Europe is seeing major increases in the SPOT prices of gas/1000 m3, coal/metric ton, and oil/barrel.
This will have an adverse effect on prices at the pump, etc.
The EU SPOT price surge was entirely the fault of EU bureaucrats in Brussels, which have urged EU countries NOT to sign long-term gas supply contracts with Russia, because it would send a “the wrong signal regarding the seriousness of EU fighting climate change”.
Serbia, Hungary and Turkey had recently signed long-term contracts with Russia at about $3/million Btu.
Those countries were vilified by EU bureaucrats and the handmaiden EU Media.
Subsequently, SPOT prices of gas started to increase, and the three countries are smiling.
EU SPOT prices of gas briefly increased to about $60/million Btu
US SPOT prices increased to about $4/million Btu, 15 times less than Europe, due to an abundance of domestic gas. See table.
Gazprom expects to export between 175 and 183 bcm of gas to Europe, in 2021, at prices of about $200/1000 m3; long-term contracts.
A below-ground gas storage reservoir has to a total gas volume and a working gas volume, WGV; as gas is withdrawn, the gas pressure decreases.
European gas storage was at 95.65% of WGV, on October 1, 2020, and at 74.14% on October 1, 2021, i.e., significantly below normal in 2021.
If Europe were to have a long and cold winter, economies would stagnate, prices would increase, and people would be suffering.
EU solar electricity would be minimal in winter.
EU wind electricity would not be something to rely on.
In Europe, gas prices are stated as Euro/1000 m3
1 Euro = $1.16
1000 m3 contains 1000 x 35.315 ft3/m3 x 1000 Btu/ft3 = 35,315,000 Btu
REASONS FOR SPOT PRICE INCREASES
1) EU bureaucrats had urged EU countries not to sign long-term gas supply contracts with Russia, because electricity from wind, solar, etc., would increase, and signing long-term contracts would “send the wrong signal”, plus it would give “evil” Russia more clout in EU energy markets.
2) However, EU bureaucrats did not take into account the vagaries of wind and solar. In that regard, they are far from unique.
From April, 2020, to the present, there has been significantly less wind than in prior years.
Even though more onshore and offshore wind turbine capacity, MW, was installed in the UK, Ireland, Belgium, The Netherlands, Germany and Denmark, that did not result in as much of an increase in wind electricity as predicted, due to less than average winds.
3) As a result, the shortfall of wind electricity had to be made up by burning more gas and coal, which rapidly increased SPOT prices of gas to $40/million Btu, and also increased the SPOT prices of coal.
4) Then, people became aware, the EU winter storage of gas was very low, compared to prior years, which meant energy markets began to bid up the SPOT prices of gas for future, i.e., winter, delivery.
5) At first, EU bureaucrats tried to hide their lack of planning ability, and blame the shortfalls on market manipulation by Russia.
However, Russia proved, with gas system operating data, it had been transmitting gas to the EU, IN EXCESS of long-term contract requirements; in case of Ukraine, the excess transmission was 10%. Various EU countries, that receive a steady supply of low-cost gas from Russia, chimed in to support Russia. See Note.
Ukraine: At present, Ukraine does not buy gas directly from Russia. Instead, the gas flows through a transmission line, and Ukraine takes some of that gas for its own use. Ukraine calls that gas “a reverse-flow supply”, as if it came from EU countries, i.e., a charade.
Ukraine pays these EU countries about 20 to 30 percent more, than if Ukraine had bought the gas directly from Russia.
Russia requires Ukraine to pay for a year of gas supply, up front, in cash, because impoverished, corrupt Ukraine:
1) Stole gas from transmission lines (the gas had been bought by EU countries from Russia), and
2) Did not make timely and adequate payments for contracted Russian gas, during prior years
In case Ukraine would have a gas supply contract with Russia, and the flow had been any quantity less than per contract, Ukraine would have cried “Russia is using gas as a weapon” to its EU, US, and NATO protectors.
Ukraine could not be such a bad commercial actor with regard to the EU, as otherwise, it would never be admitted to NATO and the EU.
Germany: Several decades ago, when Germany started its ENERGIEWENDE towards wind, and solar, and tree burning, and closing nuclear plants, I thought they were of-the-charts nuts. The chickens are finally coming home to roost, aided and abetted by RE-idiot bureaucrats in Brussels, who know not their belly buttons from a hole in the ground; I am trying to stay polite.
BIDEN 30,000 MW OF OFFSHORE WIND SYSTEMS BY 2030; A TOTAL 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.
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.
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.
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, and productivity of fishing areas.
Production: Annual production would be about 30,000 x 8766 h/y x 0.45, capacity factor = 118,341,000 MWh, or 118.3 TWh of variable, intermittent, wind/weather/season-dependent electricity.
The additional wind production would be about 100 x 118.3/4000 = 2.96% of the annual electricity loaded onto US grids.
That US load would increase, due to tens of millions of future electric vehicles and heat pumps.
This would require a large capacity of combined-cycle, gas-turbine plants, CCGTs, to cost-effectively:
1) Counteract the wind output variations, MW, and
2) Fill-in any wind production shortfall, MWh, during any wind lulls.
Such lulls occur at random throughout the year, and may last 5 to 7 days in the New England area.
Turnkey Capital Cost: The turnkey capital cost for wind systems and offshore/onshore grid extension/augmentation would be about 30,000 MW x $5,000,000/MW = $150 BILLION, excluding financing costs.
Biden’s excessive inflation rates, about 7% at present, surely would increase that cost.
Based on the real-world European operating experience, such systems would last about 20 to 25 years.
Area Requirements: The 8-MW wind turbines would be arranged on a grid, spaced at least one mile apart (8 rotor diameters), about 1 sq mile per wind turbine. The minimum sea area requirement for 30,000/8 = 3,750 wind turbines would be 3,750 sq miles, or 2,400,000 acres
Electricity Cost/kWh: The all-in wholesale price of the offshore electricity would be about 18 c/kWh, without cost shifting and subsidies, and about 9 c/kWh, with cost shifting and subsidies. See Appendix
NOTE: This compares with the average New England wholesale price of 5 c/kWh, during the 2009 - 2022 period, 13 years, courtesy of:
1) Abundant, domestic, natural gas-fueled CCGT plants, that have: 1) low-cost/kWh, low-CO2/kWh, extremely-low particulate/kWh
2) Domestic, uranium-fueled nuclear plants, that have low-cost/kWh, near-zero CO2/kWh, zero particulate/kWh
3) Long-lasting hydro plants, that have low-cost/kWh, near-zero-CO2/kWh, zero particulate/kWh
NOTE: Cost shifting and subsidies have not yet affected NE wholesale prices, because the percent of new RE (mostly wind and solar) on the NE grid is very small, after 20 years of subsidies. However, they have affected the German and Danish wholesale rates, because the percent of new wind and solar has become significant after 20 years of subsidies. The political allocating of their costs has greatly increased household electric rates. See URL
Great Benefits for EU Companies: Almost the entire physical supply and installation of the 30,000 MW of offshore wind systems would be provided by EU companies, because they have the required expertise and the domestic onshore facilities and seagoing facilities, due to building at least 25,014 MW (end 2020) of offshore systems, during the past 39 years.
Currently, EU companies have capacity to install 8 to 10 MW, offshore wind turbines, at a rate of about 1,500 MW/y
US Offshore Experience: US production capacity of large, up to 10 MW, wind turbines, is non-existent.
It would take years to convert existing sites for producing offshore wind turbines.
It would take years to build the sea-going ships and specialized cranes to transport, and 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 8 years, 2022 to 2030, at a rate of 30,000/8 = 3,750 MW/y, would be physically impossible. See Note
The Biden 30,000 MW of wind systems merely is a disingenuous, political ploy, to fool the American people, and technology-ignorant RE folks, into believing something big is being done about global warming.
In the real world, any independent energy systems analyst would deem Biden’s offshore wind scheme a total fantasy.
Additional URLs for information
NOTE: Maine dreaming about building thousands of MW of off-shore FLOATING wind turbines would be hugely expensive, because, at present, there are no major wind companies in the world with any experience, other than minor experience by Norway.
NUCLEAR ALTERNATIVE TO WIND
About 15,000 MW of nuclear plants would produce 15000 x 8766 x 0.90 = 118,341,000 MWh of STEADY electricity, which would not require any CCGTs to perform counteracting and fill-in services.
The turnkey capital cost would be 15,000 MW x $8,000,000/MW = $120 billion, much less than wind system, plus these plants would last at least 60 years.
Six, standard-design, 2,500 MW plants would require a total of about 6,000 acres
Small Modular Nuclear Reactors
Russia plans to build a fleet of floating nuclear power plants and on-shore installations, based on Russian-made small modular reactors (SMRs). These units will be available for deployment to hard-to-reach areas of Russia's North and Far-East, as well as for export. Such power plants could be used all over the world, instead of CO2-emitting fossil plants.
A Russian-built floating nuclear power plant is equipped with two KLT-40S reactor systems, each with a capacity of 35 MW, similar to those used on icebreakers. It is 144 m long and 30 m wide, and has a displacement of 21,000 metric ton.
The project was started in May 2009. Reactors were installed in 2013. Since December 2019, the ship has been anchored at a dock in the City of Pevek, in northern Siberia, to provide electricity to power the ship and the entire town.
Low-pressure steam exiting the low-pressure end of the steam turbine is used to produce hot water for domestic hot water and for building heating. The hot water is pumped, via underground piping, to a large number of nearby buildings, i.e., a near-zero-CO2, highly efficient (about 65%), DHW/district heating system.
EU GAS STORAGE RESERVOIRS
The EU gas storage reservoirs are way below where they should be at this time of the year.
Filling storage for high levels of winter use, at SPOT prices, would be VERY EXPENSIVE.
In fact, there may not BE enough gas available for adequately filling storage!!
In 2020, gas storage levels were at 90% in January and 55% in April, the low point.
In 2021, gas storage levels were at 74% in January and 30% in April, the low point.
It is already too late to adequately fill the EU storage, because there is not enough available gas, no matter what the price!!
EU THIRD ENERGY PACKAGE
After NORD-STREAM-2, capacity 55 bcm/y, gets final approval by the German government, only one of the two lines would be DELIVERING gas by the end of 2021; the second line would be ready to deliver gas by about March 2022.
But wait, EU bureaucrats have concocted an EU THIRD ENERGY PACKAGE, which effectively states, Russia can use only one of the two NORD-STREAM-2 lines, because the capacity of other line has to be reserved for other gas delivering companies, as part of EU policy of “fostering competition”!
Whereas, there ARE such gas delivering companies, none of them have any gas to ACTUALLY USE those lines, and if they HAD gas, they still could not use them, because the lines, which run under the bottom of the Baltic Sea, connect Russia directly to Germany, with no in/out connections for others.
Now, you can see the level of nuttiness EU bureaucrats engage in just to “protect” the EU from “evil” Russia..
I am not making this up!
Tens of millions of Europeans will have to put on extra layers of clothes, because it will be COLD in the EU this winter.
EU bureaucrats have mucho eggo on their faces.
Also see LEGAL FIGHT OVER NORD STREAM 2, AS EUROPE ENERGY COSTS SOAR AHEAD OF COLD WINTER
EU RE-loving bureaucrats have mucho eggo on their faces.
This article, by Francis Menton, first appeared on the site of the "Manhattan Contrarian"
Then it was posted on the site of "Watt is Up With That"
You don’t have to be any kind of a genius to figure out that wind and solar generation are never going to supplant fossil fuels in powering the world economy. The main reason is that the wind and sun only work part time, indeed well less than half of the time at best.
With wind, you never know when it might work, and over a year a given facility might on average produce about 30-35% ..., with long and random periods of nothing, about 0.30 in New England.
With the sun, you know from the get-go that you will get nothing fully half the time (i.e., night); and cloudy days wipe out half and more of the remaining half, again at random times. Averaged over the year, you’ll be lucky to get 15% of rated capacity from a solar facility in New England.
With the world economy finally bouncing back (hopefully) from the year-and-a-half of pandemic, this is the moment for wind and solar to step up and show what they can do.
All the advanced economies (Europe, UK, US, Canada, Australia) have been pushing wind and solar for a couple of decades, with tens of billions of dollars of various subsidies and tax breaks. There are now wind turbines and solar panels all over the place.
Simultaneously the same countries have shuttered coal plants, reduced nuclear, banned fracking in many places (Europe, the UK, and much of the US), and discouraged fossil fuels of every sort in a hundred different ways. Now there is a surge in demand for manufactured goods of every sort. That will take some energy. Let’s see what the wind and the sun can do!
The answer is that when they are needed by users, they are often not ABSENT.
Which brings me to two front page articles in the Wall Street Journal the past two days. Yesterday it was “Coal Shortages Weigh on global Economies.”
Coal supply shortages are pushing prices for the fuel to record highs and laying bare the challenges to weaning the global economy off one of its most important—and polluting—energy sources. The crunch has many causes—from the post-pandemic boom to supply-chain strains and ambitious targets for reducing carbon emissions. And it is expected to last at least through the winter, raising fears in many countries of fuel shortfalls in the months ahead.
How much have prices increased?
COAL: Australia’s Newcastle thermal coal, a global benchmark, is trading at $202 a metric ton, three times higher than at the end of 2019.
GAS: From today, we have “Natural Gas Shortage Sets Off a Scramble.”
It’s basically the same story as for coal:
Buyers in Europe, Asia and Latin America are competing for limited supplies of gas, racing to fill tanks and caverns with the fuel before winter hits the Northern Hemisphere. Natural gas stocks are alarmingly low around the world, and prices in most places have never been higher after surging to new records in Europe and Asia this week. Demand has jumped as economies have bounced back from pandemic shutdowns, and the squeeze has caught traders, shipowners and energy executives off guard.
How about a few details on the price? They helpfully give us this chart:
Thankfully, the US, home of fracking, has mostly been spared the huge natural gas price spikes that have befallen Europe and Asia. If the dopes occupying the White House and leading the Congress had their way, we would be suffering the fate of those places and worse.
OIL: It’s suddenly trading at $80 and more per barrel, the highest prices since 2014. Expect that fact to show up in gas prices at the pump over the course of the next few weeks or days.
But what are we missing? Shouldn’t wind and solar just step up to fill in the gaps? After all, they are clean, and they are green, there are lots of brand-new systems, and the “fuel” is abundant and free. The question is of course facetious.
Wind and solar are completely useless to step in when supplies of fossil fuels are tight. You can cover the landscape with them, but on a calm night you will have nothing. Absolutely nothing. Essentially you need the same fossil fuel power plant capacity, MW, as if you had never built any wind or solar facilities at all.
Remember, that power plant capacity has to be staffed, fueled, ready to operate, 24/7/365, year after year, the counteract the shortcomings of wind and solar.
While we’re at this, we might as well look over to the big energy story on the front page of today’s New York Times.
That would be “World Wants Action as China Gushes Emissions.” It’s a big three-column extravaganza, continued to all of page A-12 in the interior.
The bottom line:
China is producing a huge percentage of the world’s manufactured goods, and it currently has a shortage of electricity to do the job, and it’s going to build more fossil fuel power plants, whether the RE pooh-bahs of the rest of the world like it or not.
On the northern edge of a vast Chinese factory city, welding torches gleam as workers finish construction on a gas-fired power plant to replace one that burned coal and blanketed the surrounding neighborhood in a sooty pall. It’s one of several huge gas-fired plants being built to pump more electricity throughout this sprawling industrial city of about 10 million, where rising demand for power has led to rationing and blackouts that are now rippling across eastern China and threaten international supply chains. This archipelago of power plants underlines an unsettling reality in the global fight to slow climate change. China burns more fossil fuels than any other nation, making it the planet’s top source of the greenhouse gases that are warming the Earth. And its voracious appetite for electricity is only growing.
But hasn’t China built all kinds of wind and solar facilities, and for that matter hydropower?
-The Times calls them the “world leader” in all three categories:
China is the world leader in hydroelectric power, in solar power and in wind power. While China has mostly run out of rivers to dam for hydroelectric power, it has been building solar power and wind power faster than any other country in recent years.
Why don’t they just use these sources to provide the power they need and forget about the coal and the natural gas? The Times will never say it, but the fact is that all the wind and solar are completely for show. They produce some small amounts of power at random times, and then when you really need to use them they can’t be counted on.
China continues to build natural gas and coal plants, while mouthing empty promises about maybe someday slowing that process down.
As to the reality on the ground:
China still plans to build 247,000 MW of new coal-fired power plants. That is nearly six times Germany’s entire coal power capacity. China’s plan “would actually undo the ability of the rest of the world” to restrain global warming to a relatively safe level, [John Kerry] said.
But Kerry and his ilk have no idea of where 24/7365, steady, low-cost electricity would come from to make all this manufactured stuff.
The biggest driver of China’s emissions, however, is its insatiable appetite for steel and cement, key ingredients for apartment towers, bullet train lines, subways and other large construction projects. Producing these two materials accounts for about a quarter of China’s carbon emissions.
Make vast amounts of steel and cement and pave the roads, and make clothes, etc., with solar and wind power? Good luck with that.
Anyway, we’re little by little seeing the inevitable consequences of trying to replace real energy, i.e., fossil fuels with tooth-fairy dust.
This will continue until the low- and middle-income people of the world figure this out and throw the climate cultists out of power.
Meanwhile, those of us who pay attention can have some fun watching the inevitable crash of the wind and solar fantasy.
DEEP-WATER FLOATING OFFSHORE WIND TURBINES IN MAINE
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
NOTE: Norwegians advocating expensive floating wind turbines that depend on the randomness of wind and produce high-cost, variable, intermittent electricity for other people, such as Jane and Joe Worker/Ratepayer, is highly hypocritical, because the Norwegians get 98% of their electricity from their own hydro plants, which produce low-cost, steady electricity (not variable, not intermittent). The Danes advocating wind turbines and boasting about their high percent of wind on their grid is similarly hypocritical, because the Danes have been increasingly using the storage reservoirs of Norway’s hydro plants for decades.
First Experimental Floating Wind Turbine in Norway
Equinor (formerly Statoil, a Norwegian government controlled company) launched the world's first operational deep-water, floating large-capacity 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.
First Commercial Floating Wind Turbine Plant in Scotland
Hywind Scotland project is the world's first commercial wind turbine plant using floating wind turbines.
It is located 29 km (EIGHTEEN 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 (Scotland) Limited, a joint venture of Equinor, Norway (75%) and Masdar, Kuwait (25%).
In 2015, Equinor received permission to install 5 Hywind turbines in Scotland.
Manufacturing started in 2016 in Spain (wind turbine, rotor), Norway (tower, underwater base, assembly), and Scotland (various parts)
The turnkey capital cost was $263 million for five 6 MW turbines, or $8,767/kW.
They 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 2300 metric ton, total ballasted 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 Saipem 7000 floating crane, and then towed to the north of Scotland by sea-going tugboats.
Make sure to see the videos showing the crane assembling the entire wind turbine.
Nothing like that exists 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 infrastructures and other facilities during the past 25 years.
The huge, sea-going, specialized, crane (14,000-metric ton lifting capacity) is required for partial assembly on land and final assembly in an area close to shore with a very deep harbor, before towing, fully assembled, to the site.
The finished turbines were towed to Peterhead, Scotland.
Three cup anchors hold each turbine in place.
About 2400 meter of chain is required, weighing 400 metric ton, for each turbine.
The Hywind Scotland project was commissioned in October 2017.
Hywind Wind Turbines for Demonstration Purposes in Maine
Hannah Pingree and other Maine's wind bureaucrats in state government are engaging in mindless prattle, eager to do the bidding of various multi-millionaires and foreign companies that may be providing some wining/dining boondoggle trips to “view the Hywind turbines” in Norway and Scotland.
The turnkey cost of those two Hywind turbines would be about $10,000 per kW, versus NE ridgeline wind at $2,000/kW, and regular offshore, south of Martha’s Vineyard, at $4,000/kW.
That would be at about $120 million for a two 6 MW Hywind wind turbines, plus whatever facilities would need to be built in Maine to support the project.
The turnkey capital cost of the wind turbine plant in Maine would be much higher, because Maine does not have the experience of the Norwegians and the specialized equipment and specialized ships, and other facilities. It would be very costly to build those facilities and ships in Maine, or elsewhere.
600-ft Tall Hywind Turbines Highly Visible From Mohegan Island, Plus Infrasound
The 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, the problem would not be just cyclical, audible noises keeping people awake, but also low frequency infrasound, which can travel many miles, and passes through walls of houses, and can be felt but not heard, and has been shown to have adverse health impacts on people and animals.
The FAA-required aviation beacons would be clearly visible during nighttime. BTW, they would need to be located about 15 - 20 miles away from Mohegan Island to be unobtrusive to the Islanders.
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.
“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).”
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 Joe and Jane Worker to save the world, and to enrich a host of multi-millionaires seeking tax shelters. See Appendix.
Who are these Aqua Ventus multi-millionaire owners pushing for this expensive project?
How much would be the subsidies?
What would be the energy cost/kWh?
How long would the project last before it would have to be repaired?
How would it be repaired?
Would any special ships, facilities be required?
Does Maine have the required, at least 100-meter, deep-water port?
Is anyone looking at the entire picture on an A to Z basis, or are Maine bureaucrats just dreaming/prattling about castles in Spain?
Does anyone think the Norwegians would not want to make money to maintain/service and provide spare parts for their Hywind wind turbines?
Extremely Adverse Impact on CMP Electric Rates
LePage’s energy director, Steven McGrath, has focused exclusively on the cost of electricity from the demonstration project.
The rate is at least FOUR TIMES above wholesale market value, reflecting the custom design and experimental nature of the platforms.
It would start at 23 cents per kilowatt-hour in the first year, escalating at 2.5% per year to 35 cents after 20 years.
The PUC estimates it would add up to $208 million over the term, or about $10.5 million a year from Central Maine Power ratepayers. Maine Aqua Ventus had calculated the extra cost would add 73 cents a month to the average household electric bill, in the first year of operation, more thereafter..
That is a total rip-off, because Massachusetts pays only an average of 8 - 9 c/kWh over the life of the project.
Main bureaucrats need to learn from Governor Baker.
NOTE: The above prices should be compared with NE wholesale prices, which have been about 5 c/kWh since 2008, courtesy of abundant, domestic, low-cost, low-CO2 electricity from gas at about 5 c/kWh, and low-cost, near CO2-free electricity from nuclear at about 4.5 - 5.0 c/kWh.
This project is insanity on STEROIDS.
One has to feel sorry for the already-struggling Joe and Jane Workers in Maine who will ultimately pay for all this.
My two comments on Watt is up with That
This is wonderful.
CCC, a bunch of RE idiots trying to pull the wool over the eyes of innocent, gullible lay people, got caught lying and obfuscating big-time.
CCC, which advises UK PM Johnson, aka, the UNRULY MOP, used 7 days of low wind in 2050, whereas the low-wind days were 65 in 2021, and 78 in 2016.
CCC wanted to make wind look extra, extra good.
More low-wind days means vastly greater CAPACITY, MW, of instantly available, reliable, low-cost, traditional power plants, which must be staffed, fueled, ready to operate, in good working order, as demanded by the UK grid operator, to fill in any wind (and solar) shortfalls; the UK has LOTS OF DAYS without sun, throughout the year.
Initially, CCC was obstructing the public release of its report to THE UNRULY MOP
CCC was ordered by the Court to release the report to the public.
Are you f….g kidding me?
We are talking hundreds of millions of small folks spending $TRILLIONS EACH YEAR, to “save the world”, and CCC is blatantly lying about the feasibility and cost!
These CCC people should be drawn and quartered.
ALL OF THIS IS AWFUL NEWS FOR THE SCOTLAND CLIMATE MEETING
BTW, every wind turbine draws significant electricity from the grid, whether it is producing or not.
Great graph. It shows Wind Capacity Factor (0% to 100%), versus Temperature (-10C to 25C)
It clearly shows, the capacity’s factor of wind very often is less than 10%
The average CF is about 30%.
It is important to note wind power is the cube of wind speed
In addition, at very low CFs, say 3 to 4%, with winds at 4 mph and less, the wind turbine is producing about as much as it is consuming, i.e., no net feed to the grid. Yikes
The graph shows a lot of red at low CFs, meaning onshore winds are frequently very weak.
The RE clowns at CCC are of-the-charts fabricators of lies.
They should be drawn and quartered
The EU and Germany confirmed Russia had been delivering gas, as requested by clients, throughout the year.
There are gas meters all over Europe that confirm Russia’s deliveries
Any requests were honored by Russia, if those clients had signed, long term contracts for gas supply from Russia.
The EU bureaucrats had told EU countries not to sigh long-term contracts, because that would look bad from a “green” aspect.
The EU bureaucrats were on mindless auto-pilot. They did not foresee the lack of wind.
As a result:
1) increased purchases on the spot market became very expensive, and
2) gas storage meant for winter was depleted, and
3) old, dirty coal plants had to be re-started.
4) LNG tankers were rerouted by evil-capitalist owners to collect huge sums of money, because the gas was sourced in a low-priced market, such as the US, and will be sold in a high-priced area, such as Europe.
It is called arbitrage
It has been estimated, this “green”, EU-bureaucrat stupidity will cost Europe an additional $400 billion in energy costs, before winter even starts, plus inflict major hardships on low-income folks, plus adversely affect business profitability.
Oh, I forgot, Nordstream2, capacity 55 billion cubic meters per year, is ready to pump gas, but is on administrative hold until June 2022.
There were numerous attempts to blame all of the brouhaha on Russia, but the gas line operating data proved to big an obstacle to sustain the lies/fake news
Future Hurricane Season with Electric Vehicles in Florida
Too bad those people who want “all-electric-cars-only” in the future don’t think about this......
Imagine Florida with a hurricane coming toward Miami. The governor orders an evacuation. All EVs head north.
They all need to be charged up somewhere near Jacksonville.
How does that work?
Has anyone thought about this.?
If all cars were electric and were caught up in a three-hour traffic jam with dead batteries, then what?
Not to mention that there's virtually no heating or air conditioning in an electric vehicle because of high battery consumption.
If you get stuck on the road all night, no battery, no heating, no windshield wipers, no radio, no GPS (all these drains the batteries), all you can do is try calling 911 to take women and children to safety.
But they cannot come to help you because all roads are blocked, and they will probably require all police cars to be electric.
When the roads do become unblocked no one can move! Their batteries are dead.
How do you charge the thousands of EVs in the traffic jam?
During summer, same problem with vacationers departing, causing miles of traffic jams.
Yes, AAA is starting to prepare tow trucks to charge electric vehicles.
How many can they charge before returning to home base and recharge the trucks?
There would be virtually no air conditioning in an electric vehicle. It would drain the batteries quickly.
Today's grid barely handles users' needs.
Where is this electricity going to come from?
Can't use nuclear and oil
What will be done with billions of dead batteries?
You can’t bury them in the soil
They can’t go to landfills.
The cart is way ahead of the horse.
No thought whatsoever to handle any of the problems that batteries can cause.
The press doesn't want to talk or report on any of this.