Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine

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...

NOTE: Despite the meager floating offshore MW in the world, pro-wind politicians, bureaucrats, etc., aided and abetted by the lapdog Media, 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 24/7365 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 $8,523/installed kW

Almost the entire supply of the 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 Maine pre-assembly/staging area, then barged to specialized erection ships, for erection of the floating turbines by specialized cranes, also designed and made in Europe

About 200 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 50 Maine people would have long-term O&M jobs during the electricity production phase

The projects would produce electricity at about 40 c/kWh, without subsidies, 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 developers

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

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:

Natural 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

APPENDIX 2

Floating Offshore Wind in Norway

Equinor, a Norwegian company, just 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

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 Norwegian oil rigs.

The existing diesel and gas-turbine generators on the rigs, will provide the other 65%.

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 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 $750 million, as of August 2023, when all 11 units were placed in operation, or $750 million/88 MW = $8,523/kW.

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

The project is located only about 125 miles from Norway, which means minimal transport costs of the entire supply to the erection sites

The production cost likely will be about 42 c/kWh, no subsidies, about 21 c/kWh, with 50% subsidies.

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

Workers are on the rigs for 6 weeks, and get 6 weeks off, 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 likely would be even higher, 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 sites

Cabling to Shore and 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 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, 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 3

Offshore Wind

Most folks, seeing only part of the picture, write about things 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 offshore wind costs/kWh in 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 posse of 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
WIND AND SOLAR ARE NEVER, EVER RELIABLE

Levelized Cost of Energy by US-EIA

The wind/solar/battery bubble is in meltdown mode. This is not a surprise, because the US-EIA makes LCOE “evaluations” of W/S/B systems that purposely exclude major LCOE items, to make them look politically competitive with fossil fuels.

1) Subsidies equivalent to about 50% of project owning and operations cost,
2) Grid extension/reinforcement to connect remote W/S to load centers
3) A fleet of quick-reacting power plants to counteract the W/S up/down 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 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

NOTE: W/S variable outputs could not be physically fed into the grid, without the last 4 items, of which the LCOEs are provided for free by taxpayers, ratepayers, or added to government debts

Batteries Far From an Economic Alternative to Power Plant Fleets

Turnkey capital costs of large scale-battery systems are $575/installed kWh; based on 2023 pricing of Tesla-based systems. See article

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

With 6.5% money on a 50% bank loan, and 10% for owner return on a 50% investment, and 19% HV grid to HV grid loss, and 15-y life:

At 10% throughput, the delivered electricity cost is about 183.8 c/kWh, without 50% subsidies, about 91.9 c/kWh with 50% subsidies, on top of the 6 c/kWh cost of the electricity from the HV grid to charge the batteries

At 40% throughput, about 23 c/kWh, on top of the 6 c/kWh

Excluded costs/kWh: 1) O&M; 2) system aging, 3) HV grid to HV grid loss, 3) grid extension/reinforcement to connect the 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% and not discharging below 20%, 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-res...

THE PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC FUTILITY OF W/S/B HAS BEEN CLEAR TO ENERGY SYSTEMS ANALYSTS AND ENGINEERS SINCE ABOUT 2000

APPENDIX 4