Orsted CEO says abandoning US wind projects a 'real option'
(www.offshore-mag.com)
Comments (26)
sorted by:
They tell us that their solutions are sustainable and that they produce cheap electricity in a reliable way. I take that to mean that they can supply electricity at a price that will make them huge profits.
So why do they need more subsidies? Is it more expensive to make wind turbines than they are letting on?
Homework (for anyone sufficiently interested!):
A simple way to compare energy sources is their capacity factor. A capacity factor describes how intensely a fleet of generators is run. It is a ratio of a fleet's actual generation to its maximum potential generation (according to the Energy Information Agency, EIA). For example nuclear is 80-90%. Coal is 50-60%. Wind is 30-40%. Solar is about 20% Another measure on cost is what is called Levelized Cost. It takes into account all the costs (initial investment and running costs). Conventional coal is 94.8 $/MWh and offshore wind is 243.2. The EIA is a great source for some of the items you listed.
And does the Levelized Cost account for future degradation of the wind turbines, and absolute degradation of solar panels?
Levelized Cost takes into account the replacement costs of an energy source. I don't know how solar and wind get rated because their efficiencies have supposedly improved with time. I should look that up.
The latest EIA publication on Levelized Cost is so complicated. Those economists have gone wild. They have now added battery storage. What is interesting is that they project the costs into the future and take account of two types of tax credits. There will be a phase out of credits over time. But what I find concerning is that the renewables will be built and added to the grid before these credits expire and we will be stuck with them. Another thing I noticed is how they have managed to make it look how renewables now compete nuclear and fossils fuels (which was not the case in the past). source: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/electricity_generation.pdf
There are SOOOO many fraudulent people (or just so brainwashed into thinking what they are doing is good) in SOOOO many facets of our country! I have a feeling my retirement account will depreciate even more than it has in the past 18 months!
You will own nothing and be happy - eat ze bugs
While Capacity Factors may be interesting to some I feel that an understanding of exactly how much space a so-called renewable solution would occupy would be interesting to many more.
For instance, would we need to fill Rhode Island with wind turbines to satisfy the USA's energy requirements or would we need to fill Texas, or Alaska, or several Alaskas?
Levelized Cost is also a con that does not tell the whole story. Comparing a working solution with an intermittent solution is not a fair comparison particularly as the failings of the intermittent system impose extra costs on to the working system. Also, the intermittent systems should really include storage costs to iron out that intermittency but they do not. The cost to make up the difference falls to the conventional energy sector.
I agree with you about Levelized Cost but it is what is used to consider cost by economists (they like their formulas). So even using that formula shows the extra cost of wind and solar over time. Area is not considered in any calculation. We had this problem with solar in New Jersey. The solar warriors wanted to build solar farms but we have very limited open space in the state. We also have a very strong Preserve Farmland group that put up strong opposition. So then the state wanted to put them on brownfields (disserted manufacturing sites). Turns out that would be an environmental disaster. We have many superfund sites in this state. So that's when we came up with installing solar panels on telephone poles. We put up a lot but stopped for some reason.
There is another bad aspect to wind turbines on land - their noise.
Also what you say about area is harder to compare when considering offshore wind. .
I think the area question is "overlooked" on purpose by the proponents of renewable energy. The UK's largest power station would need a couple of hundred square miles of solar panels to replace it - probably even more if you take into account UK weather and latitude.
In the US, the Ivanpah solar plant hd to be scaled back because it was impinging too much on the habitat of the desert tortoise. The site covers approaching six square miles and it produces less energy than a single coal-fired generator - and even then it has to be warmed up each day with gas!
I did the calculation I suggested for the USA and an area of eight times that of Texas would need to be covered in wind farms to power the entire USA. OK, that will be a high estimate because efficiency of current methods was not taken into account but total energy, not just electricity, was considered.
I think that if people started from the land-use end rather than the "who likes pollution" end we might have some more realistic discussions.
Yes that is a great point. People get so emotional about renewable energy. They think of themselves as ecowarriors. It's been a great pysop.
Find out how long they last, That's the real problem.
I agree that is also important. They might last 30 years so the whole lot needs to be rebuild every thirty years. The calculation I did for the US concluded that over 150 turbines would need to be built and installed every day for ever to maintain current supply levels.
Also, the US would need over 4,000 of Tesla Gigafactories to supply the batteries to back up the system for a day in case the wind dropped.
Orsted, the world's largest offshore wind farm developer, is prepared to walk away from projects in the US unless the country's administration guarantees more support.
BTW - Orsted is a Danish company,
Their wind projects are not cost effective. What the foreign company is basically saying is if the US taxpayer doesn't keep footing the bill for our bullshit we are going to stop because we can't make any money.
Land based windturbines are losing money without subsides. Can you imagine how much more money it takes to build a windturbine offshore?
Another thing that amazes me about the wind energy is the pass from the animal rights / enviormental nut jobs. We were bombarded with images of birds covered in oil every time there was a spill or some obsure pit in the middle of no where had water fowl land on it, and yet the turbines are killing the waterfowl and raptors but the media and the enviros / animal rights people seem to have lost their voice. Why is that?
Also whales: https://greatawakening.win/p/16c2W8wzjg/offshore-windfarms-kill-whales/c/
And wait until the first major Northeaster, or even minor hurricane, comes through an offshore wind turbine array.
In New Jersey- there is strong opposition to offshore wind by environmental groups and fisherman.
Out west here there are thousands of acres being covered with them and not a peep from the eco crowd.
Only 3% of the 90,0000 dams in U.S.use the water for hydroelectric production. The infrastructure is in place, just modification is needed.
see ya, moochie Globalist Faggot!!!
Whoever put them up better completely remove them because they are a huge pollutant. Then they need to pay for storage, not just dump in a landfill. Until these companies are made to pay for their actions, they will continue to pollute our lands and waterways.
They want more tax credits.
There are some of those huge wind turbines not too far east of Binghamton, NY, off route 17. I have been by there about a half dozen times, and even on windy days, have not seen them move.
That is insane. You should get in contact with the utility that owns them and asks them what's up.
Let them walk. Wind power is junk. Wind power isn't really generation. We are merely converting energy from one form to another. The turbine doesn't generate anything.
Solar/Wind/Hydro/Nuclear it's all energy conversion, not generation and they are ALL distractions and very outdated tech.
We must approach this thinking like TESLA.
Point Source power generation from the Ether's electric/magnetic always present qualities is where we must focus. Using magnets and electronics, it is possible to generate power from the Ether as long as the magnets stay magnetized.
LEDs generate point source light perturbations of the Ether that only require a small current to establish and hold. The light generated is extremely efficient compared to other methods of energy conversion to produce light, because it is true generation of light.
Power generation using the Ether will be similar to that process.
Stimulate Ether -> Harness/Direct Ether Reaction