US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY

The US government has the fantasy of wanting to build 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, i.e., just 7 years, but several companies, building projects for Massachusetts, will be allowed to walk away from the signed PPAs, and rebid at much higher prices next year.

The UK government has the fantasy of wanting to build 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030

 

That means placing in operation 66,000/7 = 9,428 MW of wind turbines/y, during 2024 through 2030

The continent-based European big wind companies currently have an offshore capacity of about 4,000 MW/y

 

These companies prefer the U.S. market, because Biden’s "Inflation-Reduction-Act” (IRA) has higher subsidies than the UK.

The IRA has “bonus” subsidies for domestic content requirements to create US jobs and US wind infrastructures

 

However, the EU is urging Biden to ignore the domestic content requirements, so Europe would receive “bonus” subsidies to create European jobs, and to build European factories, ports, cranes, specialized ships, etc., for manufacturing and erecting wind turbines to increase EU wind turbine exports to the US, UK, and other markets in future years.

 

The EU has a high-level goal to shame the US, rich in energy and other resources, into the wind/solar/battery blackhole, using UN IPCC scare-mongering about global-warming

 

NOTE: The specialized ships and cranes, almost all owned by European companies, are very expensive and take 3 to 4 years to design and build. They are booked years in advance, with upfront cancellation fees in escrow. Their lack of availability, even at high fees, delays projects, which increases $/installed MW

 

NOTE:

About 7,000 MW of offshore wind bids were awarded by the UK 4th Auction, in 2022
No bids were submitted for the UK 5th Auction, in 2023; European companies protesting low UK subsidies.
No bids were submitted for a new floating offshore wind project off the coast of Scotland.

The pro-wind bureaucrats and Media, in the impoverished State of Maine, want to build 3000 MW of floaters by 2040!

 

NOTE: The Net-Zero by 2050 Ship Starting to Sink

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-net-zero-by-2050-s...

 

Seven Items of Interest

 

1) Vattenfall, Sweden, has put on hold 1,400 MW in 2023, and will re-evaluate its entire 4,200 MW zone, because its spreadsheets show a “net revenue shortage” of about 40%, meaning the prices, c/kWh, offered by the UK auctions are about 40% too low. 

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2023/07/20/breaking-vattenfall-stops-d....

 

2) OERSTED, Denmark, sees a $2.6 billion loss on its three US East Cost offshore wind systems, mainly due to high inflation, high interest rates, supply chain constrains and disruptions, and not being awarded “bonus” subsidies of the IRA.

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/denmarks-orsted-anticipates...

 

OERSTED gives up on Ocean Wind 1 and 2, off the New Jersey shore

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offsho...

 

3) EU big wind companies want, on average, 40% more, because costs (foundations, turbines, cabling to shore, installation) increased to at least $5,500/installed kW and bank loan rates at 6.5% in 2023, from $3,500 and 3% in 2021

 

4) New York State had signed contracts with EU big wind companies for four offshore wind projects

Sometime later, the companies were trying to coerce an additional $25.35 billion (per Wind Watch) from New York ratepayers and taxpayers over at least 20 years, because they had bid at lower prices than they should have.

New York State denied the request on October 12, 2023; “a deal is a deal”, said the Commissioner 

 

Owners want a return on investment of at least 10%/y, if bank loans for risky projects are 6.5%/y.

The 3.5% is a minimum for all the years of hassles of designing, building, erecting, and paperwork of a project

Below contract prices, paid by Utilities to owners, are after a 50% reduction, due to US subsidies provided, per various laws, by the US Treasury to the owners. See Items 4 and 6

 

Oersted, Denmark, Sunrise wind, contracted at $110.37/MWh, contractor needs $139.99/MWh, a 27% increase

Equinor, Norway, Empire 1 wind, contracted at $118.38/MWh, contractor needs $159.64/MWh, a 35% increase

Equinor, Norway, Empire 2 wind, contracted at $107.50/MWh, contractor needs $177.84/MWh, a 66% increase

Equinor, Norway, Beacon Wind, contracted at $118.00/MWh, contractor needs $190.82/MWh, a 62% increase

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/liars-lies-exposed-as-...

 

5) Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind Farm 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/lifetime-performance-o...

 

IRENA prepares glossy offshore wind reports, that 1) ignore industry cost data of offshore wind systems in the UK, 2) overestimates capacity factors, 3) underestimates decreases in output with aging, 4) underestimates O&M/MWh.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renew...

 

6) Bloomberg recently reported, citing figures from Bloomberg-NEF: “The all-in, turnkey capital cost associated with a typical US offshore project, before bonus tax credits of the IRA, has increased by 57% since 2021. The increased costs of materials, energy, components, labor, and supply chain disruptions and constraints (shortage of European-owned specialized ships, etc.,) explain about 40% of that, with 60% due to increased financing costs; borrowing larger amounts/installed kW at higher interest rates

 

7) The wind/solar/battery bubble is in meltdown mode. This is not a surprise, because the EIA makes LCOE “evaluations” of wind and solar, which purposely exclude major LCOE items, regarding:

 

- Onshore grid expansion/reinforcement and very expensive battery system storage

- A fleet of quick-reacting power plants for counteracting/balancing the variable output of wind/solar

- Additional power plants for making up the electricity shortfall during low wind/solar conditions

- Output curtailments during high wind/solar conditions, i.e., paying owners not to produce what they could have produced

 

Such EIA deceptions reinforced the national delusion wind and solar are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.

Wind and solar would not exist without at least 50% subsidies, plus their output could not be fed into the grid, without the above four freebies. The costs are paid by taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.

 

Part 1

 

BIDEN 30,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY  

 

The Biden administration announced on October 13, 2021, it will subsidize the development of up to seven offshore wind systems (never call them farms) on the US East and West coasts, and in the Gulf of Mexico; a total of about 30,000 MW of offshore wind by 2030.

 

This is part of the “Inflation Reduction Act”, which CBO estimated at $391 billion, but Goldman Sachs estimated at $1.2 trillion, due to Biden’s handlers “liberally interpreting” the various open-ended measures. 

This deficit spending will be added to the national debt, which would increase inflation. See URL for explanation.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-s-green-energy-p...

 

High Prices of Goods and Services: Biden's offshore wind systems would have an adverse, long-term impact on US electricity wholesale prices, and the prices of all other goods and services, because their expensive electricity would permeate into all economic activities.

 

High Visibility: The wind turbines would be at least 800-ft-tall, which would need to be located at least 30 miles from shores, to ensure minimal disturbance from night-time strobe lights.

 

Damage to Fisheries, Whales and other Fauna: Any commercial fishing areas would be significantly impacted by below-water infrastructures and cables. The low-frequency noise (less than 20 cycles per second, aka infrasound) of the wind turbines would adversely affect marine life, including whales, and productivity of fishing areas.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/feds-finally-admits-of...

 

Offshore Wind Electricity Production and Cost

 

Electricity production about 30,000 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, lifetime capacity factor = 105,192,000 MWh, or 105.2 TWh. The production would be about 100 x 105.2/4000 = 2.63% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.

 

Electricity Cost, c/kWh: Assume a $550 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation, at $5,500/kW.

 

Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $385 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 y, 9.824 c/kWh.

Owner return on $165 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 y, 5.449 c/kWh

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

All other items, 4 c/kWh 

Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 4 = 27.273 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 13.637 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 13.637 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.

 

Not included:

Cost of onshore grid expansion/augmentation, about 2 c/kWh

Cost of curtailments, and a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2 c/kWh, at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid, as in the UK in 2020

Cost of decommissioning, i.e., disassembly at sea, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites

 

Floating Offshore Wind in Maine

 

Electricity Cost: Assume a $750 million, 100 MW project consists of foundations, wind turbines, cabling to shore, and installation at $7,500/kW.

 

Production 100 MW x 8766 h/y x 0.40, CF = 350,640,000 kWh/y

Amortize bank loan for $525 million, 70% of project, at 6.5%/y for 20 years, 13.396 c/kWh.

Owner return on $225 million, 30% of project, at 10%/y for 20 years, 7.431 c/kWh

Offshore O&M, about 30 miles out to sea, 8 c/kWh.

All other items, 4 c/kWh 

Total cost 9.568 + 11.547 + 8 + 4 = 32.827 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 16.413 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 16.413 c/kWh

 

NOTE: If li-ion battery systems were contemplated, they would add 20 to 40 c/kWh to the cost of any electricity passing through them, during their about 15-y useful service lives! See Part 1 of URL
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

 

NOTE: The above prices compare with the average New England wholesale price of about 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:

 

Gas-fueled CCGT plants, with low-cost, low-CO2, very-low particulate/kWh

Nuclear plants, with low-cost, near-zero CO2, zero particulate/kWh

Hydro plants, with low-cost, near-zero-CO2, zero particulate/kWh

 

Five Major Items Not Mentioned by Wind/Solar Proponents

 

1) Cost Shifting the Name of the Game: The shifted costs and subsidies would result in:

 

Increased tax burdens on taxpayers

Increased household electric rates on ratepayers

Additions to federal and state government debts.

Additional burdens on the owners of traditional generating plants, because many of their plants: 1) counteract/balance the wind/solar output variations, 24/7/365; the more wind/solar, the greater the electricity quantities, MWh, involved in the counteracting/balancing, 2) spend more time in hot and cold standby, and 3) have more-frequent start/stops. See URLs and Appendix

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-s...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

NOTE: Cost shifting and subsidies have not yet affected New England wholesale prices, because the percent of new RE (mostly wind and solar) on the NE grid is very small, after 20 years of subsidies.

The image shows the negligeable “contribution” of wind/solar to the NE grid load, during 2021

 

NOTE: Wind and solar became significant in Germany and Denmark, resulting in:

 

Politicians excessively allocating RE costs to households, thereby greatly increasing household electric rates.

Politicians keeping industrial rates artificially low for international competitiveness reasons (a hidden trade subsidy). See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/german-household-elect...

.

. 

2) Wind/Solar Counteracting/Balancing Costs

 

Increased variable/intermittent wind and solar on the grid requires a fleet of quick-reacting, counteracting/balancing power plants, usually combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, and hydro plants, with adequate nearby fuel supply to cover all circumstances, fully staffed, kept in good working order, ready to perform service, on a less than minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, as demanded by the independent grid operator, such as ISO-NE, especially during:

 

Days with variable cloudiness

Days with panels covered with snow and ice

Days with foggy conditions

All days, from late afternoon/early evening to mid-morning the next day, when solar is minimal or zero.

All days, during peak demand hours of late afternoon/early evening, when wind and solar usually are minimal

Simultaneous wind/solar lulls, when wind/solar output is minimal for up to 5 to 7 days, sometimes followed by another multi-day wind/solar lull. See URLs

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/analysis-of-a-6-day-lull-of-wind-and-solar-during-summer-in-new

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-plus-solar-plus-storage-in-new-england

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-energy-lulls-energy-storage-in-germany

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/playing-russian-roulette-with-reliable-electricity-service-to-new

 

Without the fleet of counteracting/balancing plants, wind/solar power could not be fed into the grid, i.e., wind/solar power cannot function on its own. 
The more wind/solar fed to the grid, the greater the fleet capacity, MW, in counteracting/balancing mode.

The counteracting/balancing costs are almost entirely due to wind/solar output variations and intermittencies.

The fleet has to operate far from its more economical mode.

 

The fleet experiences:

 

More up/down production at lesser efficiencies; more Btu, more CO2, more cost/kWh

More wear-and-tear, due to up/down production and more starts/stops; more Btu, more CO2, more cost/kWh 

 

Increased wind requires:

 

A larger plant capacity in hot, synchronous (3,600 rpm), standby mode, to immediately provide power, if wind/solar generation suddenly decreases, or any other power system outage occurs.

A larger plant capacity in cold standby mode, to provide power after a plant’s start-up period.  

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed

 

Curtailment/Counteracting/Balancing Costs of Wind/Solar in the UK: When wind/solar was a small percent of the electricity loaded onto the UK grid, these costs were minimal, i.e., “buried in the data-noise of the grid”

When wind/solar became 28.4%, or 88.6 TWh, of the 312 TWh loaded onto the UK grid in 2020; excludes net imports, these costs were £1.3 billion ($1.65 billion, or 1.9 c/kWh) in 2020, likely greater in 2021, 2022, 2023. The 1.9 c/kWh would exponentially increase to 6 – 7 c/kWh, at 50% wind/solar

 

NOTE: On a pro-rated basis, the US cost would be about 4000/312 x 1.65 = $21.2 billion,if 28.4% wind/solar loaded onto the US grid.

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-sky-rocket-in-the-uk-due-to-increased-wind

https://www.statista.com/statistics/514874/energy-mix-uk/

 

3) Wind/Solar Grid Extension/Reinforcement Cost

 

Variable/intermittent wind/solar requires a significant extension/reinforcement of the grid.

The estimated capital cost of upgrading the UK grid for Net Zero by 2050 is about £200 Billion, which would be at least $2.0 trillion for the US, on a pro-rated basis, such as based on grid load or GDP.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-200-billion-bill-for-upgrading-the-grid-for-net-zero-that

 

A significant portion of those costs should be charged to the Owners of wind/solar systems

Those costs are in addition to the various government wind/solar subsidies

 

4) CO2 Reduction, due to Wind, less than Claimed

 

Ireland: In Ireland, with 17% wind loaded onto the Irish grid in 2012, the officially claimed CO2 reduction of grid CO2/kWh was 17%

 

However, analysis of 15-minute grid operating data, and corresponding fuel consumption data of each power plant connected to the grid, showed, it was only 0.526 x 17% = 8.94%, due to inefficient operation of the other power plants, when counteracting/balancing the variable output of wind, as above described.

 

The Irish government had to admit to the lesser CO2 reduction, because public pressure forced the government to hold hearings on why Irish gas imports had not decreased with increased wind; “the smoking gun that did them in”

 

After 2012, Brussels gave money to Ireland to install large capacity connections to the much larger UK and French grids. The Irish wind output variations were only a very small percent of the electricity loaded onto those grids, i.e., “buried in the data-noise of the grids”

 

The UK: The UK, with 28.4% wind/solar in 2020, has a CO2-reduction factor significantly less than 0.526, because even more curtailment/counteracting/balancing is required.

 

Ireland, the UK, US, Germany, Spain, etc., have been over claiming CO2 reduction from wind/solar for decades, with connivance from the IPCC and Brussels. See explanation in URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reductions-due-to-wind-energy-less-than-claimed

 

5) Germany, Denmark, etc., Using Nearby Grids to Counteract/Balance Variable Wind/Solar 

 

Germany and Denmark have been doing that for decades, as they increased their wind/solar buildouts. 

Germany has strong connections to the grids of nearby countries, including Norway, which is connected to Norgrid, which has lots of hydro in Sweden and Norway, all steady, traditional sources of electricity.

 

There was quite some panic in 2021, well before Ukraine events, which started in February 2022, when, because of low water and low wind in Europe, Norway and France could not export electricity to Germany, which had to restart coal plants and keep its 3 remaining nuclear plants in service longer than intended. 

 

Germany cannot counteract/balance its own wind/solar, and when wind was lacking, it does not have a sufficient fleet of traditional counteracting/balancing plants. Germany had to impose rationing measures on its industry and households.

  

East Coast Hurricanes

 

East Coast wind systems, with 850-ft-tall wind turbines, will be subject to hurricane-strength winds. See image

.

 .

Area Requirements and Hurricane Winds

 

Area Requirements: The 12-MW wind turbines would be arranged on a grid, spaced at least 1.5 mile apart (8 rotor diameters), about 2.25 sq mile per wind turbine. The minimum sea area requirement for 30,000/12 = 2,500 wind turbines would be 5,625 sq. miles, or 3,600,000 acres, for an additional 2.63% of wind electricity loaded onto the US grid.

 

Hurricane Winds: Almost all wind turbines will be 10 MW or greater, and 800+ ft tall at top of rotor blade, which is 300+ ft long.

The 100 to 150 mph hurricane winds may wreak havoc, even with blades feathered and locked.

In the North Sea, the bottom of oil rigs is at least 100 feet above sea level, because 100-ft rogue waves are common, due to low sea depths.

 

Biden’s Wind Systems are Benefitting EU Big Wind Companies

 

Almost the entire physical supply and installation of Biden’s wind systems would be provided by EU companies, because they have the required expertise and the domestic onshore and seagoing facilities, due to building at least 25,014 MW (end 2020) of offshore systems, starting in 1991. Those companies would hire qualified US labor, as needed, build US facilities, as needed, but would not be interested in training a future competitor. See URL

https://windeurope.org/about-wind/history/

 

The offshore wind turbine industry is trending towards wind turbines with capacities of 8 to 12 MW.

European experience indicates, the larger-capacity wind turbines require more maintenance/kWh, and have more downtime/kWh.

 

Currently, EU companies have capacity to install 8 to 10 MW offshore wind turbines, at a rate of about 4000 MW/y. These companies would finance, design, build, assemble, provide O&M, etc., almost all of the US offshore wind turbine systems

 

US Offshore Wind System Experience

 

US infrastructure for large wind turbines is practically non-existent; only GE is active in that space. It would take years to create US sites for producing offshore wind turbines, and build the sea-going, specialized ships and cranes to transport, assemble, and service the wind turbines.

 

Duplicating the EU onshore and seagoing facilities in the US, PLUS implementing 30,000 MW of offshore wind systems in less than 7 years, 2023 to 2030, at a rate of 30,000/7 = 4,286 MW/y, would be physically impossible.

  

In the real world, any independent energy systems analyst would deem Biden’s offshore wind scheme a total fantasy.

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

 

Additional URLs for information

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...

https://www.boem.gov/sites/default/files/renewable-energy-program/W...

 

The EU vs the US

 

The US, with a low-cost, self-sufficient, energy sector would attract European, Korean, Japanese, etc., energy-intensive, heavy-industry and industrial product production to the US.

 

Europe needs for the US has a high-cost energy sector, with lots of high-priced wind/solar/batteries systems, to handicap the US, and to enhance its competitiveness vs the US. The UN is helping out by urging the US to expensively reduce its CO2 by 50% by 2030, which is not possible. The US is falling into the EU very expensive, debilitating energy trap. See URLs

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/04/21/the-latest-co2-fantasy/

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-plot-is-thickening...

 

Part 2

 

UK 36,000 MW OF ADDITIONAL OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY  

 

UK government bureaucrats, etc., justify the build out of 36,000 MW of additional offshore wind turbines by 2030, in less than 7 years, because: 1) the UK is the "Saudi Arabia of Wind", and 2) several hundred thousand new jobs will be created (a number likely picked out of the air), and 3) household electric bills will be lower (which is the opposite of what actually happened). See below

 

It took more than 23 years for the UK to expensively build 14,000 MW of offshore wind turbines by end 2022, that produce high-cost electricity, destabilizes the UK grid, and caused greatly increased household electric bills.

 

How many steady, long-term jobs, with good benefits, were created due to offshore wind turbines in the UK?

No answer to that question is available.

 

For decades, Denmark and Germany, both wind mavens, had the highest household electric rates, c/kWh, in Europe.

But that “honor” was passed to the UK, which now has the highest household electric rates in Europe, by far.

See image in URL

https://www.nationalworld.com/news/politics/energy-prices-uk-britai...

 

Curtailment/Counteracting/Balancing Costs of Wind/Solar in the UK

 

When wind and solar were small percent of the electricity loaded onto the UK grid, these costs were minimal, i.e., “buried in the data-noise of the grid”

 

However, wind/solar became 28.4%, or 88.6 TWh, of the 312 TWh loaded onto the UK grid in 2020; excludes net imports

These costs were £1.3 billion ($1.65 billion, or 1.9 c/kWh) in 2020, likely greater in 2021, 2022, 2023.

The 1.9 c/kWh would exponentially increase to 6 – 7 c/kWh, at 50% wind/solar

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-s...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/514874/energy-mix-uk/

 

Those costs should have been charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they were politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.

Those costs are in addition to the various government subsidies, which are also politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.

 

UK Grid Upgrades for Net Zero by 2050

 

The estimated capital cost of upgrading the UK grid for Net Zero by 2050 is about £200 Billion

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-200-billion-bill-f...

 

A significant portion of those costs should be charged to the Owners of wind and solar systems (the grid disturbers), but, in reality, they will be politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.

 

Those costs are in addition to the various government wind/solar subsidies, which will also be politically shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and government debts.

 

UK CO2 Reduction, due to Wind, less than Claimed

 

In Ireland, with 17% wind fed to the Irish grid in 2012, the officially claimed CO2 reduction of grid CO2/kWh was 17%

 

However, analysis of 15-minute grid operating data and fuel consumption data showed, it was only 0.526 x 17% = 8.94%, due to inefficient operation of the other power plants, when counteracting the variable output of wind.

 

The UK, with 28.4% wind and solar in 2020, has a CO2-reduction factor significantly less than 0.526.

Ireland, the UK, US, etc., have been over claiming CO2 reduction from wind. See explanation in URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/fuel-and-co2-reduction...

 

UK Dependence on European Wind Industry

 

All five of major wind turbine manufacturers have their headquarters in EU countries, except for US-based GE.

All five have been making huge losses for 30 months, starting at least 15 months before the Ukraine events.

All five demand increased subsidies from the UK government, or else they will pull out of uneconomical contracts, i.e., leave the UK market.

 

NOTE: At least 8 European Big Wind companies, with projects in three US states, have quietly started to back out of wind contracts, or ask to renegotiate deals in ways that will pass more costs to consumers.

 

Shell, BP, Denmark’s Orsted, Norway’s Equinor, Spain’s Iberdrola, Portugal’s Energias de Portugal, and France’s Engie and state-owned Electricite de France. 

https://www.barrons.com/articles/offshore-wind-power-energy-costs-2...

 

Energy Giant Vattenfall Puts Gigantic Offshore Wind Project on Ice, "Threatening UK Climate Targets"

Energy Giant Vattenfall Puts Gigantic Offshore Wind Project On Ice,...

 

UK Offshore Wind Projects Threaten to Pull Out of Uneconomical Contracts, unless Subsidies are Increased

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/uk-offshore-wind-proje...

 

They claim, unforeseen rising costs require the UK government to take three actions:

 

- A revision to the auction rules, with winners not determined by lowest bids, but by an administrative decision that weights bids according to their ‘value’ in contributing towards the “Net Zero targets”.

- The 5^th auction to provide a budget increase of two and half times the current levels for non-floating offshore wind (those higher levels would be equivalent to what the European wind companies would be getting in the US)

- Special new targets, and market shares, for floating offshore wind, one of the most expensive of all forms of generation

 

This is ironic, because, a few years ago, the same European wind industry lobbyists were claiming wind would not need any subsidies.

 

However, the US is providing excessively generous subsidies to get the 30,000 MW of wind built.

European wind companies would readily abandon the UK market, because they aim to collect a bonanza of subsidies from the US, i.e., all their wind turbine manufacturing capacity would be devoted to the lucrative US market.

 

https://www.netzerowatch.com/wind-industry-blackmails-the-uk-more-s...

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-threaten...

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/wind-industry-blackmails-uk-dem...

 

Europe Lacks Physical Infrastructure to Build 9,500 MW of Offshore Wind per Year

 

The EU wind industry has told the EU in Brussels: “We simply don’t have enough factories and infrastructure to build and install the volumes Europe (and the US) wants”

 

Wind Europe CEO, Giles Dickson, in a Press release, dd. 16 March 2023, ‘EU Green Industry Plan falls short for now’

Wind Europe notes, there is a world-wide shortage of the three types of specialized ships required to build offshore wind systems, and those ships that are available are already booked up for years.

https://windeurope.org/newsroom

 

Plus, the UK 36,000 MW build-out would be at about 50% higher turnkey cost per MW, and would produce much more expensive electricity, c/kWh, than the existing 14,000 MW of offshore wind turbines

 

Biden wants to build 30,000 MW offshore wind turbines by 2030, that thus far has been killing dozens of whales on the US East Coast, before even a single 850-ft-tall wind turbine has been erected!

 

If the European companies do not have the capacity to build the 36,000 MW UK offshore wind, how would they ever be able to also build, at the same time, the 30,000 MW Biden offshore wind?

 

World Energy Outlook 2022, issued by European Information Energy Agency, IEA

 

“From 80% today, a level constant for decades, EIA predicts fossil fuels to decrease to about 75% by 2030, and to about 60% by 2050”

 

EIA is not just optimistic, but delusional!

Those fossil decrease numbers would require enormous capacity increases of wind and solar, MW, which is not going to happen. 

Not in the UK, the self-proclaimed “Saudi-Arabia of Wind”, which is already impoverished, inefficient, uncompetitive and hopelessly mismanaged, with high inflation and high interest rates 

Not in the US, which does not even have an offshore wind industry.

 

APPENDIX 1

 

BLOCK ISLAND WIND NEAR RHODE ISLAND; DEMONSTRATION PROJECT

 

Block Island Wind, BIW, is the first commercial offshore wind farm in the US, located 3.8 miles from Block Island

See Note.

 

The five-turbine, 30 MW project was developed by Deepwater Wind.

Oersted, a Danish company, acquired Deepwater Wind in 2018

Five 6-MW turbines, total height 589 ft, were designed by Alstom Wind, a division of Alstom-Haliade, a French company

They can withstand a Category 3 storm.

 

Gulf Island Fabrication, in Louisiana, which has experience building oil rigs in the Mexican Gulf, built the structural-steel support structures, and erected them at the site.

 

Power is transmitted from the turbines to the on-shore electric grid, via a 21-mile, submarine power cable, buried under the ocean floor, making landfall north of Scarborough Beach in Narragansett, Rhode Island.

 

The system connects New Shoreham, a small town on Block Island, to the grid for the first time.

This allows it to stop using diesel generators. 

Construction began in 2015, was completed in August 2016, production was officially started in December 2016. 

 

Deepwater Wind's five turbines stand in the water off Block Island, R.I, the nation's first offshore wind farm.

 

Electricity Production

 

The graph shows production, MWh, and capacity factors, from commissioning December 1, 2016 to October 1, 2021. The low values for the second half of 2021 were due to several malfunctions.

 

Production was 104,351 MWh in 2017; 112,362 MWh in 2018; 117,792 MWh in 2019; 120,229 MWh in 2020

The average operating capacity factor for the 2018, 2019, 2020 period was 0.441, which is less than the predicted capacity factor of 125,000/(8766 x 30) = 0.475  

This wind electricity is low quality, i.e., variable/intermittent, wind/weather/season-dependent.

The additional wind production would be about 100 x 0.168 /115 = 0.102% of the annual electricity loaded onto the NE grid.

That NE grid load would increase, due to tens of millions of future EVs and heat pumps.

.

 

Turnkey Capital Cost 

 

Deepwater Wind, owns and operates BIW. The turnkey capital cost was $300 million, or $10 million/installed MW. This cost may not include the cost of on-shore grid extension/reinforcement. Based on the real-world European off-shore operating experience, such systems would last about 20 years.

https://oceanactionagenda.org/story/offshore-wind-makes-u-s-debut-off-coast-rhode-island/

 

Area Requirements: The five, 6-MW wind turbines were arranged in line, spaced at least 3/4 mile apart.

 

Exorbitant Wholesale Prices Charged by Developers

 

In 2009, the State of Rhode Island designated Deepwater Wind to begin the BIW wind project. In that year, Deepwater Wind signed an agreement to sell the BIW electricity to National Grid  The turnkey capital cost was high, because there was near-zero competitive bidding.

Per the Deepwater Wind/National Grid power purchase agreement: 24.4 c/kWh during Year 1, escalating at 3.5%/y for 20 years, yields 48.7 c/kWh during Year 20. See Note

Those prices are only a fraction of the “all-in” cost of offshore wind. See Appendix and URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar

  

APPENDIX 2: This appendix has three parts; each part describes a Hywind floating offshore wind turbine project

 

PART 1; Hywind Floating Wind Turbine in Norway; Demonstration Project

 

The Norwegians have about 60 years of experience building and servicing oil/gas rigs and laying undersea electric cables, gas lines and oil lines all over the world.

 

They have invested billions of dollars in specialized deep-water, Norwegian harbors and facilities for assembly of oil/gas rigs and invested in specialized sea-going heavy lifters, and specialized sea-going tugboats to tow the oil/gas rigs from Norwegian building sites to oil/gas production sites. The heavy lifters and other ships perform services all over the world.

 

Norway companies want to expand their business by building and servicing and providing spare parts for floating wind turbines for deep-water conditions all over the world

 

Equinor (formerly Statoil, a Norwegian government-controlled company) launched the world's first operational deep-water, floating, wind turbine in 2009. The turbine trade name is “Hywind”.

 

The wind turbine consists of a 120 m (390 ft) tall tower, above the sea water level, and a 60 m (195 ft) submerged extension below the sea water level, with a heavy weight at the bottom to keep the wind turbine steady and upright, even with very high waves and strong wind conditions. The design was tested and perfected under storm and wind conditions simulated in a laboratory.

 

The 2.3 MW wind turbine is mounted on top of the tower. It was fully assembled in a deep-water harbor near Stavanger, Norway.

 

It was towed to a site 10 km (6.2 mi) offshore into the Amoy Fjord in 220 m (720 ft) deep water, near Stavanger, Norway, on 9 June 2009, for a two-year test run, which turned out to be successful.

 

NOTE:

- Norwegians advocating expensive floating wind turbines that are weather and wind-dependent, and produce low-quality, variable/intermittent outputs, at high-cost, for Maine ratepayers, is highly hypocritical, because the Norwegians get 98% of their electricity from their own hydro plants, which have steady outputs, at low-cost/kWh, near-zero-CO2/kWh, and zero particulate/kWh.

 

- Danes advocating wind turbines and boasting about their high percent of wind on their grid, are similarly hypocritical, because the Danes have been increasingly using the storage reservoirs of Norway’s hydro plants for decades, to counteract the output variations of wind.

 

PART 2; Hywind Floating Wind Turbine System in Scotland; Commercial Project

 

The Hywind Scotland project is the world's first commercial wind turbine plant using floating wind turbines.

 

It is located 29 km (18 miles) off Peterhead, Scotland to minimize visual impacts from shore.

It has five Hywind floating turbines with a total capacity of 30 MW.

It is operated by Hywind Limited, a joint venture of Equinor, Norway (75%) and Masdar, Kuwait (25%).

 

Equinor received permission to install 5 Hywind turbines in Scotland in 2015.  

Manufacturing started in 2016 in Spain (wind turbine, rotor), Norway (tower, underwater base, assembly), and Scotland (various parts)

 

The turbines were designed to float on the surface, with about 180 m (600 ft) above the sea water level and 80 m (265 ft) submerged below the seawater level.

Total steel weight is about 2,300 metric ton

Total ballast weight is about 20,000 metric ton.

Heavy weights in the bottom of the submerged parts serve to keep them steady and upright.

 

The turbines were assembled at Stord in Norway in the summer of 2017, using the specialized, sea-going crane,  Saipem 7000 with a 14,000-metric ton lifting capacity. The crane is required for partial assembly on land and final assembly in an area, with a very deep harbor, close to shore.

 

The assembled turbines were towed by sea-going tugboats to Peterhead, in the northern part of Scotland. 

Three cup anchors hold each turbine in place.

Three 600-meter chains are required, total weight 400 metric ton, for each turbine.

 The project was commissioned in October 2017.

Videos showing the crane assembling the entire wind turbine.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUlfvXaISvc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmkA6hbJ_j8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQVU7UaMuck

 

Turnkey Capital Cost: The turnkey capital cost was $263 million for five, 6-MW turbines, or $8,767/kW, excluding on-shore grid extension/augmentation.

 

NOTE: No such on-shore infrastructure and sea-going capability exist in Maine, or in the rest of New England.

That means offshore wind turbine assembly and servicing would largely be performed by foreign companies, which already have built the on-shore infrastructures to manufacture wind turbines, and sea-going cranes for assembling wind turbines, during the past 39 years.

 

PART 3; Hywind Floating Wind Turbine System in Maine; Demonstration Project

 

The concept phase of the project envisioned two Hywind floating wind turbines supplied by Norway.

The project was abandoned, because it would:

 

- Have a very high turnkey capital cost of about $10,000/kW

- Require extremely high payments to Owners for 20 years, to enable them to recover their capital, plus a return on investment of about 9%/y

- Have issues regarding 1) day-time visual and infrasound impacts, and 2) night-time visual impacts of strobe lights

- Adversely affect the marine life and viability of fishing areas

 

Turnkey Capital Cost: The turnkey cost would be at about $120 million for two, 6-MW wind turbines, $10,000/kW, plus whatever onshore facilities would need to be built in Maine to support the project, plus any on-shore grid extension/augmentation.

 

NOTE: This cost compares with NE ridgeline wind at about $2,400kW, and standard offshore wind, south of Martha’s Vineyard Island, at about $4,000/kW.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/iso-ne-study-of-1600-mw-of-future-offshore-wind-during-a-16-day

 

NOTE: The turnkey capital cost of building Hywind offshore wind turbines in Maine would be much greater, because Maine does not have the offshore oil/gas rig experience of the Norwegians, and the specialized equipment and ships, and other facilities.

It would be very costly to build those ships and facilities in Maine, or elsewhere. 

 

Disturbing Visibility and Infrasound Noise: The two, 6 MW, 600-ft tall Hywind wind turbines would be highly visible from Mohegan Island, if they were located TWO MILES east of the island.

 

At that distance, audible noises would keep people awake.

Low frequency infrasound, which can travel many miles, and can pass through walls of houses, and can be felt but not heard, has been shown to have adverse health impacts on people, sea life, and on-shore animals.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-turbine-noise-adversely-impacts-nearby-people-and-animals-1

 

Here is a research report of daytime and nighttime visibility of wind turbines that are about 3 to 4 MW and about 500 ft tall. See URL with photos.

http://visualimpact.anl.gov/offshorevitd/docs/OffshoreVITD.pdf

 

“Study objectives included identifying the maximum distances the facilities could be seen in both daytime and nighttime views and assessing the effect of distance on visual contrasts associated with the facilities. Results showed that small to moderately sized facilities were visible to the unaided eye at distances greater than 42 km [26 miles (mi)], with turbine blade movement visible up to 39 km (24 mi). At night, aerial hazard navigation lighting was visible at distances greater than 39 km (24 mi). The observed wind facilities were judged to be a major focus of visual attention at distances up to 16 km (10 mi), were noticeable to casual observers at distances of almost 29 km (18 mi), and were visible with extended or concentrated viewing at distances beyond 40 km (25 mi).”

 

Aviation Strobe Lights: The FAA-required aviation beacons would be clearly visible during nighttime.

BTW, they would need to be located at least 20 miles away from Mohegan Island to be unobtrusive to the Islanders.

 

One has to feel sorry for all the residents of Mohegan Island, but the bureaucrats in Augusta, Maine, do not care about that, because there are not enough votes to stop them. Those bureaucrats are hell-bent to use federal and state grants, subsidies, taxpayer and ratepayer money of already-struggling Maine workers to save the world, and to enrich a host of multi-millionaires seeking tax shelters.

 

Extremely Adverse Impact on CMP Electric Rates: LePage’s energy director, Steven McGrath, focused on the cost of electricity from the demonstration project.

 

The price paid to Hywind Owners would have been: 23 c/kWh during Year 1; Escalating at 2.5%/y for 20 years; 37.7 c/kWh during Year 20

Those prices are only a fraction of the “all-in” cost of offshore wind. See Appendix and URL

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar

 

These prices are much higher than NE grid wholesale prices. The excess electricity costs and subsidies paid to owners are shifted elsewhere. They will result in:

 

1) Increased tax burdens on taxpayers

2) Increased household electric rates on ratepayers

3) Additions to federal and state government debts.

4) Additional burdens on the owners of traditional generators, because their power plants have to counteract the wind output variations, 24/7/365; the more wind (and solar), the greater the electricity quantities involved in the counteracting. See Appendix

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar

 

The PUC had estimated the expensive floating, offshore, wind electricity would add about $208 million over 20 years, or about $10.5 million/y, to be extracted from Central Maine Power ratepayers.

Aqua Ventus had calculated the expensive wind electricity would add about 73 c/month to the average household electric bill, in the first year of operation (much more thereafter).

One has to feel sorry for the already-struggling, over-regulated, over-taxed Maine workers, who would be forced to pay for this folly.

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/04/01/effort-to-build-offshore-wind-industry-in-maine-may-hinge-on-73-cents/?rel=related

 

APPENDIX 3

 

AQUA VENTUS FLOATING WIND TURBINE RESEARCH PROJECT 

.

RWE Renewables (Germany) and Mitsubishi-owned Diamond Offshore Wind (Japan) announced on August 6, 2020, they formed a joint venture, JV, known as New England Aqua Ventus, that will acquire, develop and operate the single-turbine floating wind project,

RWE claims to be the world’s second-largest developer of offshore wind projects, after Denmark’s Ørsted.

 

New England Aqua Ventus would be the JV’s first project in US waters

It would be one of several floating demonstration projects the JV has invested in, globally, Wiechowski said.

 

University of Maine, whose Advanced Structures and Composites Center has been researching floating wind technology since 2008, and has carried the project this far, will own the intellectual property behind the VolturnUS floating hull concept, and will license the technology to the JV, which will perform the detailed design of the entire project.

 

Project Schedule and Description: The JV hopes to finalize the design work in 2021, sign the supply-chain contracts in 2022, and build the project in 2023, said Wojciech Wiechowski, senior manager at RWE Renewables

 

The JV design is for a single wind turbine rated at 11 MW, which would be representative of the range of commercially available, offshore wind turbines, at present.

 

The total height above sea level would be 732 ft (a 70-story building), the rotor diameter would be 656 ft (4 times the width of a football field), the rotor hub would be 403 ft above sea level (a 40-story building).

 

Turnkey Capital Cost: The estimated turnkey capital cost would be about $100 million. 

Production: 11 MW x 8,766 h/y x 0.45, capacity factor = 43,392 MWh/y

  

Extremely Adverse Impact on CMP Electric Rates: It is highly likely, the prices paid to the JV would be similar to the abandoned, super-expensive Hywind project, described under Appendix 2, i.e.: 23 c/kWh during Year 1

Escalating at 2.5%/y for 20 years; 37.7 c/kWh during Year 20.

Structural Support Systems: Several floating wind turbines are in operation in Europe.

All of them have partially submerged structural steel supports, similar to those used for offshore oil rigs.

The JV likely will use a structural steel support for the Aqua Ventus project, instead of concrete.

Here is an example of an operating floating wind turbine project:

 

World’s Largest Floating Wind Farm in Operation; Statkraft Buys Entire Output: The 50 MW Kincardine system has five Vestas 9.525 MW wind turbines, plus one 2 MW Vestas unit, installed at water depths from 200 to 250 ft.

The system uses triangular, structural steel platforms (not concrete)

The system is located about 10 miles off the southeast coast of Aberdeenshire, Scotland

The 2 MW turbine has been operating at the site since October 2018.

Production is about 200,000 MWh/y, at a CF = 0.456

https://www.offshorewind.biz/2021/09/21/worlds-largest-floating-wind-farm-starts-operating-statkraft-buys-entire-output/

 

Hypothetical Large-Scale Floating Wind Turbine Project

 

If a project had fifty 11-MW floating wind turbines (550 MW), there would be economics of scale.

The turnkey capital cost might become 550 MW x $4,000,000/MW = $2.2 billion, plus 10% for grid extension/augmentation, for a total of $2.42 billion.

The production would be 50 x 43,392 = 2,169,585 MWh/y

 

If we assume the Owners would require a 9% return on their $2.42 billion investment, they would need to be paid $259,121,075, each year, for 20 years, or ($259,121,075/y) / (2,169,585 MWh/y) = 11.94 c/kWh, to recover their capital with 9%/y return on investment

https://www.myamortizationchart.com

 

The project would have many annual costs (in addition to annual payments to Owners), such as O&M, services of specialized sea-going ships, insurance, taxes, etc., that would be, say 5 c/kWh, for a total cost of 16.94 c/kWh, the price at which Owners would have to sell their electricity to utilities, if Owners would get no subsidies.

 

Generous federal and state subsidies (grants, investment tax credits, accelerated depreciation write-offs, deduction of loan interest, etc.), would reduce the Owners cost to a politically palatable 9 c/kWh, if Owners would get subsidies.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar

 

With hyping from the Media, lay people in Maine would be led to believe “floating-offshore is a great bargain”.

However, no one is mentioning what to do with the old wind turbines after they are replaced with new ones.

Apres moi, le deluge?

 

However, per Economics 101, no costs ever disappear. They would merely be shifted from Owners to “elsewhere”, such as 1) taxpayers, 2) ratepayers, 3) additions to government debt, etc., as happened in Germany and Denmark, which have the highest household electric rates in Europe, precisely because they have a lot of wind and solar on their grids. See URLs

 

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-name-of-the-game-regarding-wind-and-solar

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/grid-balancing-costs-sky-rocket-in-the-uk-due-to-increased-wind

 

NOTE: The largest floating offshore project in operation is Equinor’s Hywind in Scotland, which uses five 6-MW turbines.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/deep-water-floating-offshore-wind-turbines-in-maine

APPENDIX 4

EXORBITANT “ALL-IN” ELECTRICITY COST OF WIND AND SOLAR IN NEW ENGLAND

 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/high-costs-of-wind-sol...

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/cost-shifting-is-the-na...

 

Pro RE folks point to the “price paid to owner” as the cost of wind and solar, purposely ignoring the other cost categories. The all-in cost of wind and solar, c/kWh, includes:

 

1) Above-market-price paid to Owners 

2) Subsidies paid to Owners

3) Owner return on invested capital at about 9%/y

4) Grid extension/augmentation

5) Grid support services, including fees for:

 

- Capacity availability (i.e., plants are fueled, staffed, kept in good working order, ready to produce on short notice)

- More frequent plant start-up/shut-down

 

6) Future battery systems

 

Comments on table 1

   

- Vermont legacy Standard Offer solar systems had greater subsidies paid to owner, than newer systems

- Wind prices paid to owner did not have the drastic reductions as solar prices.

- Vermont utilities are paid about 3.5 c/kWh for various costs they incur regarding net-metered solar systems

- "Added to rate base" is the cost wind and solar are added to the utility rate base, used to set electric rates.

- “Total cost”, including subsidies to owner and grid support, is the cost at which wind/solar are added to the utility rate base

- “NE utility cost” is the annual average cost of purchased electricity, about 6 c/kWh, plus NE grid operator charges, about 1.6 c/kWh

for a total of 7.6 c/kWh.

- “Grid support costs” would increase with increased use of battery systems to counteract the variability and intermittency of increased build-outs of wind and solar systems.

 

NOTES:

1) NE wholesale grid price averaged about 5 c/kWh or less, starting in 2009, due to low-cost CCGT and nuclear plants providing at least 65% of all electricity loaded onto the NE grid, in 2019.

 

- Wind, solar, landfill gas, and methane power plants provided about 4.8%

- Pre-existing refuse and wood power plants provided about 4.6%

- Pre-existing hydro power plants provided about 7.4%

- The rest was mostly hydro imports from the very-low-CO2 Canada grid, and from the much-higher-CO2 New York State grid

 

https://www.iso-ne.com/about/key-stats/resource-mix/

https://nepool.com/uploads/NPC_20200305_Composite4.pdf

2) There are Owning and Operating costs of the NE grid, in addition to utility wholesale prices.

ISO-NE pro-rates these O&O costs to utilities, at about 1.6 c/kWh.

 

3) NE charges are for: 

 
Regional network services, RNS, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a month

Forward capacity market, FCM, based on the utility peak demand occurring during a year.

 

Table 1/VT & NE sources	Paid to	Subsidy	Grid	GMP	Added	ISO-NE	Total	NE	Times
		paid to	support		to rate	RNS+		utility
	owner	towner	cost	adder	base	FCM	cost	cost
	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh	c/kWh
Solar, rooftop, net-metered, new	17.4	5.2	2.1	3.5	20.9	1.6	29.8	7.6	3.92
Solar, rooftop, net-metered, legacy	18.2	5.4	2.1	3.5	21.7	1.6	30.8	7.6	4.05
Solar, standard offer, combo	11.0	6.74	2.1		11.0	1.6	21.44	7.6	2.82
Solar, standard offer, legacy	21.7	10.5	2.1		21.7	1.6	35.9	7.6	4.72
Wind, ridge line, new	8.5	3.9	2.4		8.5	1.6	16.4	7.6	2.15
Wind, offshore, new	9.0	4.1	2.4		9.0	1.6	17.1	7.6	2.25

 

Sample calculation; NE utility cost = 6, Purchased + 1.6, (RNS + FCM) = 7.6 c/kWh

Sample calculation; added to utility base = 17.4 + 3.5 = 20.9 c/kWh

Sample calculation; total cost = 17.4 + 5.2 + 2.1 + 3.5 + 1.6 = 29.8 c/kWh

 

Excludes costs for very expensive battery systems

Excludes costs for very expensive floating, offshore wind systems

Excludes cost for dealing with shortfalls during multi-day wind/solar lulls. See URL

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-and-solar-provide...

 

“Added to rate base” is for recent 20-y electricity supply contracts awarded by competitive bidding in NE.

“Added to rate base” would be much higher without subsidies and cost shifting.

 

US regions with good wind and solar conditions, and low construction costs/kW, produce at low c/kWh.

NE has poor wind conditions, except on pristine ridge lines, and the poorest solar conditions in the US, except the rainy, Seattle area.

NE has highest on-shore, ridgeline construction costs/kW ($2,400/kW in 2020), produces at high c/kWh

See page 39 of URL

https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-08/Land-Based%20Win...