Britain’s Net Zero Disaster and The Wind Power Scam

Authored by Rupert Darwall via RealClear Wire,

.

“This is not about complicated issues of cryptocurrency,” assistant U.S. attorney Nicolas Roos declared in the Sam Bankman-Fried trial, after accusing the defendant of building FTX on a “pyramid of deceit.”

Much the same can be said about the foundations of Britain’s net zero experiment.

Energy is complicated, and electricity is essential to modern society and our quality of life, but as with FTX, the underlying story is straightforward: wind power and net zero are built on a pyramid of deceit.

.

Net zero was sold to Parliament and the British people on claims that wind-power costs were low and falling.

This was untrue: wind-power costs are high and have been rising.

In the net zero version of “crypto will make you rich,” official analyses produced by the Treasury and the Office for Budget Responsibility rely on the falsehood that wind power is cheap, that net zero would have minimal costs, and that it could boost productivity and economic growth. None of these has any basis in reality.

.

The push for net zero began in 2019, when the U.K.’s Climate Change Committee produced a report urging the government to adopt the policy.

Part of the justification was historic climate guilt.

In the words of committee chair Lord Deben, Britain had been “one of the largest historical contributors to climate change.”

But the key economic justification for raising Britain’s decarbonization from 80% to 100% by 2050 – i.e., net zero – was “rapid cost reductions during mass deployment for key technologies,” notably in offshore wind.

These illusory cost reductions, the committee claimed, “have made tighter emission reduction targets achievable at the same costs as previous looser targets.” It was green snake oil.

.

During the subsequent 88-minute debate in the House of Commons to write net zero into law, the clean-energy minister, Chris Skidmore, also asserted, net zero’s cost would be the same as the previous 80% target, which Parliament had approved in 2008.

Challenged by a Labour MP on the absence of a regulatory-impact assessment, Skidmore misled Parliament, saying that there had been no regulatory-impact assessment in respect of raising the initial 60 percent target to 80 percent.

The regulatory-impact assessment that Skidmore says doesn’t exist gave a range of £324 billion to £404 billion when the target was raised to 80% – an estimate that excluded transitional costs – and cautioned, costs could exceed this range.

Unlike today’s political pronouncements, the assessment was honest about the consequences of Britain acting if the rest of the world did not.

“The economic case for the UK continuing to act alone where global action cannot be achieved would be weak,” it warned.

.

The Climate Change Act was passed to show Britain’s climate leadership and inspire the rest of the world to follow its example.

How did that work out?

In the 11 years that transpired from passing the Act to legislating net zero in 2019, Britain’s fossil fuel emissions fell by 180 million metric tons – a 33% reduction.

Over the same period, the rest of the world’s emissions increased by 5,177 million metric tons – a rise of 16%. Put another way, 11 years of British emissions reduction were wiped out in around 140 days by increased emissions from the rest of the world.

.

Someone who claims that he’s a leader, but who has no followers is typically regarded as a fool.

It’s different with climate.

Politicians parade their green virtue – Skidmore is to quit the House of Commons, and he teaches net zero studies at Harvard’s Kennedy School – while voters get mugged with higher energy bills.

Analysis of Britain’s Big Six energy companies’ regulatory filings  , reveals fuel-input costs for gas and coal-fired power stations were flat from 2009 to 2020.

Still, the average price per kilowatt hour (kWh) of electricity paid by households rose 67%, driven by high environmental levies to subsidize renewable-energy investors.

Yet supposedly the cost of renewable energy has plummeted, (sarc.).

.

During Prime Minister’s Questions in early 2023, Rishi Sunak claimed , the cost of offshore wind had fallen from £140 per megawatt hour (MWh) to £40 per MWh, numbers assiduously propagated by the wind lobby and the Climate Change Committee.

His claim is flat-out false.

The prime minister has been suckered by falling per MWh price bids made by wind investors in successive allocation-round bids for offshore wind subsidies.

The explanation for this is to be found not in falling costs, but in a flawed bidding process that rewards opportunistic bidding by wind investors.

The government was giving away valuable options that commit the government to honor the prices paid for winning bids, but commit investors to nothing.

Because investors don’t pay anything for these options, the only way they can get them is by cutting the price they offer – but are not obliged to take – for their electricity, unless they choose to exercise their options much later in the process.

Falling prices in successive allocation rounds are thus an artefact of moral hazard hardwired into the allocation mechanism; they reveal nothing about the trend in the costs of offshore wind.

.

Analysis of audited financial data of wind system companies undertaken by a handful of independent researchers comprehensively debunks the falling wind costs claim.

The unavoidable move to deeper waters offset any cost reductions and operating costs per MWh of electricity for new offshore wind projects; the prices for the move are around double those assumed in the subsidy bids.

.

Pre-eminent among these researchers is Gordon Hughes, a former economics professor at Edinburgh University and adviser to the World Bank on power plant economics. Hughes’s analysis, shows, by the twelfth year of operation, increasing operating costs/MWh of deep-water wind turbines exceed their government-guaranteed prices, squeezing out their capacity to repay their capital and financing costs.

.

The intermittency and variability of wind and solar led the government to create a capacity market to pay for standby generation.

In any economic appraisal of renewables, the costs of running the capacity market should be allocated to wind and solar, as their intermittency and variability create the need for it; they are the grid disturbers.

Electricity procured from the capacity market is not cheap. In 2020, German-owned Uniper’s thermal power stations obtained an average price of £224 per MWh, about four times the typical wholesale price.

.

Confirmation that offshore wind has huge, likely insuperable, cost and operating difficulties came in June, when Siemens Energy issued a shock profits warning and saw its shares plunge by 37 percent, in part because of higher-than-anticipated turbine failure rates.

According to Hughes, the implication is, future wind operating costs will be higher, and output significantly lower, shortening the turbines’ economic lives.

His conclusion is crushing:

The whole justification for the falling costs of wind generation rested on the assumption that much bigger wind turbines would produce more output at lower capex cost per megawatt, without the large costs of generational change.

Now we have confirmation that such optimism is entirely unjustified . . .  

It follows that current energy policies in the UK, Europe and the United States are based on foundations of sand – naïve optimism reinforced by enthusiastic lobbying divorced from engineering reality.

.

The British government has been conned into placing a massive bet on offshore wind and is forcing electricity consumers to spend tens of $billions on a dead-end technology.

.

The falling cost of wind deception contaminates official assessments of the macroeconomic consequences of net zero.

The Office for Budget Responsibility claims , the cost of low-carbon generation has fallen so fast that it is now cheaper than fossil fuel generation.

Similarly, the Treasury erroneously took decreasing prices in wind subsidy allocation rounds as indicating falling wind costs.

Both see the economy riddled with multiple layers of market failures, while not recognizing the real danger of government policy being captured by vested interests, as, indeed, it has been.

Taken to its logical conclusion, theirs is an argument for switching to central planning and a command-and-control economy.

.

The Treasury argues that “other things being equal,” the added investment required by renewable energy “will translate into additional GDP growth.”

Other things, of course, are not equal.

As recent history shows, there’s a world of difference between investors and politicians making capital-allocation decisions.

The centrally planned economies of the former communist bloc squandered colossal amounts of capital, impoverishing their populations.

Few now believe that investment in those economies boosted growth.

.

We don’t need to hypothesize.

Government data disprove the Treasury’s contention and demonstrate, increasing deployment of renewable capacity reduces the productivity of Britain’s grid.

In 2009, 87.3 GW of generating capacity, comprising only 5.1 percent of wind and solar, generated 376.8 TWh of electricity.

In 2020, 100.9 GW of generating capacity, with  37.6 percent of wind and solar, generated 312.3 TWh of electricity.

Thanks to renewables, 13.6 GW (15.6 percent) more generating capacity produced 64.5 TWh (17.1 percent) less electricity.

.

Those numbers are damning for renewables and demonstrate why they make electricity more expensive and people poorer.

.

Before mass deployment of renewables,

In 2009, 1 MW of capacity generated 4,312 MWh of electricity.

In 2020, 1 MW of capacity generated 3,094 MWh, a decline of 28.3 percent.

.

It’s as clear as can be: investment in renewables shrinks the economy’s productive potential.

This is confirmed by the International Energy Agency’s net zero modelling.

Its net zero pathway sees the global energy sector in 2030 employing nearly 25 million more people, using $16.5 trillion more capital and taking an additional land area the combined size of California and Texas for wind and solar systems, plus the combined areas of Mexico and France for bioenergy – all to produce 7 percent less energy.

.

Britain’s energy-policy disaster has lessons for America.

The physics and economics of wind power are not magically transformed when they cross the Atlantic. Whenever a politician or wind lobbyist touts wind as low-cost or says net zero will boost growth, they become accessories to the wind power scam.

The data lead ineluctably to a decisive conclusion: net zero is anti-growth.

It is a formula for prolonged economic stagnation.

Anyone who wants the truth about renewables should look at Britain and the sorry state of its economy.

For the last decade and a half, it has been going through its worst period of growth since 1780.

.

Unlike in business and finance, there are no criminal or civil penalties for those who promote policies based on fraud and misrepresentation.

Rather, net zero is similar to socialism and communism.

Like net zero, communism was based on a lie: that it would outproduce capitalism.

But it failed to produce, and belief in communism evaporated.

When the collapse came, it was sudden and rapid.

The truth could not be hidden.

A similar fate awaits net zero.

Rupert Darwall is a senior fellow of the RealClear Foundation and author of  The Folly of Climate Leadership: Net Zero and Britain’s Disastrous ....

.

.

APPENDIX 1

 

Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine

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

 

World Offshore Wind Capacity Placed on Operation in 2021

 

During 2021, worldwide offshore wind capacity placed in operation was 17,398 MW, of which China 13,790 MW, and the rest of the world 3,608 MW, of which UK 1,855 MW; Vietnam 643 MW; Denmark 604 MW; Netherlands 402 MW; Taiwan 109 MW

Of the 17,398 MW, just 57.1 MW was floating, about 1/3%

At end of 2021, 50,623 MW was in operation, of which just 123.4 MW was floating, about 1/4%

https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/offshore-wind-market-repo...

 

Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Main Media and "academia/think tanks", in the impoverished State of Maine, continue to fantasize about building 3,000 MW of 850-ft-tall floating offshore wind turbines by 2040!!

 

Maine government bureaucrats, etc., in a world of their own climate-fighting fantasies, want to have about 3,000 MW of floating wind turbines by 2040; a most expensive, totally unrealistic goal, that would further impoverish the already-poor State of Maine for many decades.

 

Those bureaucrats, etc., would help fatten the lucrative, 20-y, tax-shelters of mostly out-of-state, multi-millionaire, wind-subsidy chasers, who likely have minimal regard for:

 

1) Impacts on the environment and the fishing and tourist industries of Maine, and

2) Already-overstressed, over-taxed, over-regulated Maine ratepayers and taxpayers, who are trying to make ends meet in a near-zero, real-growth economy.

 

Those fishery-destroying, 850-ft-tall floaters, with 24/7/365 strobe lights, visible 30 miles from any shore, would cost at least $7,500/ installed kW, or at least $22.5 billion, if built in 2023 (more after 2023)

See below Norwegian floating offshore cost of $8,300/installed kW

 

Almost the entire supply of the Maine projects would be designed and made in Europe, then transported across the Atlantic Ocean, in specialized ships, also designed and made in Europe, then unloaded at the about $400-million Maine storage/pre-assembly/staging area, then barged to specialized erection ships, also designed and made in Europe, for erection of the floating turbines

 

About 300 Maine people would have pre-assembly/staging/erection jobs, during the erection phase

The other erection jobs would be by specialized European people, mostly on cranes and ships

About 100 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs during the 20-y electricity production phase

 

The projects would produce electricity at about 40 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 20 c/kWh, with subsidies, the wholesale price at which utilities would buy from Owners (higher prices after 2023)

https://www.maine.gov/governor/mills/news/governor-mills-signs-bill...

 

The Maine woke bureaucrats are falling over each other to prove their “greenness”, offering $millions of this and that for free, but all their primping and preening efforts has resulted in no floating offshore bids from European companies

 

The Maine people have much greater burdens to look forward to for the next 20 years, courtesy of the Governor Mills incompetent, woke bureaucracy that has infested the state government 

 

The Maine people need to finally wake up, and put an end to all the climate scare-mongering, which aims to subjugate and further impoverish them, by voting the entire Democrat woke cabal out and replace it with rational Republicans in 2024

The present course leads to financial disaster for the impoverished State of Maine and its people.

The purposely-kept-ignorant Maine people do not deserve such maltreatment

 

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.

Supply chain, special ships, and ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh 

Total cost 13.396 + 7.431 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 35.827 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 17.913 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 17.913 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-costs-losses-and-aging

 

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

Cabling to Shore Plus $Billions for Additional Gridwork on Shore

 

A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 
The cables would need some type of flexible support system

There would be about 5 cables, each connected to sixty, 10 MW wind turbines, making landfall on the Maine shore, for connection to 5 substations (each having a 600 MW capacity, requiring several acres of equipment), then to connect to the New England high voltage grid. 

The onshore grid will need $billions for expansion/reinforcement to transmit electricity to load centers, mostly in southern New England.

 

Floating Offshore a Major Financial Burden on Maine People

 

Rich Norwegian people can afford to dabble in such expensive demonstration follies (See Appendix 2), but the over-taxed, over-regulated, impoverished Maine people would buckle under such a heavy burden, while trying to make ends meet in the near-zero, real-growth Maine economy.

Maine folks need lower energy bills, not higher energy bills.

 

APPENDIX 2

 

Floating Offshore Wind in Norway

 

Equinor, a Norwegian company, put in operation, 11 Hywind, floating offshore wind turbines, each 8 MW, for a total of 88 MW, in the North Sea. The wind turbines are supplied by Siemens, a German company

Production will be about 88 x 8766 x 0.5, claimed lifetime capacity factor = 385,704 MWh/y, which is about 35% of the electricity used by 2 nearby Norwegian oil rigs, which cost at least $1.0 billion each.

On an annual basis, the existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, designed to provide 100% of the rigs electricity requirements, 24/7/365, will provide only 65%, i.e., the wind turbines have 100% back up.

The generators will counteract the up/down output of the wind turbines, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365

The generators will provide almost all the electricity during low-wind periods, and 100% during high-wind periods, when rotors are feathered and locked.

The capital cost of the entire project was about 8 billion Norwegian Kroner, or about $730 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $730 million/88 MW = $8,300/kW. See URL

That cost was much higher than the estimated 5 billion NOK in 2019, i.e., 60% higher

The project is located about 70 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites

 

https://www.offshore-mag.com/regional-reports/north-sea-europe/arti...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_wind_turbine

 

The project would produce electricity at about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, at about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies 

In Norway, all work associated with oil rigs is very expensive.

Three shifts of workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, work 60 h/week, and get 6 weeks off with pay, and are paid well over $150,000/y, plus benefits.

 

Floating Offshore Wind in Maine

 

If such floating units were used in Maine, the production costs would be even higher in Maine, because of:

 

1) The additional cost of transport of almost the entire supply, including specialized ships and cranes, across the Atlantic Ocean, plus

2) The additional $300 to $500 million capital cost of any onshore facilities for storing/pre-assembly/staging/barging to erection sites

3) A high voltage cable would be hanging from each unit, until it reaches bottom, say about 200 to 500 feet. 

The cables would need some type of flexible support system
The cables would be combined into several cables to run horizontally to shore, for at least 25 to 30 miles, to several onshore substations, to the New England high voltage grid.

.

.

APPENDIX 3

 

Offshore Wind

 

Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about wind energy issues that only partially cover the offshore wind situation, which caused major declines of the stock prices of Siemens, Oersted, etc., starting at the end of 2020; the smart money got out
All this well before the Ukraine events, which started in February 2022. See costs/kWh in below article

 

World’s Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues 
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/world-s-largest-offsho...

 

US/UK Governments Offshore Wind Goals

1) 30,000 MW of offshore by 2030, by the cabal of climate extremists in the US government 
2) 36,000 MW of offshore by 2030, and 40,000 MW by 2040, by the disconnected-from-markets UK government

 

Those US/UK goals were physically unachievable, even if there were abundant, low-cost financing, and low inflation, and low-cost energy, materials, labor, and a robust, smooth-running supply chain, to place in service about 9500 MW of offshore during each of the next 7 years, from start 2024 to end 2030, which has never been done before in such a short time. See article
 
US/UK 66,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND BY 2030; AN EXPENSIVE FANTASY  
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...

 

NOTE: During an interview, a commentator was reported to say” “renewables are not always reliable” 
That shows the types of ignorami driving the bus
The commentator should have said: Wind and solar are never, ever reliable 

US 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.

Supply chain, special ships, ocean transport, 3 c/kWh

All other items, 4 c/kWh 

Total cost 9.824 + 5.449 + 8 + 3 + 4 = 30.273 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, 5-y depreciation, interest deduction on borrowed funds) 15.137 c/kWh

Owner sells to utility at 15.137 c/kWh; developers in NY state, etc., want much more. See Above.

 

Not included: At a future 30% wind/solar on the grid:   

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

Cost of a fleet of plants for counteracting/balancing, 24/7/365, about 2.0 c/kWh

In the UK, in 2020, it was 1.9 c/kWh at 28% wind/solar loaded onto the grid

Cost of curtailments, 2.0 c/kWh

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

 

APPENDIX 4

Levelized Cost of Energy Deceptions, by US-EIA, et al.

Most people have no idea wind and solar systems need grid expansion/reinforcement and expensive support systems to even exist on the grid.

With increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid, increased grid investments are needed, plus greater counteracting plant capacity, MW, especially when it is windy and sunny around noon-time.

Increased counteracting of the variable W/S output, places an increased burden on the grid’s other generators, causing them to operate in an inefficient manner (more Btu/kWh, more CO2/kWh), which adds more cost/kWh to the offshore wind electricity cost of about 16 c/kWh, after 50% subsidies

The various cost/kWh adders start with annual W/S electricity at about 8% on the grid.

The adders become exponentially greater, with increased annual W/S electricity percent on the grid

 

The US-EIA, Lazard, Bloomberg, etc., and their phony LCOE "analyses", are deliberately understating the cost of wind, solar and battery systems

Their LCOE “analyses” of W/S/B systems purposely exclude major LCOE items.

Their deceptions reinforced the popular delusion, W/S are competitive with fossil fuels, which is far from reality.

The excluded LCOE items are shifted to taxpayers, ratepayers, and added to government debts.

W/S would not exist without at least 50% subsidies

W/S output could not be physically fed into the grid, without items 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. See list.

 

1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project lifetime owning and operations cost,

2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S systems to load centers

3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the variable W/S output, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365 

4) A fleet of power plants to provide electricity during low-W/S periods, and 100% during high-W/S periods, when rotors are feathered and locked,

5) Output curtailments to prevent overloading the grid, i.e., paying owners for not producing what they could have produced

6) Hazardous waste disposal of wind turbines, solar panels and batteries. See image.

.

. 

APPENDIX  5

 

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

 

EXCERPT:

 

Annual Cost of Megapack Battery Systems; 2023 pricing

 

Assume a system rated 45.3 MW/181.9 MWh, and an all-in turnkey cost of $104.5 million, per Example 2

Amortize bank loan for 50% of $104.5 million at 6.5%/y for 15 years, $5.484 million/y

Pay Owner return of 50% of $104.5 million at 10%/y for 15 years, $6.765 million/y (10% due to high inflation)

Lifetime (Bank + Owner) payments 15 x (5.484 + 6.765) = $183.7 million

 

Assume battery daily usage for 15 years at 10%, and loss factor = 1/(0.9 *0.9)

Battery lifetime output = 15 y x 365 d/y x 181.9 MWh x 0.1, usage x 1000 kWh/MWh = 99,590,250 kWh to HV grid; 122,950,926 kWh from HV grid; 233,606,676 kWh loss

 

(Bank + Owner) payments, $183.7 million / 99,590,250 kWh = 184.5 c/kWh

Less 50% subsidies (ITC, depreciation in 5 years, deduction of interest on borrowed funds) is 92.3c/kWh

At 10% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 92.3 c/kWh

At 40% usage, (Bank + Owner) cost, 23.1 c/kWh

 

Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 1.5%/y, 3) 19% HV grid-to-HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect battery systems, 5) downtime of parts of the system, 6) decommissioning in year 15, i.e., disassembly, reprocessing and storing at hazardous waste sites.
 
NOTE: The 40% throughput is close to Tesla’s recommendation of 60% maximum throughput, i.e., not charging above 80%  full and not discharging below 20% full, to achieve a 15-y life, with normal aging

 

NOTE: Tesla’s recommendation was not heeded by the owners of the Hornsdale Power Reserve in Australia. They added Megapacks to offset rapid aging of the original system, and added more Megapacks to increase the rating of the expanded system.

http://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-hornsdale-power-reserve-largest-battery-system-in-australia

 

COMMENT ON CALCULATION

Regarding any project, the bank and the owner have to be paid, no matter what.
Therefore, I amortized the bank loan and the owner’s investment

If you divide the total of the payments over 15 years by the throughput during 15 years, you get the cost per kWh, as shown.

According to EIA annual reports, almost all battery systems have throughputs less than 10%. I chose 10% for calculations.

A few battery systems have higher throughputs, if they are used to absorb midday solar and discharge it during peak hour periods of late-afternoon/early-evening.
They may reach up to 40% throughput. I chose 40% for calculations

Remember, you have to draw about 50 units from the HV grid to deliver about 40 units to the HV grid, because of a-to-z system losses. That gets worse with aging.

A lot of people do not like these c/kWh numbers, because they have been repeatedly told by self-serving folks, battery Nirvana is just around the corner, which is a load of crap.

APPENDIX 6

 

Solar is in a Downturn, Similar to Offshore Wind

SolarEdge Technologies shares plunged about two weeks ago, after it warned about decreasing European demand. 

 

Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-...

 

SolarEdge Melts Down After Weak Guidance 

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/wind-solar-implosion-s...

 

The Great Green Crash – Solar Down 40%

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/11/08/the-great-green-crash-solar-...

 

APPENDIX 7

 

Miscellaneous Sources of Information

 

World's Largest Offshore Wind System Developer Abandons Two Major US Projects as Wind/Solar Bust Continues 

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

 

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

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/biden-30-000-mw-of-off...

 

BATTERY SYSTEM CAPITAL COSTS, OPERATING COSTS, ENERGY LOSSES, AND AGING

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/battery-system-capital...

 

Regulatory Rebuff Blow to Offshore Wind Projects; Had Asked for Additional $25.35 billion

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/regulatory-rebuff-blow...

 

Offshore Wind is an Economic and Environmental Catastrophe

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/offshore-wind-is-an-ec...

 

Four NY offshore projects ask for almost 50% price rise

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/four-ny-offshore-proje...

 

EV Owners Facing Soaring Insurance Costs in the US and UK

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/ev-owners-facing-soari...

 

U.S. Offshore Wind Plans Are Utterly Collapsing

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/u-s-offshore-wind-plan...

 

Values Of Used EVs Plummet, As Dealers Stuck With Unsold Cars

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/values-of-used-evs-plu...

 

Electric vehicles catch fire after being exposed to saltwater from Hurricane Idalia

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/electric-vehicles-catc...

 

The Electric Car Debacle Shows the Top-Down Economics of Net Zero Don’t Add Up

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/the-electric-car-debac...

 

Lifetime Performance of World’s First Offshore Wind System in the North Sea 

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

 

Solar Panels Are Much More Carbon-Intensive Than Experts are Willing to Admit

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/solar-panels-are-more-...

 

IRENA, a Renewables Proponent, Ignores the Actual Cost Data for Offshore Wind Systems in the UK
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/irena-a-european-renew...

 

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...

 

CO2 IS A LIFE GAS; NO CO2 = NO FLORA AND NO FAUNA

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-a-life-gas-no-c...

 

AIR SOURCE HEAT PUMPS DO NOT ECONOMICALLY DISPLACE FOSSIL FUEL BTUs IN COLD CLIMATES

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/air-source-heat-pumps-...

.

IRELAND FUEL AND CO2 REDUCTIONS DUE TO WIND ENERGY LESS THAN CLAIMED    

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

 

APPENDIX 8

 

Nuclear Plants by Russia

 

According to the IAEA, during the first half of 2023, a total of 407 nuclear reactors are in operation at power plants across the world, with a total capacity at about 370,000 MW

Nuclear was 2546 TWh, or 9.2%, of world electricity production in 2022

https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/batteries-in-new-england

Rosatom, a Russian Company, is building more nuclear reactors than any other country in the world, according to data from the Power Reactor Information System of the International Atomic Energy Agency, IAEA.

The data show, a total of 58 large-scale nuclear power reactors are currently under construction worldwide, of which 23 are being built by Russia.

 

Nuclear Plants: A typical plant may have up to 4 reactors, usually about 1,200 MW each

.

In Egypt, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $30 billion, or about $6,250/kW, 

The cost of the nuclear power plant is $28.75 billion.

As per a bilateral agreement, signed in 2015, approximately 85% of it is financed by Russia, and to be paid for by Egypt under a 22-year loan with an interest rate of 3%.
That cost is at least 40% less than US/UK/EU

.

In Turkey, 4 reactors, each 1,200 MW = 4,800 MW for $20 billion, or about $4,200/kW, entirely financed by Russia. The plant will be owned and operated by Rosatom

.

In India, 6 VVER-1000 reactors, each 1,000 MW = 6,000 MW at the Kudankulam Nuclear Power Plant.

Capital cost about $15 billion. Units 1, 2, 3 and 4 are in operation, units 5 and 6 are being constructed

.

Rosatom, created in 2007 by combining several Russian companies, usually provides full service during the entire project life, such as training, new fuel bundles, refueling, waste processing and waste storage in Russia, etc., because the various countries likely do not have the required systems and infrastructures

 

Nuclear vs Wind: Remember, these nuclear plants reliably produce steady electricity, at reasonable cost/kWh, and have near-zero CO2 emissions

They have about 0.90 capacity factors, and last 60 to 80 years

Nuclear do not require counteracting plants. They can be designed to be load-following, as some are in France

.

Offshore wind systems produce variable, unreliable power, at very high cost/kWh, and are far from CO2-free, on a

mine-to-hazardous landfill basis.
They have lifetime capacity factors, on average, of about 0.40; about 0.45 in very windy places

They last about 20 to 25 years in a salt water environment 
They require: 1) a fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the up/down wind outputs, on a less-than-minute-by-minute basis, 24/7/365, 2) major expansion/reinforcement of electric grids to connect the wind systems to load centers, 3)  a lot of land and sea area, 4) curtailment payments, i.e., pay owners for what they could have produced

 

Major Competitors: Rosatom’s direct competitors, according to PRIS data, are three Chinese companies: CNNC, CSPI and CGN.
They are building 22 reactors, but it should be noted, they are being built primarily inside China, and the Chinese partners are building five of them together with Rosatom.

American and European companies are lagging behind Rosatom, by a wide margin,” Alexander Uvarov, a director at the Atom-info Center and editor-in-chief at the atominfo.ru website, told TASS.

 

Tripling Nuclear? During COP28 in opulent Dubai, Kerry called for the world to triple CO2-free nuclear, from 370,200 MW to about 1,110,600 MW, by 2050.

https://phys.org/news/2023-12-triple-nuclear-power-cop28.html

 

Based on past experience in the US and EU, it takes at least 10 years to commission nuclear plants

That means, plants with about 39 reactors must be started each year, for 16 years (2024 to 2040), to fill the pipeline, to commission the final ones by 2050, in addition to those already in the pipeline.

 

New nuclear: Kerry’s nuclear tripling by 2050, would be 11% of the 2050 world electricity generation. See table

Existing nuclear: If some of the older plants are shut down, and plants already in the pipeline are placed in operation, that nuclear would be about 5% to the world total generation in 2050

Nuclear was 9.2% of 2022 generation.

Total nuclear would be about 16%, and would have minimal impact on CO2 emissions and ppm in 2050. 

Infrastructures and Manpower: The building of the new nuclear plants would require a major increase in infrastructures and educating and training of personnel, in addition to the cost of the power plants.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/electricity-sources-by-fuel-in-202....

.

 

Existing Nuclear, MW, 2022	370200
Proposed tripling	3
Tripled Nuxlear, MW, 2050	1110600
New Nuclear, MW	740400
MW/reactor	1200
Reactors	617
New Reactors, rounded	620
Reactors/site	2
Sites	310
New nuclear production, MWh, 2050	5841311760
Conversion factor	1000000	%
New nuclear production, TWh, 2050	5841	11
World total production, TWh, 2050	53000

 

APPENDIX 9

 

Electricity prices vary by type of customer

 

Retail electricity prices are usually highest for residential and commercial consumers because it costs more to distribute electricity to them. Industrial consumers use more electricity and can receive it at higher voltages, so supplying electricity to these customers is more efficient and less expensive. The retail price of electricity to industrial customers is generally close to the wholesale price of electricity.

In 2022, the U.S. annual average retail price of electricity was about 12.49¢ per kilowatthour (kWh).1

The annual average retail electricity prices by major types of utility customers in 2022 were:

 

Residential, 15.12 ¢/kWh

Commercial, 12.55 ¢/kWh

Industrial, 8.45 ¢/kWh

Transportation, 11.66 ¢/kWh

 

Electricity prices vary by locality

 

Electricity prices vary by locality based on the availability of power plants and fuels, local fuel costs, and pricing regulations. In 2022, the annual average retail electricity price for all types of electric utility customers ranged from 39.85¢ per kWh in Hawaii to 8.24¢ per kWh in Wyoming.2. 

Prices in Hawaii are high relative to other states mainly because most of its electricity is generated with petroleum fuels that must be imported into the state.

1 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.3, February 2023, preliminary data.
2 U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Power Monthly, Table 5.6.B, February 2023, preliminary data.

Last updated: June 29, 2023, with data from the Electric Power Monthly, February 2023; data for 2022 are preliminary.

See URL

https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/electricity/prices-and-factors-...

 

In the US, the cost of electricity to ratepayers ranges from about 8 c/kWh (Wyoming) to 40 c/kWh (Hawaii), for an average of about 12.5 c/kWh.

US ratepayers buy about 4000 billion kWh/y from utilities, costing about $500 BILLION/Y

With a lot of wind/solar/batteries/EVs by 2050, and ratepayers buying 8000 billion kWh/y, because of electrification, the average rate to ratepayers would be about 25 c/kWh,

US ratepayers would pay: two times the kWh x two times the price/kWh = $2,000 BILLION/Y
Electric bills would increase by a factor of 4, if all that scare-mongering renewable nonsense were implemented

NOTE: All numbers are without inflation, i.e., constant 2023 dollars

 

APPENDIX 10

 

LIFE WITHOUT OIL?

 

Life without oil means many products that are made with oil, such as the hundreds listed below, would need to be provided by wind and solar and hydro, which can be done theoretically, but only at enormous cost.

Folks, including Biden's handlers, wanting to get rid of fossil fuels, such as crude oil, better start doing some rethinking.

The above also applies to natural gas, which is much preferred by many industries, such as glass making, and the chemical and drug industries.

If you do not have abundant, low-cost energy, you cannot have modern industrial economies.

 

Without Crude Oil, there can be no Electricity.

 

Every experienced engineer knows, almost all the parts of wind, solar and battery systems, for electricity generation and storage, from mining materials to manufacturing parts, to installation and commissioning, in addition to the infrastructures that produce materials, parts, specialized ships, etc., are made from the oil derivatives manufactured from raw crude oil.

There is no escaping of this reality, except in green la-la-land.

.