By Steve Goreham
“As a result of hail and other weather damage, insurance premiums for solar facilities are skyrocketing, in some cases up by as much as 400%. In addition, policy coverage is being capped at as little as $10-15 million, requiring system developers to obtain multiple policies to try to cover their projects.”
Wind and solar have been growing as a share of US electrical power generation over the last two decades. State and federal mandates and subsidies have driven the expansion of renewables because of their inherently dilute and intermittent nature. But it’s clear that renewable electricity sources have a third strike: they are fragile and prone to weather damage and destruction.
Twenty-three states now mandate Net Zero electricity by as early as 2035. Their aim is to replace coal- and gas-fired power plants with wind and solar generators. Wind and solar have grown from near zero in 2000 to 14.1% of US electricity generation in 2023 (10.2% wind and 3.9% solar).
Weather Risk
Wind and solar systems are located on ridge lines, on plains, and offshore, and are exposed to weather forces that usually don’t affect building-housed coal and gas generators. In addition, these systems require about 100 times the land area of traditional generators to deliver the same average electricity output, increasing the chances of storm damage. Damage incidents are rising as more and more systems are deployed.
In May 2019, a massive hailstorm in West Texas destroyed 400,000 solar modules of the Midway Solar Project, about 60% of the facility. The project was only one year old. The system was rebuilt, costing insurers more than $70 million.
On June 23, 2023, the Scottsbluff solar system was destroyed in western Nebraska. Baseball-sized hail falling at up to 150 miles per hour smashed most of the 14,000-panel system. The system had only been operating for four years of its 25-year lifetime and had to be completely rebuilt.
Solar loss insurance claims from hail damage now average about $58 million per claim. Hail damage claims have increased to account for about 54% of solar insurance loss claims. Analysis by Iowa State University shows that severe hail (greater than one inch in diameter) can occur for 20 to 30 days per year in Great Plains states, a wide area of the country stretching from North Dakota to Texas and Colorado to Indiana.
“Fighting Jays Solar” became operational in July of 2023, 40 miles northwest of Houston, Texas. Less than one year later, on March 15 of this year, hail destroyed much of the system, with repair costs estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars. The system had not yet completed full construction.
Hail is not the only weather hazard facing solar installations. This fall, a tornado associated with Hurricane Milton destroyed much of the Lake Placid Solar Plant in Sylvian Shores, Florida. The facility had only been operating for about five years.
Insurance and Liability Ahead
As a result of hail and other weather damage, insurance premiums for solar facilities are skyrocketing, in some cases up by as much as 400%. In addition, policy coverage is being capped at as little as $10-15 million, requiring system developers to obtain multiple policies to try to cover their projects.
The federal government has been promoting the installation of wind systems off the US East Coast. Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina, Rhode Island, and Virginia are constructing or planning offshore wind systems. But offshore wind must operate in one of the world’s harshest environments, buffeted by wind, waves, lightning, and salt spray that is very corrosive to man-made structures.
To date, most offshore wind systems have been deployed in China, Europe, and Vietnam. These systems are prone to weather damage. Turbines deployed in Asia coastal areas suffer typhoon wreckage. Eighty percent of the turbines installed in Europe’s North Sea have required repairs due to weather damage.
The London Array, east of England, the world’s largest offshore wind system, required extensive repairs after only five years of operation. Danish wind operator Ørsted needed to repair undersea cables to offshore wind systems in the North Sea at a cost that exceeded $100 million.
But turbines sited off the US East Coast must survive brutal weather, more severe than offshore turbines in Europe. Tropical storms, hurricanes, and nor’easters periodically traverse the coastal sites planned for new offshore wind systems.
For example, historical data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration shows that 26 hurricanes and 51 tropical storms passed through New Jersey coastal waters during the last 170 years, or almost five storms each decade. Wind installations will be vulnerable to these weather systems.
In 2018, Hurricane Maria passed over Puerto Rico, ripping blades from many turbine towers. East Coast wind systems will likely suffer the same fate.
Wind systems are designed to try to protect wind towers and blades in high winds. When winds exceed 55 MPH, a braking system brings the rotor to a standstill to try to avoid turbine damage. Tower blades are also “feathered” or oriented so that they no longer catch the wind.
But near the eye of a hurricane or tropical storm, violent winds can change direction instantaneously and powerfully, too fast for damage-prevention systems to react. The result will be destroyed blades and damaged towers.
Conclusion
In July, a 351-foot-long offshore wind blade splintered and washed up on the beaches in Nantucket, Massachusetts. Beaches were closed and clean-up crews collected six truckloads of fiberglass and plastic debris from the single destroyed blade. Wind operations were temporarily shut down.
Residents, beachgoers, fishermen, and local businesses posted signs, complained to the press, and spoke out at board hearings. But this was just one turbine blade. Image the outcry when a whole offshore system is destroyed by a hurricane, producing mountains of beach debris at Myrtle Beach, Virginia Beach, Atlantic City, or Long Island?
Media headlines claim that weather is becoming more extreme because of human-caused climate change. But to solve the problem, it’s proposed that we install more and more wind and solar systems, which are fragile and vulnerable to violent weather. Incidents of weather destruction of wind and solar installations will continue to rise.
—————-
Steve Goreham is a speaker on energy, the environment, and public policy. His books include the bestselling Green Breakdown: The Coming Renewable Energy Failure.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
They say “The Climate is changing for the Worse. Storms are getting stronger, lasting longer and are more destructive.
They also say “We need to install more Renewables (specifically Wind and Solar) to make the weather less destructive.
But Wind and Solar are easily destroyed by even the least strong major storms (Tropical Storms not even hurricane strength, hail storms even just strong winds can destroy these fragile monstrosities.)
How does eliminating energy sources that are dependable in inclement weather in favor of energy sources that can’t operate or are easily destroyed in equally inclement weather any good for society?
Perhaps you need to envision their ideal society to gain any insight to the methods.
The idea is to get rich from the climate scam and then control the masses to ensure pan-generational wealth. There is nothing green about green energy except the color of money. It is pure techno-fascism led by greed, power, and control. AI might be the next great control mechanism or it could be the liberating force for all. Time will tell. Why are we letting Amazon run a nuclear power plant? Hmm….
AI can only wrestle control from the green climate fascism by taking control. Is that something we want?
That’s not the only way AI can work. That’s a poor statement and assumes only two choices. Bad reasoning.
You are correct. AI can wrestle control OR AI can be given control.
But who trains the AI to prefer Liberal or Conservative as correct or incorrect?
They are looking for pan-generational wealth for some at the expense of all. Now, realizing the the parasitic green technologies can only exist on top or real value producing economy, they are trying to figure out the balance. Therefore, we will hear that the EVs have their place (continue EV subsidies), and sources of energy must be balanced (use nuclear and coal to subsidize wind and solar).
Why are we investing in an energy source to eliminate Bad Weather that itself can’t survive that same bad weather??
Maybe the weather will just get too tired to continue after punching down enough wind and solar facilities.
Solar arrays are impossible to protect from storm damage. The power they produce is only ever going to be peaking at times of the day when demand is lowest hence the call for battery storage. It is a power production option that simply does not meet the needs of users, or the grid managers.
Wind turbines are an equally bad choice. What damage to a blade rotating at the tip at speeds of hundreds of miles/hr. is, when a one inch hail stone hits, which itself could be doing 100+MPH, is anybody’s guess. The constant increase in size of the Wind Turbines being designed and deployed suggests the damage from frequent weather events is ignored by the developers.
The blade may appear to handle the hail strike but the broken fibres, though hidden, are there waiting to cause a catastrophic failure.
Add to these weather damage issues, the fact that installing ever more renewables results in ever greater accommodation cost of their existence on the grid.
Here in the UK the cost of paying wind energy providers compensation, when they are told to shut down by grid managers due to overcapacity (when the wind blows) is currently £1billion/yr. This is up from £250million/year just five years ago. The price to stop supplying, is getting ever higher as the number of turbines installed grows.
This is the road to energy and economic ruin.
I have yet to see a report of a massive battery destroyed by weather.
It will happen and probably due to a tornado.
That is when all hell will break loose.
They don’t need to worry about Mega Batteries and hail. Those batteries already self immolate
It’s a false claim that does not fit the NOAA and WMO definition of climate.
Both define climate as 30 years of weather in a given area. Therefore, the weather must change before climate can change, and for 30 years. Climate’s definition is a cause and effect, which the media or anyone else making this claim has logically backwards.
True.
But the point of it is, (a) media…. (b) these systems are vulnerable to weather so if weather is becoming more extreme (as stated by media) why are we rushing towards the cliff?
They are treating us like lemmings.
It’s an attempt to use their own arguments against them, you cannot on the one hand say that weather is becoming more extreme whilst on the other saying we need more fragile energy sources which will be subject to damage due to extreme weather.
I understand the intent. But a false claim is a false claim. Logical arguments do not use demonstratively false claims to advance their rationale because it’s ultimately stupid to do so.
Some people use lies when using the truth would suffice. A method I’ve always questioned as irrelevant at best and dishonest in the least.
Some people say the problems don’t matter because “we” will eventually figure out how to fix everything to operate much better, including apparently extracting 100% of wind energy – betz limit be dammed – and 100% solar – Einstein was a dummy, after all.
Offshore wind must be the most vulnerable to damage by a hostile party. Drones into blades and cutting undersea cables, and the hardest to protect.
Oh what kind of person would damage/destroy such a work of art?
/sarc
I’m thinking the whales and other sea creatures will soon join forces and rebel against all this human interference in their previously serene world.
I like the way you think. We (those of us opposed to these obscenities) need allies!
Perhaps the Prince of Whales might spout up.
But, will the combined armies of the sea differentiate any issue based on human values?
I can’t help but notice how the wind turbine tower buckled like a carboard wrapping paper tube. I wonder if they could be made stronger if they were square or u-channels. Perhaps the base could rotate to keep the wind force at an optimal direction. The rotating machinery would be near the ground where it’d be easier to oil and work on, not to mention shifting more weight from the top. I note that trailer frames are made with square and u-channels instead of tubes.
Trailer frames are subject to mainly vertical strain, so the I-beam is probably the best option
Wind turbine towers have to cope with wind that could come from any direction, so a circular section makes more sense.
The strength of the circular tower, which is essentially an annulus, is related to R⁴ – r⁴ (R and r being the inner an outer radii.)
The “working section” at the top of a wind turbine does rotate.
An elliptical section for the tower that could be rotated so the longer axis was always parallel to the wind would be better, but how you would rotate it to manage that would be a serious bit of engineering, given the fickle nature of wind direction.
No doubt engineers can solve the problem- at great cost! Just what we don’t need- more cost.
Maybe if the engineers, not politicians and self-anointed “climate scientists” were making decisions, we would have better results.
Maybe. Engineers can be sued if they screw up an engineering project. Never heard of a scientist being sued because he screwed up a scientific project/study. He may be laughed at but not sued. (Mann wasn’t sued for his less than shoddy scientific work, but for his legal actions.)
Then again, an engineer can get paid for a job poorly done and run to an island with no extradition.
Maybe.
I am an engineer. Certainly today anyone can be sued for anything, so I pass on that.
However, an engineer has to face failure square on, and figure out what went wrong, and fix it. Engineers generally have margins of safety in their designs, so any unqualified assumptions do not lead to major damage.
Nothing and no one is perfect, I get that, too.
Engineers know Murphy’s Law.
You could probably attach a sheathing to the bottom of the nacelle that had a teardrop shaped cross section so that the wide side faced the wind and could rotate with the generation pod
There are a number of different designs, some of which seem considerably more reasonable, but I suspect most of us don’t know enough about engineering to adequately evaluate this. Else why would all the major companies ignore these other possibilities? That doesn’t happen in a competitive environment.
This has been going on for a while – the design is pretty refined. A balancing act between robustness and cost. Having an extra gearbox and a long long shaft from the turbine axle to the generator at ground/sea level? I’m going to guess that you are not an engineer, and you don’t work with mechanical power transmission. But for pondering’s sake, consider ocean going ships and the classic solutions used to make them safe and reliable in rough even savage seas. What you are proposing is akin to standing a large ship on end, it might work but it would be incredibly expensive.
The torsional forces on the tower if things went even slightly wrong would be horrendous .
Not the mention the bending forces through the rotating mechanism !
That’s a good point. I didn’t consider torsional forces.
What ever happened to the vertical helix design for wind turbines? That would put all the mechanicals at ground level and the helix blades could be more robust.
Another version that came and went was the vertical slat. I used to see those in the neighborhood, much less visual impact. But I think all these can’t scale larger because the blades start not high off the ground, and the difference in wind speed would probably tear the things apart.
Have a look at this Darrieus wind turban – use Google Earth “street view” on Thorpe Prairie Road and rotate to the east when you get there:
47.101065, -120.750094
This was built about 45 to 50 years ago. It never was finalized and never decommissioned. It is about 13 miles east of me.
Yes, wha?. There have been various designs. They do not produce the horrendous infrasound burst of the conventional design because the rotating parts do not cross the pylon every circle, The blades are not stress by the large pressure differentials every time they pass the pylon of the conventional and the bearings are far less stressed. Supposedly they are more efficient as they work the same with the wind from any direction, without any reorienting being required.They were claimed to cost less to build. But where are they?
A balance between robustness and costs.
I am a rocket scientist. Actually there is no such thing, a NASA fiction created in the early Mercury days.
I am an engineer.
When we design, we design for maximum loads and then require a > 50% margin due to assumptions (qualified and unqualified) because the cost of failure is too high, much higher than the added margins of safety cost.
So, if it is incredibly expensive, then there are go/no-go decisions rather than just rushing the edge of the cliff.
This reminds me of the story about a horse drawn carriage in the front of an engineering book. Ending was you knew it was designed correctly if all pieces failed at the same time.
Ayah.
Plainly, wind turbines aren’t rockets. If a wind turbine was engineered to withstand the maximum possible load +50 percent, then they wouldn’t fail, would they? I’m not channeling NASA as I’ve no idea what fiction you are talking about. It’s plain to me that turbines are under engineered to save cost. And once in a while they get mowed down by extreme conditions.
I’m definitely an armature at engineering. I’m guessing that aesthetics might also play a role between robustness and cost. I note that early wind turbines and crane booms are made of trusses. Also most high tension power line towers are trusses, although I have seen steel poles. I’ve actually seen power line trusses that have one ground point and guy wires.
Of course for lesser loads, wood poles are commonly used.
I’m not an engineer either, though I did a lot of engineering. Just down the road a bit from me is the Tehachapi wind farms area. There are several generations of turbines scattered about. The older ones are small, crude looking, and mostly dead. I don’t think aesthetics are a consideration per say, just the industry evolved, and the refined designs have found the functional/cost optimum, and the now standard sleek minimal design, is…pretty?
There has to be a compromise between cost and durability. The engineers designing these things are hitting some spec for weather (and weathering) that has a reasonable probability of occurring, say 130 mph wind. 130 mph plus 50 percent load is about 160mph. But what about 200, 250 mph? It can happen, and if so, the turbines will be torn to pieces, making excellent video. Based on my design and engineering experience, I’m sure there is a strong non-linear relation between durability and cost. Spec’ing for that statistically rare condition greatly raises the cost.
Wind turbines with vertical rotating blades and the heavy stuff (e.g. generator) at ground level have been built and claimed to cost about 1/2 the standard design but apparently only a few have been put into operation,
Well, I suppose one could add a tail vane that swings the device into the wind like the North American farm windmills of old. But there’s a fair amount of mass up there that needs to swing. Might need a pretty big tail to swing it.
Visitors can climb into the bottom of a working tower at this site:
47.0127, -120.2007
I have done so. This is an older (2006 & 2009) instillation but quite impressive. Wikipedia has a page: Wild Horse Wind Farm. Company home page is:
PSE | Wild Horse
I brought up trailers, because I actually once bought a cobbled together trailer that used a metal pipe instead of a square tube. It actually buckled (broke on the top while still staying connected on the bottom), perhaps because I was pulling it too fast .. full of sand .. over some rail road tracks.
‘Media headlines claim,’ but those claims are false.
And I’ve been saying this for years – with wind and solar, “bad weather” destroys not just transmission and distribution lines and maybe some transformers or substations, but the power production infrastructure ITSELF.
I’ve got the perfect new slogan for wind and solsr…
“Wind and Solar – Making Blackouts More Frequent and Longer Too!
Net Zero really means that there will not be enough electricity on the “grid” to keep your lights on.
1 MW of wind turbine energy requires 220 tons of coal
steel is made from iron ore and coking coal
A wind turbine generator is 65% steel and 35% copper
The tower is 90% steel
The tower foundation is make from steel and concrete.
When the blades and tower collapse it become a net zero energy producer and a liability to the insurer.
We will have nothing, live in the dark, be hungry and cold, but we will be happy.
Those of us left, that is.
Net Zero really means the end to human civilization and a 95% reduction in global population.
Go view Soylent Green to see how society functions in that kind of situation.
Waiting for the troll…. But, but, China has developed a wind tower that can withstand a Cat 5 hurricane.
My response: Show me the wind tunnel test data.
Wind in a tornado can go as high as 321 mph (517 km/h). The speed is roughly double the highest in a hurricane.
With a tornado, you only bet one tower, not a farm.
EF5 can have a damage path 1 mile and perhaps larger. A tornado can be on the ground for 10s of miles.
So yes, not the farm. Just a swath down the middle assuming what the tornado throws misses the other towers.
And the wind in a wind tunnel is not gusting and changing direction constantly.
That is true. I was repeating nonsense posted by one of the more notorious trolls.
He claims the problem is solved because of the China design.
It gets more double dumb. The Marine Science Institute of the University of Texas in Port Aransas installed solar panels at about a 45 degree angle partly funded by a federal project on a building built too high. As a building inspector I know and I predicted they were not treated kindly in Hurricane Harvey. It gets worse. The lab also had “hurricane proof” windows punctured. I would like to know how many coastal structures are so poorly designed like in boilerplate 4 story motels, among others built too low or too high or with inadequate structure. I was told that in Okinawa which has more storms they know better. The turbines spreading from Corpus Christi missed the highest Harvey winds. Next time, but can we afford this?
A 400% increase in insurance for hail etc. Who is going to pick up that extra cost? And then when they figure out that putting up a few square miles of black solar panels that massively changes the local weather albedo and creates the local thunderstorm/hail, well, will they even be able to get insurance? Insurance will be the end to all this ‘renewable’ madness. But not before becoming so economical illiterate as to make ‘renewables’ financial suicide on every level.
“A 400% increase in insurance for hail etc. Who is going to pick up that extra cost?”
Everybody is doing this already. This is why insurance rates grow for all. This is a part of implicit carbon tax.
I recall back in the 70’s when energy prices skyrocketed and as a result
there were a lot of solar hot water heaters being installed on residential roof
tops. It made sense in the fact that the hot water energy percent of a household
was the highest. I wanted one but could never justify the expense at the time.
I can’t remember the last time I saw one, but it’s been decades. The latest energy
trend in my area is wood boilers. My neighbor bought a “smoke dragon” type maybe
8-10 yrs ago. He heats his home, shop and a couple of ag buildings and seems
quite happy with it. He burns a semi load of logs per season, I have a woodgas
batch burner that’s nearly 20yrs old and still running strong. A wood
heated shower is hard to beat. I’d go to a pellet type if I have to replace it. The.
only solar I have is on fence chargers and like those for certain uses. I noticed during
this hunting season several camp sites had some solar panels set out charging batteries
I would presume.
Due to my wife desires, back in the early 80s, we had solar water heater panels (look almost like solar electrical panels) and a very insulated tank vertical tank put on the roof. There was a electrical backup heating system with an automated control box in the spare bedroom closet. All during that summer, as I took a shower before leaving for work each morning, I heard that backup control switch slam shut somewhere in the middle of my shower to prevent the shower water from becoming cold. I did not stick around after that to compare bills but I suspect the electric power bill went way up because of that solar heater.
That was supposed to say “horizontal” tank, a tank that supposedly had an internal structure that reduced the direct mixing of new cold water with the remaining hot water whenever there was a heavy draw on the tank.
What was the promise of “The Green New Deal” and Green Energy?
They’ve been pushed for a decade or so and got enough people in office to implement them in many areas.
What have the people noticed?
When they flip a light switch, the light might not come on. If it does, it will cost more to keep it on.
If it’s a girl’s bathroom, there might be a guy waiting for them. Etc.
That’s not what the voters bargained for.