa
Maintenance c.£14m pa
Statutory Inspections c. £0.2m pa
Decommissioning of wind turbines c. £3m
Anchor and mooring decommissioning c.£18m
Cable decommissioning c.£12m

Probably more there than you really wanted to know 🙂

Source BVG Associates on behalf of Offshore Renewable Energy Catapult, Crown Estate and Crown Estate Scotland, May 2023.

Search BVGA-1644-Floating-Guide-pdf

Reply to  Dave Andrews
June 21, 2024 7:28 am

Would have been nice if you had summed up the total cost for us.

June 19, 2024 5:50 pm

An alternate to California’s proposed 4.2 GW offshore wind project:
 4.2 GWs = roughly 680 6MW turbines or 252 17MW turbines
·      Miles offshore with an expensive undersea power network
·      No thermal use for industry
·      Radar Interference is a security threat
·      Intermittent low-density Energy
Vs
The least impacting energy source on nature:
https://businessdevelopmentinternational.biz/seaborg-co/
 

  • 21 Seaborg 200 MW CMSR p

ower barges or 5 GW CMSR power barges
·      Float them into any sea or river port near the local grid
·      24-year return to the shipyard for recycling
·      Thermal Industrial and Desalination use 
·      The least impacting energy source on nature
·      24/7/365 Energy inexpensive as Coal
Taking into account productivity for the same power output, the installation and running of:

The VCEA also stipulates that “not less than 5,200 megawatts” (rated capacity) of that “clean, renewable” power must come from offshore Wind. That translates into 370 14-MW turbines, 430 12-MW turbines, or 865 6-MW turbines off the Virginia coast. Construction of the first 180 has already hit cost overruns and could reach $10 billion.
 
https://heartlanddailynews.com/2021/12/virginia-offshore-wind-project-hit-by-massive-cost-overruns/

4th-gen-EROI
June 20, 2024 4:32 am

Funny how all the CAGW alarmists have nothing to say about this issue. Where is Nick, nyolci, Bellman, etc. with their facts and figures about how this will end up less expensive than what we now have? You would think these mathematical whizzes would have something to say about how wrong the deniers are about the exponential costs of electricity production by renewables. You would think they have thought about how to solve the problems of not using fossil fuels and arrived at solutions that have proper engineering behind them.

Sparta Nova 4
June 20, 2024 6:53 am

What does not work in Maine’s cold weather?
Electric heat.
LiPO powered vehicles.
LiPO recharging.

The next question is how much of the off-shore freezes in winter and do these floaters have provisions to withstand the ice? Continuing: What about ice berg impacts? Should that be taken into consideration. We’ve been watching the Key Bridge disaster for long enough that those questions should be addressed up front. Not hand waved, but real engineering studies.