Tag Archives: offshore wind

Official CFACT statement on Maryland offshore wind

There is a rise on whales death and dead birds. This is not caused by climate change but by offshore wind farms.

From  CFACT.

From Craig Rucker, President
CFACT

The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) Executive Summary makes it clear it is intended to be the principal EIS for the Letter of Authorization (LOA) issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA). The central purpose of the LOA is to authorize the incidental harassment of marine mammals that will be adversely impacted by project noise.

That there will be such a LOA is certain because US Wind applied for one six months ago. That this application is not mentioned in the DEIS is a major omission. The application proposes the harassment of over 6,000 marine mammals, listed by species. A significant number of these harassments are of endangered species, including the extremely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale.

This multitude of harassments is arguably the greatest environmental impact that will be manifested by the Maryland Wind project. These harassments should be a central focus of the DEIS, but amazingly, they are never mentioned. In fact, the word “harassment” never even occurs substantively, as it is only found three times in a “definition” section. Thus, there is no assessment of harassment or its impacts — an incredible omission.

If the projected harassments are never discussed and weighed, then this DEIS cannot be the EIS for the LOA. If this is to be the LOA EIS, then it will have to be extensively reworked and expanded. This cannot be done until the LOA is issued, at which time the actual authorized harassment numbers will be available for assessment. Even if this is not the LOA EIS, the projected numerous harassments must be analyzed and their impact assessed to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Here, several issues arise, which are presented briefly below.

Harassment is itself an adverse impact. This is because harassment can easily lead to far worse impacts, up to and including the death of the animal. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) seems to concur, explaining in the following statement that harassment can cause harm. It refers to “pile driving” in particular, but the argument it contains holds for all harassments.

“It is possible that pile driving could displace animals into areas with lower habitat quality or higher risk of vessel collision or fisheries interaction. Multiple construction activities within the same calendar year could potentially affect migration, foraging, calving, and individual fitness. The magnitude of impacts would depend upon the locations, duration, and timing of concurrent construction. Such impacts could be long term, of high intensity, and of high exposure level. Generally, the more frequently an individual’s normal behaviors are disrupted or the longer the duration of the disruption, the greater the potential for biologically significant consequences to individual fitness. The potential for biologically significant effects is expected to increase with the number of pile-driving events to which an individual is exposed.”

Empire Wind DEIS v.1, Page 3.15-14, PDF page 372

We maintain the Maryland Wind DEIS is inadequate and needs to be revised for the following reasons:

1. The Maryland Wind DEIS does not analyze and assess harassment-induced impacts, and this is a major omission.

The DEIS projects there will be a likely increase in boat and ship accident frequency as a consequence of the project, finding it roughly doubles. (See Table 3.6.6-5 and related text.) A similar analysis must be made to assess similar adverse impacts, such as increased ship strikes on whales. Harassing whales into heavy-traffic ship lanes is a likely feature of the Maryland Wind project. And since ship strikes are a major cause of whale mortality and smaller marine mammals, then each of the impacts described in the Empire Wind quote above needs to be carefully assessed, species by species.

2. With pile driving, there is a major omission in the DEIS: alternative energy sources.

The alternative of nuclear power or even floating wind instead of using monopile foundations is not considered. Given that pile driving is projected to be the leading cause of harassment, other forms of energy alternatives might offer better mitigation and should be considered. Moreover, BOEM just let five leases off California specifically for floating wind, demonstrating the technology is feasible. Dominion Energy’s latest Integrated Resource Plan includes adding a number of modular nuclear reactors so that technology is also feasible. The present DEIS only includes a “no action” alternative, so it mistakenly omits other viable alternatives.

3. There is also a major unresolved issue with sonar harassment, the actual noise level.

Recent measurements by the Save Right Whales Coalition (SRWC) discovered that sonar survey sound levels were markedly higher than those being used to estimate harassment numbers. They were so much higher that a revised harassment projection might include five times as many harassments for sonar work. SRWC notified National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Dr. Richard Spinrad of these troublesome findings on September 8, 2023, well before the release of this DEIS. That notification and related materials are at https://saverightwhales.org/. This issue must be resolved for the sonar used at Maryland Wind, so that the correct harassment numbers are used for impact assessment.

4. A huge omission is the lack of assessment of harassment from operational noise.

Neither the NMFS LOA application nor this DEIS addresses this issue. They seem to assume that operational noise is harmless. However, Dr. Bob Stern, the former director of the Office of Environmental Compliance at the U.S. Department of Energy, presented a paper at the 2022 meeting of the North Atlantic Right Whale Consortium to the effect that large-scale operational noise was likely to create widespread harassment. The scale in question is that planned for Maryland Wind. This operational noise issue needs to be investigated and resolved in a revised DEIS.

5. The major issue of cumulative impact is not addressed.

This project is just one of many presently proposed to be built and operated simultaneously. The cumulative harassment impacts could be very large and must be assessed under NEPA for the Maryland Wind project. NMFS has deemed that harassment authorizations are limited to 30% of the stock population. At present, the simultaneous cumulative harassment requests exceed several hundred percent of the severely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale population. Such an impact needs to be cut back to 30% or less.

6. Life cycle harassment impact is a major omission.

The LOA is only for five years, while this EIS covers the impacts over the entire project life cycle. Thus, a separate harassment impact estimate, by species, will be needed for that longer period, especially given the harassment potential of operational noise.

Read CFACT’s Maryland Offshore Wind DEIS Comments as a PDF

Maryland-Offshore-Wind-DEIS-Comments-CFACT-1Herunterladen

Author


Craig Rucker

Craig Rucker is a co-founder of CFACT and currently serves as its president.

Widely heralded as a leader in the free market environmental, think tank community in Washington, D.C., Rucker is a frequent guest on radio talk shows, written extensively in numerous publications, and has appeared in such media outlets as Fox News, OANN, Washington Times, The Wall Street Journal, and The Hill, among many others.

Rucker is also the co-producer of the award-winning film “Climate Hustle,” which was the #1 box-office film in America during its one night showing in 2016, as well as the acclaimed “Climate Hustle 2” staring Hollywood actor Kevin Sorbo released in 2020.

As an accredited observer to the United Nations, Rucker has also led CFACT delegations to some 30 major UN conferences, including those in Copenhagen, Istanbul, Kyoto, Bonn, Marrakesh, Rio de Janeiro, and Warsaw, to name a few.

“Thrown To The Wind” documentary exposes government destruction of marine habitat

“Damn the whales, full speed ahead” seems to be the offshore wind policy of Biden’s NOAA. In the offshore wind stampede Biden’s National Marine Fisheries Service has lost sight of its mission to protect marine mammals.

From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT

By Paul Homewood

More on Michael Shellenberger’s campaign against the offshore wind farm projects that are killing whales.

Gradually his efforts are gaining traction – this clip comes from San Diego apparently. And he believes that Congress may soon start to investigate what appears to be blat6ant disregard for the law by the Federal Government:

CFACT helps lead Cape May protest to Save the Whales

CFACT helps organize Cape May rally to Save the Whales from offshore wind.

From  CFACT

Over 120 people gathered to protest offshore wind energy in Cape May, New Jersey and call attention to mounting numbers of whales being washed up along the East Coast this year. Numerous speakers addressed the crowd and led them in chants, including CFACT’s president Craig Rucker, and the event concluded with protestors holding glow sticks and forming a “whale tail” to showcase their solidarity with other activists around the world that were also conducting protests.

“We know that the pile driving and sonar blasting going on out there is being done at decibel levels that interfere with the whale, dolphin and other marine mammal navigation system…that’s outlandish,” Rucker noted. CFACT’s president then went on to say that the offshore wind projects should be opposed because they are not truly “green”, they drive up costs on ratepayers, and they destabilize the grid.

Also addressing the crowd was Congressman Jeff Van Drew, state Senator Michael Testa, Lund Fisheries president Wayne Reichle, Bonnie Brady of the Long Island Commercial Fisherman Association, conservation biologist Trisha DeVoe, animal rights activist Constance Gee, NJ fisherman Ed Baxter, and radio 98.7 FM host Melanie Collette.

The Biden administration currently plans to put in 30,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030 but has suffered numerous setbacks in recent months that has put his goal in jeopardy. Southcoast Wind in Massachusetts recently doled out $60 million to pull out of its contract to provide 2,400 MW in that state, and Avangrid’s Park City wind project was also recently terminated. In all, nearly 10,000 MW or the 30,000 MW of the President’s planned goal is now in a state of collapse as stock prices for several offshore wind and utility companies have plummeted by 40% in recent months.

Failing underwater cables “pose global threat to offshore wind”

From JoNova

By Jo Nova

They’re not much use without a lot of cabling. |   Image by Norbert Pietsch from Pixabay

Thanks to Oldbrew at Tallblokes Talkshop

Who knew high voltage cables running for kilometers in a deep electrolytic moving body of water would be expensive?

The 245kV Wolfe Island Cable | Photo by Z22

Despite offshore windfarms dealing in a kind of mechanical hell of high speed salt water spray, big waves and volatile wind conditions, surprisingly 85% of the insurance claims are because the underwater cables are failing.* If the subsea cables can’t be insured, it’s another unexpected cost threatening the economics of offshore wind.

The underwater cables needed for offshore wind are apparently so costly to repair, and the losses from lack of generation so steep, they are in danger of becoming uninsurable.

Subsea cable failures pose global threat to offshore wind

Energy News Live

The race to harness offshore wind energy has hit a significant roadblock, with the reliability of subsea cables emerging as a critical concern.

Global Underwater Hub (GUH) has raised alarm bells about the escalating issue of subsea cable failures.

These setbacks not only disrupt power transmission but also incur hefty costs.

Imagine if an entire coal plant was connected to the grid through one long cable buried under the ocean and when the cable failed it took months to find and repair — during which time the plant could not earn a cent…

Subsea cable failure could derail global offshore wind projects

World Oil

GUH chief executive, Neil Gordon, said, “It’s estimated that around 85% of the total value of offshore wind insurance claims relate to subsea cables. Insurers are losing money underwriting cables with the average settlement claim in the region of £9 million. Brokers have warned that the high number of cable claims is affecting capacity and coverage and the cost of repairs typically runs into millions, with warranties rarely covering the high cost of business interruption.

“If these critical components become uninsurable, offshore wind projects around the world will be derailed, making global 2050 net zero targets completely unachievable.”

According to one developer, the cost of insuring a 1.2GW offshore wind farm over its lifetime is in the region of £350 million and insurance brokers estimate that the costs of floating offshore wind will be 30% higher than fixed bottom ones.

Global Power Marine fixes export cables and quotes one happy customer talking about needing “only” 32 days instead of 67 days to repair the cable.  But all the while, part or all of the wind plant isn’t earning any income, and so much of any repair depends on getting good weather so a ship can hover and work uninterrupted while the cable is “dangling” and exposed.

Gulski et al estimate the duration of failure can be 1 to 3 or even up to 9 months:

“Last 20 years of experience shows that the power cables are the largest contributor to the failures of power supply from the offshore plants. “

From Gulski et al

For those who want the details on the challenges of engineering  Gulski et al detail some of the problems with subsea cables like the need for armour that isn’t magnetic, sections that are 30-50 kilometers long to avoid “joints” underwater, and why most cables on the sea floor are called “wet structures” which allow water in (at least to the outer layers).

Wind energy might be free, but collecting it costs the Earth.

Late Update — Australia desperately needs to learn these lessons

Prompted by comments from David Maddison and Ross below:

There are no offshore wind plants in Australia but we are rushing to build them, so the tales of woe from the UK and US are especially relevant here now.

The Basslink Cable from Tasmania to mainland Australian has broken not once, but three times here in the last seven years. First in 2016 for 5 or 6 months (I believe Australia didn’t even have the right repair ship, we used the Ile De Re which was based in Jakarta). Then the cable was out again in 2018 for two months. And in 2019 for another month due to a problem on land at the Victorian end.

The Basslink repair in 2016 were delayed for weeks because of bad weather.

After three weeks of delay, the ship was finally able to leave Geelong last night and the repair team hopes calm conditions will last long enough to connect a new section of cable to the existing one. The repair team needs 16 calm days to work on the cable before it can be up and running again.

How could our BOM even predict 16 calm days on the Bass Strait…?

_______________

*Admittedly, this percentage may be high because insurance companies don’t cover most of the other kinds of failures on wind “farms”, as we see with Siemens massive stock loss as they realized the true cost of maintenance.

Subsea cable failures could derail offshore wind ambitions – insurance costs ‘becoming prohibitive’

From Tallbloke’s Talkshop

September 25, 2023 by oldbrew

Another blow for net-zero dogmatists. More evidence that cheap offshore wind power doesn’t exist and nobody can control its costs, or be sure of a good level of reliability.
– – –
Global Underwater Hub (GUH) is leading the charge to tackle failures in underwater cables which could derail global offshore wind ambitions, says AGCC.

The trade body, which champions the UK’s £8billion underwater industry, says that reliability of subsea cables is “paramount” to the success of offshore wind and the energy transition.

But failure of these cables is all too common, to the point that the cost of insuring them is becoming prohibitive.

GUH chief executive, Neil Gordon, said: “It’s estimated that around 85% of the total value of offshore wind insurance claims relate to subsea cables. Insurers are losing money underwriting cables with the average settlement claim in the region of £9million. Brokers have warned that the high number of cable claims is affecting capacity and coverage and the cost of repairs typically runs into millions, with warranties rarely covering the high cost of business interruption.

“If these critical components become uninsurable, offshore wind projects around the world will be derailed, making global 2050 net zero targets completely unachievable.”

Globally, over £620billion of investment in offshore windfarms is anticipated by 2030 and, for the world to hit net-zero emissions by 2050, the generating capacity from offshore wind must increase by a staggering 1,120 GW. The subsea cable sector for offshore wind has been estimated at £100billion over the next ten years.

Mr Gordon added: “This scale of expansion and opportunity can only be achieved by installing and maintaining thousands of miles of reliable cables under the seabed.

“There is an urgent need for a holistic approach to finding solutions which can be implemented as offshore wind increases in scale and technical capability with higher voltages and dynamic elements.”
. . .
Mr Gordon explained: “With the shift from fixed to floating offshore wind, where the dynamic nature of floating cables is even more challenging, the critical issue of their reliability must be addressed as a matter of urgency.

“It’s clear there are inherent issues affecting the performance and reliability of subsea cables that are within the industry’s control. Failures can stem from any stage in the cable lifecycle – from design to manufacture, handling and installation, through to operation and maintenance.”

Full article here.

Giant Utility Rejects Net Zero Power, Big Fight Follows

From Watts Up With That?

By David Wojick

Dominion Energy, Virginia’s big electric utility, is telling the State it does not foresee complying with the 2045 net zero power target in the Virginia Clean Economy Act (VCEA). The preferred option in Dominion’s latest Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) retires no fossil-fueled power generators, other than the few old ones that are already in the process of retirement. In fact, it adds a lot more fossil juice.

Up front in the IRP, Dominion puts it this way: “Due to an increasing load forecast, and the need for dispatchable generation, the Alternative Plans show additional natural gas-fired resources and preserve existing carbon-emitting units beyond statutory retirement deadlines established in the VCEA. The law explicitly authorizes the Company to petition the SCC for relief from these requirements on the basis that the unit retirements would threaten the reliability or security of electric service to customers.”

So, in effect, this is a notice to Virginia’s utility regulator, the State Corporation Commission (SCC), that Dominion is prepared to petition for permission to not comply with the net zero power generation mandate in the VCEA.

In fact, this IRP may constitute such a petition. The anti-fossil forces apparently think so because they have petitioned the SCC to reject the IRP because it includes more gas-fired generation. In response, the SCC has initiated a formal legal proceeding to consider this request. A number of green groups have joined the proceeding; there has been a hearing, public comments have been taken, etc. The whole rulemaking deal.

The impetus for this unexpected bout of rationality from Dominion is, as the quote says, an increased load forecast. Specifically, the SCC requires Dominion to use the load forecast from the regional grid operator, which is PJM. They issued a whopping new forecast that is roughly double their earlier ones going back years.

So Dominion is saying they don’t think we can service this enormous new load and comply with the VCEA net zero mandate. They specifically propose not to retire most of their fossil fleet, plus adding almost 3,000 MW of gas-fired generation over the next 15 years. No wonder the anti-fossils are apoplectic.

Unfortunately, they also add a ridiculous amount of renewables. This is about 11,000 Megawatts (MW) of solar and 3,000 MW of mostly offshore wind, on top of the 2,600 MW of offshore already in process. With their usual smoke and mirrors, there is virtually no storage to make this intermittent junk reliable despite costing tens of billions of dollars. If the gas-fired power does that, why not just use it instead of the renewables? Plus, offshore wind is hell on whales. But I digress.

Dominion has 7 million customers in 16 States, so its Virginia no net zero action has much wider implications. Beyond that, it could be a national precedent, so other utilities, States, and interest groups should be watching closely.

What the SCC decides could be very important. Ironically, in a ridiculous sense, the SCC does not exist at this time. Due to a political stalemate, there is only one Commissioner, out of the called-for three, and it takes a quorum of two to issue a formal order. It looks like the most that can happen is that an administrative law judge can render an opinion on the anti-fossil petition.

The SCC legal mess is beyond my knowledge or understanding. Rejecting an IRP seems odd to begin with. Then, too, the VCEA seems to allow what Dominion is describing specifically. Nor is it at all clear that an IRP is a petition when the matter is just presented as an option. Perhaps it is a petition to be allowed to suggest it. The whole fight strikes me as an absurd confusion, but alarmism is like that. Maybe that is the message. Anti-fossil alarmism is an absurd confusion.

This confused action should be fun to watch. Stay tuned to CFACT as the no net zero drama unfolds.

Author

David Wojick

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.

For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.

Keep Virginia’s lights on! CFACT submission on natural gas generating plants

From CFACT

Wind and solar are wholly inadequate to Virginia’s energy needs.  CFACT explains the hard math that explains Virginia’s need to generate abundant, efficient electricity.

To: Virginia State Corporation Commission
Re: PUR-2023-00066
From: Craig Rucker, President
CFACT
1717 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Suite 1025
Washington, D.C. 20006
202-559-9036
Via SCC comment portal

Comments of CFACT regarding Dominion Energy’s 2023 IRP and their need for additional gas fired generating capacity during the 15 year planning period

Introduction

In their latest IRP, Dominion Energy argues that they will need to add some gas-fired generating capacity during their 15-year planning period. We support this expansion. Several lengthy comments have been filed in opposition to their proposal. We believe they are misguided.

In actuality, Dominion must not just add what they propose, but considerably more gas-fired capacity to their operations. This is because the amount of battery storage the company will need to reliably make their proposed renewable energy expansion possible is far greater than what they currently have planned.

The economics are clear. The required storage is prohibitively expensive. Thus, gas-fired backup is a better alternative as it is by far less costly. Moreover, given the much higher capacity factor and low cost of gas-fired capacity it would be more cost effective to use fewer renewables. This is especially true of the offshore wind capacity which is a serious threat to whales and other marine life. Offshore wind should not be built.

These issues are discussed briefly below. Additional analysis by Dominion is called for to properly address them.

Grossly inadequate storage

Dominion’s preferred option, Option B, calls for 2,370 MW of battery storage in the planning period. MW are the battery discharge rate, not the storage capacity. Assuming these are standard 4-hour batteries, the storage capacity is 9,480 Mwh.

This is an extremely small amount of storage, nowhere near enough to back up the proposed increase in renewables. A simple analysis makes this clear. Figure 1.1.1 projects an increase in DOM Zone summer peak of over 10,000 MW.

It is likely that Dominion will see load increases of 5,000 or more, possibly often. This load is supposed to be met using renewables and batteries. This isn’t likely to happen. Consider the simple case of a 12-hour night with low wind fulfilling that load. The storage requirement is 60,000 MWh, which is over six time the proposed storage capacity. Even if the batteries had a 10-hour capacity they would not come close to meeting the need.

Even worse, this simple case is far from being the worst that is likely to occur. Multiple cloudy hot and cold days with low wind are common in Virginia. Detailed historical analysis will be needed to properly estimate the likely maximum required storage capacity, and it will certainly be in the hundreds of thousands of Mwh.

Even assuming huge battery price reductions, this much storage would be prohibitively expensive. Gas-fired backup power is a better option.

Dominion has indicated it plans to meet some of this need with imported energy. But all the neighboring utilities are pursuing a similar dependence on renewables. The spatial extent of protracted low wind cloudiness with high load is often very large, including all the states near Virginia. Therefore, it is very likely that energy will not be available to import during these episodes. In fact, Dominion made this very point in its 2022 IRP Update. A much better path than relying on out-of-state electricity will be for the company to expand its gas-firedgenerating capacity.


Low projections of load growth

Dominion says the large projected load growth used in the IRP is mostly due to new data centers, not electrification of other energy uses. However, the load growth from electrification will also be very large under present policies. A great deal of gas-fired generation will be required to meet this additional load.

The reality is complex, but if we will keep it simple enough one can readily see the stark general picture.

To begin with, just consider electrification of gasoline usage, most of which is for cars and light trucks. According to EIA, Virginia’s estimated 2021 gasoline consumption is around 440 trillion Btu. The conversion is 3,412,000 btu = 1 MWh. So that is about 130 million MWh in gasoline energy. Also in 2021 Virginia’s electric power generation is 93.5 million MWh. Thus, the gasoline energy is 1.4 times the total power generation. If it takes this much energyto power cars and light trucks in the Old Dominion, then it becomes necessary to build new generation capacity that is almost one and a half times the Commonwealth’s present generation to make the transition. We have seen no plan that even begins to seriously address
this issue.

Of course, a real analysis, which Dominion should do, would get very technical. For example, car engines are only around 40% efficient. So one might argue that only 40% of that 130 million MWh, or 52 million, is needed to run the electric version. That is still well over half of present generation. But the electric power and electric car system is also far from 100% efficient. There are line losses, storage losses, motor losses, etc. But the bottom line holds true: if 52 million MWh has to be used, then a lot more has to be generated. And this is just with respect to gasoline. The present policy goal is to electrify as much fossil
fuel use as possible. Natural gas use is huge. EIA says Virginia’s 2021 consumption was about 700 trillion Btu, or almost twice as much as gasoline, and many gas uses are efficient. Distillate oil, including diesel and heating oil, is roughly another 200 trillion Btu. Even coal is around 70 trillion Btu.

It seems likely, therefore, that widespread electrification could easily double the load increase from that projected for the planning period in the IRP. A great deal of new gas-fired generation will be needed to meet that load. Dominion needs to include this case in its IRP.

Offshore wind is expensive, redundant and environmentally destructive

Instead of building new gas-fired generating capacity to backup renewables, it will be far more cost effective to use gas as a primary energy source. Having gas capacity sit idle simply because the wind is blowing or the sun shining for part of the day is redundant and expensive. Dominion should analyze this issue.

The case of offshore wind is particularly extreme. In all five options, Dominion projects 3040 MW of new wind, mostly offshore, on top of the 2,600 or so MW already in process. The total cost is presently projected to exceed $8 billion per 1,000 MW or over $45 billion. This for atechnology that seldom produces full-power and sometimes produces none at all, including
during periods of peak load.

Moreover, the projected cost of offshore wind projects has increased dramatically in recent months, on the order of 50% at this point. It is likely that the IRP needs to be redone to take such huge increases into account.

In addition to this exorbitant cost, offshore wind has been implicated in numerous whale deaths — including the extremely endangered North Atlantic Right Whale. Strangely, the IRP does not include this issue.

IRP Appendix 5L is a five-page list of the many Environmental Regulations that Dominion is scrutinized under. On page 194, in a section called “Wildlife”, there are just 3 entries. These entries are all about the endangered Atlantic Sturgeon, which is threatened by hot water from nuclear power plants. There is no mention of the Marine Mammals Protection Act harassment
authorizations, even though the present offshore wind construction and operation is waiting for one and they cannot start the offshore portion of the project without it. Also not mentioned are the crucial Environmental Impact Statement and BOEM approval of the project.

This is preposterous, as the threat to whales is clear. The project creates what amounts to an intense noise wall that forces the whales to go around, either to the East or to the West.

Immediately to the East lies the westernmost lane of the very busy coastal ship traffic. To the West lies the equally busy coastal barge traffic. Both are deadly to the species.

It seems the project was deliberately located where there is the least shipping traffic. This would make sense if it were not for the whales and other marine mammals. As it is the projectcloses the low shipping corridor, which the whales undoubtedly use. Being hit by ships is the leading cause of death to whales, and the placement of wind turbines in these waters will
facilitate more such collisions.

In summary

CFACT supports Dominion’s construction of new gas-fired power plants. The company will need a great deal of new gas-fired generating capacity in order to meet its vastly increasedbase load that is projected over the planning period. Many of the factors and drivers involved are not included in the present IRP, and Dominion needs to properly address them. In the  meantime, however, given all these factors, it would seem building more gas-fired capacity is both a proper and responsible course to set.

A fairy story about offshore wind costs

From Net Zero Watch

By Andrew Montford

Introduction

Whitehall has just published the latest version of its estimates of the cost of generating electricity from different sources. The last edition, in 2020, was a source of considerable entertainment because of the absurd claims it made about the costs of offshore wind power, a key factor in determining the cost of Net Zero.

Capital costs

Notably, the authors claimed that by 2025 a megawatt of offshore wind capacity would only cost £1.5 million, around half of what recent windfarms have cost. I had a lot of fun pointing out that Dogger Bank A, due to be commissioned in 2025, had already spent £1.1 million per megawatt by the end of last year, and it hadn’t even finished putting in the foundations!

I like to think that my ridicule of the efforts of the DESNZ bureaucrats has had an effect, because in the new edition, the capital cost has mysteriously doubled(!), returning to a more credible figure of £3 million per megawatt.

However, remarkably, the overall offshore wind cost estimates is actually slightly lower than in the previous version. This is shown in Figure 1, alongside the earlier estimates, and (optimistic) estimates based on actual data for operational windfarms. The implausibility of the official figures is undeniable.

Figure 1. BEIS/DESNZ estimates of the levelised cost of offshore wind, and actuals

So, given the doubling of the capital costs between the two most recent estimates, how have our friends in Whitehall managed to achieve an overall cost reduction?

Output

The main way appears to have been to increase the projected output for windfarms, from 51% of capacity last time round, to 61% this year. The authors cite increasing turbine size as an explanation, and indeed the turbine size cited is 14 MW, as compared to 12 GW last time round..

However, it’s hard to be polite about this figure.

It’s important to recognise that 61% is supposed to represent a lifetime average, and windfarms’ output declines steadily as they get older. If we take an absurdly optimistic estimate of that decline, of 1% per year, it would mean that the first year output would need to be 70%.

Figure 2 shows the latter figure against the actual performance of recent windfarms by commission date.

Figure 2: Offshore wind capacity factors by year of commission – actual and DESNZ estimate

Figure 3 shows the same figures by turbine size. There is a strong suggestion that there are declining returns from ever larger turbines, and the DESNZ estimate again looks rather ridiculous.

Figure 3: Offshore wind capacity factors by turbine size – actual and DESNZ estimate

Opex

It’s no different when you look at the operating cost figures. DESNZ’s figure of £56,000 lifetime average for windfarms commissioning in 2025 is completely preposterous. The main driver of operating costs seems to be water depth; larger turbines has, at best, a minimal impact. Recent windfarms in deep water start at well over £100,000/MW/year (Figure 4)

Figure 4: Offshore wind opex by water depth and turbine size

And operating costs rise steadily as the turbines age. I would expect the lifetime average for Dogger Bank A to be closer to £200,000/MW/year than to £50,000.

Conclusion

When it comes to offshore wind costs, Whitehall is lurching from one ludicrous evidence-free claim to another in a desperate attempt to maintain the pretense that it can be delivered at low cost. In reality, they have no choice but to lie, because cheap renewable energy is central to government’s claims that Net Zero is affordable. And as if to confirm that we are dealing with disinformation, the appearance of the new estimates comes against a background of increasingly shrill demands from the wind industry for further subsidy – it’s a tipping point, they say. But how can this be if their costs really are as low as DESNZ claims?

A few days ago, Philip Hammond called for politicians to come clean about the costs of Net Zero. He was right to do so, and the first step along that road will be for ministers and civil servants to come clean about the cost of renewable energy. Nobody believes their fairy tales any longer.

Offshore wind has a cost crisis

From CFACT

By David Wojick

The horrific term “cost crisis” is not from me. It comes down from on high, in this case the mega-conference: US Offshore Wind 2023. Specifically the “DEVELOPER LEADERS KEYNOTE PANEL” which features this chilling title: “Tackling The Cost Crisis Through Assessing Investment Risks”. See https://events.reutersevents.com/renewable-energy/offshore-wind-usa/agenda

Mind you I could not attend, given the tickets cost $4,000 with schmoozing or a mere $3,000 without. This just shows how gold plated the offshore boom has become.

But now they have a cost crisis. Could the bust be at hand? The evidence is piling up.

Here in America one major developer has agreed to pay $48 million to get out of their power purchase agreement (PPA) because it no longer would pay for the project. That project is now dead in the water because no one will finance a billion dollar project with no PPA.

Conversely, another project is dead for now because the candidate electric utility rejected the newly proposed (and very costly) PPA. In some cases the existing PPA is with the local State, not a utility. These are obviously subject to political risks as well. Other developers have petitioned their host State for MORE MONEY.

Moreover, many of the projects in the Bidenesque 30,000 MW offshore wind queue have no PPA at this point. They are at deep risk for sure.

The cost crisis is global and here is a telling example that just happened. The giant developer Vattenfall just halted a huge project in the UK. Here is the headline from the offshore wind loving newsletter

https://www.offshorewind.biz:

“BREAKING: Vattenfall Stops Developing Major Wind Farm Offshore UK, Will Review Entire 4.2 GW Zone” (Maybe the industry is breaking, as well as the story.)

That is 4,200 MW of projects, about $16 billion worth before the cost crisis, now on ice. Vattenfall is clear about its reasons, albeit with some artful jargon. They say this:

“Higher inflation and capital costs are affecting the entire energy sector, but the geopolitical situation has made offshore wind and its supply chain particularly vulnerable. Overall, we see cost increases up to 40%.”

So there are three converging factors. Higher material and equipment costs, higher interest rates and political resistance. For example it has not gone unnoticed that the House Republicans are trying to roll back the lush subsidies granted under the amusingly named Inflation Reduction Act.

Local resistance is growing as well. The biggest developer offshore America is Ørsted and they are now suing New Jersey’s Cape May County and Atlantic City for withholding local permits needed to bring a big project’s power ashore. Anti-offshore wind demonstrations are becoming a common occurrence in coastal towns.

Of particular interest is the Dominion Energy project off Virginia. This is a huge 5,200 MW, 300 square mile, proposal just 15 miles off the world’s biggest naval base at Norfolk. Unlike the other projects this one is being built by the regulated utility itself, so there is no PPA. Instead the books are open to a degree. This includes some required cost estimates.

Dominion’s pre-crisis cost estimates for the first 2,600 MW were about $10 billion for construction and a bit over $20 billion including financing. The latter is called the “revenue requirement” which means this is the bill their customers will have to pay.

Presumably Dominion will now be required to do new, crisis-laden estimates. If these come in at, say, $14 billion and $28 billion the political reaction could be quite strong. And this assumes things will get no worse, which they easily could. We await with great interest.

Offshore wind has been booming so is this the bust? Time will tell so stay tuned to CFACT as this story unfolds.

Author


David Wojick

David Wojick, Ph.D. is an independent analyst working at the intersection of science, technology and policy.

For origins see http://www.stemed.info/engineer_tackles_confusion.html For over 100 prior articles for CFACT see http://www.cfact.org/author/david-wojick-ph-d/ Available for confidential research and consulting.

UK offshore wind is dead in the water – as predicted

From Net Zero Watch

London, 20 July – As one of the world’s biggest windpower developers halts its top UK wind project and warns about further cancellations, Net Zero Watch reminds ministers that they have been warned for years about this inevitable fiasco.

Vattenfall, an international mega-developer of windpower, has put the UK’s giant 1.4 GW offshore wind project Boreas on ice, claiming that rising costs have made the Contract for Difference, awarded last year for £45/MWh (2023 prices), uneconomic (“Key UK offshore wind project axed in blow to climate plans“).

Net Zero Watch, amongst others (see publications listed below), has long warned that the low CfD bids made in the UK had no basis in economic reality. The capital and operating costs of wind power, particularly offshore are still very high. This technology is unattractive and imposes very high system costs when compared to gas generation even at today’s elevated prices. It is completely uneconomic if the gas prices continue to revert to their historic levels.

Net Zero Watch notes that Vattenfall has said it will be considering the future of all is wind projects in the Norfolk zone, with a total of 4.2 GW, placing pressure on the UK government to make extra support available to ensure construction and meet the targets for offshore wind.

Professor Gordon Hughes (University of Edinburgh), the author of many of the studies exposing the reality of wind power costs, said:

It is obvious and now increasingly widely recognised that wind industry claims about costs and performance should not be taken seriously. Very high costs have been clear in the financial data for a long time, and are not the result of recent inflation and supply chain difficulties, though these may be making a bad situation still worse.”

Dr John Constable, NZW’s Energy Director, added:

It is critically important that the UK government does not succumb to the tacit blackmail of Vattenfall’s announcement. The wind experiment has failed. The consumer cannot be expected to continue propping up this unfolding disaster.”

Notes for Editors: Articles and studies on unrealistic offshore wind bids for Contracts for Difference

1. Gordon Hughes, Capell Aris, John Constable, Offshore Wind Strike Prices: Behind the Headlines (GWPF: London, 2017)

2. Gordon Hughes, Who’s the Patsy? Offshore wind’s high-stakes poker game (GWPF: London, 2019

)3. John Aldersey-Williams, Ian D. Broadbent, Peter A. Strachan, “Better estimates of LCOE from audited accounts– A new methodology with examples from United Kingdom offshore wind and CCGT”, Energy Policy, 128 (2019), pp 25-35.

4. Gordon Hughes, Wind Power Economics: Rhetoric and Reality: Volume I: Wind Power Costs in the United Kingdom (Renewable Energy Foundation: 2020).

5. Gordon Hughes, Wind Power Economics: Rhetoric and Reality: Volume II: Wind Power in Denmark (Renewable Energy Foundation: 2020).

6. Andrew Montford, Offshore wind: Cost predictions and cost outcomes (GWPF: London, 2021)

7. Kathryn Porter: Addressing the high real cost of renewable generation (Watt Logic 2022)

—————————————————————————————————————————————–