Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump needs to stop US Offshore wind turbines

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump needs to stop US Offshore wind turbines

    Says me!

    Has Trump said anything about offshore wind turbine projects.? I think the US has one running with a few more in the pipeline. Compared to European offshore development the US program is in its infancy - perfect time for an abortion.

    Offshore wind turbines appeal to the impractical leftwing greenies because the idea of it sounds fantastic. Their thinking being that spending a huge amount more on locating turbines offshore, instead of on land, has no negatives. No noise or space problems and because the taxpayer is a bottomless pit of money, the extra cost isn't a problem.

    TO those that don't know things either fixed in place or floating on the ocean are in one of the most corrosive environments on the planet. Maybe the most. It's corrosive effects can be largely mitigated but only through expensive application of protective coatings etc and expensive, constant and extensive maintenance. On top of corrosive effects, objects fixed in the ocean have to resist the constant forces applied it by currents and winds.

    Basically it's a retarded places to put wind turbines unless you can use other peoples money to do it. It's hard to find anything on the amount of money being spent to stop turbines dissolving by countries with offshore sites. I recently came across the following pdf from 2009 that puts 'unexpected corrosion damage' (unexpected for an idiot) costs at 18 billion euros ANNUALLY for the country of the Netherlands. Netherland's military budget is around 4 billion euro a year I think.

    http://www.we-at-sea.org/wp-content/...jle-Meijer.pdf

    From what I can gather this 18 billion euros is not factored in to cost per kilowatt calculations used to compare set up costs to other power sources such as coal and nuclear etc. No doubt because it would blow the costs out of the water. Infact, I dare say that governments seem to be actively trying to hide the amount of money being spent on maintaining offshore sites for fear of looking like the fools they are.

    I was a bit shocked at the 18 billion euro figure being spent every year but not really surprised. An offshore wind turbine is under attack 24/7 365 days a year by an ocean that thinks most of its component parts are delicious.

    I understand I've only got one source and would welcome any more that people might have. But if this is really what is being spent by the Netherlands then similar amounts will be being spent by other counties as well. It's lunacy and a massive waste of money.

    The article below puts the installation costs of a Rhode Island offshore site at $150000 per home powered, compared to $1000 for a nuke plant. Kind of supports the above.

    http://www.cfact.org/2017/05/03/offs...ently-powered/

  • #2
    "Energy from offshore wind in the UK will be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear power for the first time.

    The cost of subsidies for new offshore wind farms has halved since the last 2015 auction for clean energy projects

    Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a guaranteed price of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

    This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour."

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gooner View Post
      "Energy from offshore wind in the UK will be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear power for the first time.

      The cost of subsidies for new offshore wind farms has halved since the last 2015 auction for clean energy projects

      Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a guaranteed price of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

      This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour."

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948
      Somebody is getting swindled...


      https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf...generation.pdf
      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
        Yes, we are. Although new nuclear is for us, surprisingly, the bigger swindle.

        Comment


        • #5
          The UK taxpayers are getting swindled...
          The next wave of renewable energy funding has been set for eighteen months time in a bid to build on the dramatic fall in technology costs seen in the latest round of auctions.

          Renewable developers will compete for a slice of £557m to support new energy technologies such as offshore wind where costs have halved in recent years.

          The plunging cost of offshore wind in the most recent auction meant more wind farms were able to apply for the £294m funding pot, bringing an investment surge of £17.5bn into the UK.
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...e-energy-boom/

          The lower the £/MWh bid, the bigger the pot of corporate welfare...
          The UK’s offshore wind sector could power a £17.5bn investment in the UK economy over the next four years after faster than expected cost-cutting slashed subsidies for the technology by half.

          The Government’s latest auction for support contracts, released on Monday, shows that offshore wind costs have halved in recent years to under £58 for every megawatt-hour of electricity produced, even lower than the estimates given by experts in the run-up to the results.

          The lower costs mean more wind farms will be able to apply for the £294m funding pot, bringing an investment surge of £17.5bn into the UK. The boom is even greater than the £11bn predicted by Renewable UK as recently as last week.
          http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...e-energy-boom/
          Introduction
          While the world absorbed the outcome of the US presidential election on November 9, 2016, the UK Government finally published plans for the second allocation round (AR2) for Contracts for Difference (CfD) which is now planned to start in April 2017.

          Consistent with announcements made in the Budget in March 2016, the Government has allocated £290m of funding for projects using “less established” technologies (so-called “Pot 2” technologies) commissioning in the 2021/22 and 2022/23 delivery years. Successful projects will be awarded a 15 year CfD.

          To be eligible to participate in AR2, all projects must have a target commissioning date falling between April 1, 2021 and March 31, 2023. For offshore wind projects building in phases, they will be permitted to commission up to two years later. Further details relating to eligibility and the auction round mechanics will be published in the Allocation Framework document in due course.

          It is important to recall that CfDs will be allocated to the cheapest projects first, regardless of their start date, provided that they fit within the budget profile. Also the strike price awarded to projects in an auction will be the highest strike price bid accepted for each delivery year (regardless of technology type), capped at the applicable technology specific administrative strike price.
          http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/k...#autofootnote2

          Dong bid 57.4£/MWh (~$82/MWh) to get a chunk of the £294,000,000 "funding pot"...
          UPDATE - Dong to build Hornsea 2 after CfD win at GBP 57.5/MWh

          Sep 11 (Renewables Now) - Denmark's Dong Energy A/S said today it has taken a final investment decision on the 1,386-MW Hornsea Project Two offshore wind farm after being awarded a contract for difference (CfD) at a record low price for the UK of GBP 57.50 (USD 76/EUR 63.3) per MWh.

          A total of three offshore wind projects representing about 3.2 GW of capacity were successful in the UK government's CfD auction. The results, unveiled today, showed a hefty 50% fall in offshore wind costs compared to the previous tender in 2015. In the UK, the construction of grid connections is included in the project scope, unlike recent tenders in Germany, Denmark and the Netherlands. These assets are later sold to an offshore transmission licensee.

          Hornsea Project Two will be located 89 km (55 miles) from the Yorkshire coast and will become the world's biggest offshore wind farm, leapfrogging the 1,200-MW Hornsea Project One that Dong Energy is currently constructing. It is due to be operational from 2022.

          The UK government granted development consent for Hornsea Project Two, with a capacity of up to 1.8 GW, last summer.

          [...]
          Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Gooner View Post
            "Energy from offshore wind in the UK will be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear power for the first time.

            The cost of subsidies for new offshore wind farms has halved since the last 2015 auction for clean energy projects

            Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a guaranteed price of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

            This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour."

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948
            Now I wonder if the UK factors in corrosive control costs? One thing they don't do (I've found no evidence anyway) is factor in the cost of baseload backup generation capacity for the turbines. If a stable grid is required then every watt of installed turbine capacity needs to be backed up by a watt of baseload capacity (usually gas turbines). If an unstable grid is what you seek then a certain amount of backup is still required due to the 'erratic' nature of wind power production. Wind power has a nasty habit of generating power when not needed and not producing when it is.

            Australia recently had Elon install a Tesla battery pack in South Australia. It was only needed to support South Australia's wind turbines but do you think the $100m price tag was added to the cost of wind power? Nope. South Aus also acquired several gas turbine units to backup the wind turbines. Were those costs added to the wind power bill? Nope.


            I'd also love to see a build cost break down of the Hinkly Plant. Me thinks there would be a lot of red tape costs involved. Costs that servo no practical function other than to allay the fears of those that think everything nuclear is an atomic bomb. I also would bet my house that every single cost, however unrelated, would be guaranteed to be added to the cost of nuclear unlike renewables.

            When it comes to build costs I doubt there is any other industry that makes more use of 'creative accounting' then the renewable energy industry. One of their best 'moves' is to base generation costs on output levels that are never achieved ie a site will produce an average 100kw/h a year in the brochure but only provide half that in service.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Gooner View Post
              Yes, we are. Although new nuclear is for us, surprisingly, the bigger swindle.
              The £/MWh for Hinckley Point are close to what it will actually cost and it will generate full capacity 90% of its service life.

              The £/MWh for Hornsea 2 are about half of what it will actually cost and it will generate full capacity for less than half of its service life.

              This graph isn't a coincidence:



              France gets ~75% of its electricity from nuclear power. Germany and Denmark are the world leaders in offshore wind energy. If you're going to subsidize a generation source, you should subsidize the ones that actually work (coal and nuclear power).
              Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                The £/MWh for Hinckley Point are close to what it will actually cost and it will generate full capacity 90% of its service life.

                The £/MWh for Hornsea 2 are about half of what it will actually cost and it will generate full capacity for less than half of its service life.
                AIUI The strike price for the new wind is only guaranteed for the first 15 years - after that its market rate?

                For Hinckley C they get the subsidy for 35 bloody years!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                  AIUI The strike price for the new wind is only guaranteed for the first 15 years - after that its market rate?

                  For Hinckley C they get the subsidy for 35 bloody years!
                  The strike price is more complicated. If the market rate goes above the strike price, I think they have to rebate the difference.

                  Hinkley C will still be running in 35 years. Will Hornsea 2?
                  Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by The Doctor View Post
                    The strike price is more complicated. If the market rate goes above the strike price, I think they have to rebate the difference.

                    Hinkley C will still be running in 35 years. Will Hornsea 2?
                    Some of our old nuke plants have been running for coming upto 60 years.

                    Can't say for wind but the interconnectors will be there, hopefully they can just plug and play better turbine designs when the time comes.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                      Some of our old nuke plants have been running for coming upto 60 years.

                      Can't say for wind but the interconnectors will be there, hopefully they can just plug and play better turbine designs when the time comes.
                      Properly maintained, nuke plants should be able to operate for 100 years.
                      Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I've done a bit reading on the Hinkley plant history. I think it's pretty clear that the cost of the plant has been somewhat (shedload) increased by politics.


                        Policy changes, privatisations, nationalisations the list goes on. Hinkley's construction history is soaked in political nonsense. Hardly a poster child nuclear project. More like a worse case scenario. So no great achievement for offshore power to become cheaper than Hinkley.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gooner View Post
                          "Energy from offshore wind in the UK will be cheaper than electricity from new nuclear power for the first time.

                          The cost of subsidies for new offshore wind farms has halved since the last 2015 auction for clean energy projects

                          Two firms said they were willing to build offshore wind farms for a guaranteed price of £57.50 per megawatt hour for 2022-23.

                          This compares with the new Hinkley Point C nuclear plant securing subsidies of £92.50 per megawatt hour."

                          http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-41220948
                          What is being subsidised? If generators are being paid either $57.50 or $92.50 for a megawatt hour isn't that a fee?

                          Offshore will get $57.50 per megawatt. Hinkley gets $92.50. The reason offshore gets less is because the power will be bought whenever the turbines are producing - needed or not. Hinkley's power will only be bought when needed. That's a pretty big concession being made to offshore generators when you look closely.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Jazsa View Post
                            Offshore will get $57.50 per megawatt. Hinkley gets $92.50. The reason offshore gets less is because the power will be bought whenever the turbines are producing - needed or not. Hinkley's power will only be bought when needed. That's a pretty big concession being made to offshore generators when you look closely.
                            Is that right? Quite a big fine-print advantage to wind.

                            Policy changes, privatisations, nationalisations the list goes on. Hinkley's construction history is soaked in political nonsense. Hardly a poster child nuclear project. More like a worse case scenario. So no great achievement for offshore power to become cheaper than Hinkley.
                            What could be even worse is that the reactor design hasn't even been proven to work yet. They've been building a couple to this design - in Finland and France - for a long time now, massively overbudget and overtime. I think the contract with Hinckley C allows UK government to walk away if these other reactors aren't producing by 2020.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Am I the only one to think of Cervantes reading this thread
                              High Admiral Snowy, Commander In Chief of the Naval Forces of The Phoenix Confederation.
                              Major Atticus Finch - ACW Rainbow Co.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X